Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Strong pseudosermon (was 62-digit IsPrime)

Expand Messages
  • djbroadhurst
    ... Jens, as per usual, put his finger on the core of this debate. In primality proving, we subject ourselves to two disciplines: 1) do not proclaim a proof if
    Message 1 of 20 , Apr 30, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,
      "Jens Kruse Andersen" <jens.k.a@...> wrote:

      > It will often be more important to an audience of an announced prime
      > that you say "Trusted program X proved primality" than you argue
      > about the microscopic risk that something went wrong in all the
      > pseudoprime tests.

      Jens, as per usual, put his finger on the core of this debate.

      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 prime
      > being composite are usually so small

      No-one suffers if a cosmic ray hits your computer during a test.
      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.

      David
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.