Re: Strong pseudosermon (was 62-digit IsPrime)
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org,
"Jens Kruse Andersen" <jens.k.a@...> wrote:
> It will often be more important to an audience of an announced primeJens, as per usual, put his finger on the core of this debate.
> that you say "Trusted program X proved primality" than you argue
> about the microscopic risk that something went wrong in all the
> pseudoprime tests.
In primality proving, we subject ourselves to two disciplines:
1) do not proclaim a proof if you cannot understand the proof method
2) take reasonable precautions that your claim has not been
vitiated by egregious soft/hard-ware errors.
Alan's points are well put. Yet he has missed the essential
gravamen of Jens' dictum
> in practice the negative consequences of an alleged primeNo-one suffers if a cosmic ray hits your computer during a test.
> being composite are usually so small
No-one suffers if George's FFT's screw up during that test.
We are trying to be as careful and honest as humanly possible.
The pursuit of excellence is a greater cause than its achievement.