## Re: Riesel's number theorem

Expand Messages
• n 2 also...
Message 1 of 8 , Sep 14 3:49 PM
• 0 Attachment
n > 2 also...

--- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, Bill Bouris <leavemsg1@...> wrote:
>
> I only have two strikes against the theorem; 2^2-1 could be the problem,
> since if R = 3, then 2^((R-1)/2) = 2 mod 3 == -1, and violates the theory.
> I hope that's correct--- gcd(b, 3) = 1 should be the hangup! Bill
>
> From: Bill Bouris <leavemsg1@...>
> To: Bernardo Boncompagni <redgolpe@...>; pgroup <primenumbers@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [PrimeNumbers] Riesel's number theorem
>
>
> only trying to further my theorem; maybe it has to do with gcd(b, 3) = 1,
> and n >2; just digging; that might need to be the restriction ??? Bill
> thank you for investigating it, thus far.
>
> From: Bernardo Boncompagni <redgolpe@...>
> Cc: leavemsg1@...
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 3:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [PrimeNumbers] woodall or riesel number theorem
>
>
>
>
>
> It was failing ONLY because the gcd(R -1, b) = 1 needs to be a part of it.
> >gcd(174, 51) = 3; otherwise, it holds, not because b <= 2*ln(R). it's a nice
> >theorem!
> >
>
> n=5, k=21, R=671=11*61, b=9<2*ln(671), gcd(670,9)=1
>
> b^335==1 (mod 671)
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.