- --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,

"bhelmes_1" <bhelmes@...> wrote:

> Please try to understand the mathematical proof, which i gave under

The concept of "a cyclic group in the adjoined numbers",

> http://beablue.selfip.net/devalco/suf_prime.html

modulo a composite integer, has not been defined.

In any case, the "proof" is clearly nonsense.

It invokes the trivial argument that if

n = f*g = -1 mod d with d > 2, then we cannot have

f = -1 mod d and g = -1 mod d.

However if

n = f*g*h = -1 mod d with d > 2, then we can have

f = -1 mod d, g = -1 mod d and h = -1 mod d.

Thus even if the author were able to explain

what he means he would be unable to exclude

the possibility that n is a composite number

with an odd number of prime factors.

David - --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,

"bhelmes_1" <bhelmes@...> wrote:

> 1. let a jacobi (a, p)=-1

[4] is meaningless, as it stands.

> 2. let a^(p-1)/2 = -1 mod p

> 3. a^6 =/= 1 mod p

> 4. (1+sqrt (a))^p = 1-sqrt (a)

You should write a double mod:

4. (1+x)^p = 1-x mod(x^2-a,p)

> 1. Is it possible that there are other exceptions

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that

[1] to [4] establish that p is prime. Morevoer,

some folk believe that, for every epsilon > 0,

the number of pseudoprimes less than x may

exceed x^(1-epsilon), for /sufficiently/ large x.

> 2....

The group of units (Z/nZ)* is /not/ cyclic

> there is a cyclic order ...

> 3....

> there is a cyclic order ...

if n has at least two distinct odd prime fators.

David