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

Re: now 5 selfridge test (puzzle)

Expand Messages
  • paulunderwooduk
    ... Combining fails with the composite counterexample n=256999 and x=32768, However, I have tested the 1+1+1+2 conjecture up to n
    Message 1 of 46 , Apr 14 10:19 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "paulunderwooduk" <paulunderwood@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "paulunderwooduk" <paulunderwood@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Hi,
      > >
      > > I have added a Fermat test to make a 1+1+1+2 selfridge test:
      > >
      > > For N>5, with gcd(6,N)==1, find an integer x:
      > > gcd(x^3-x,N)==1
      > > kronecker(x^2-4,N)==-1
      > >
      > > and check:
      > > (x+2)^((N-1)/2)==kronecker(x+2,N) (mod N) (Euler)
      > > (x-2)^((N-1)/2)==kronecker(x-2,N) (mod N) (Euler)
      > > x^(N-1)==1 (mod N) (Fermat)
      > > L^(N+1) == 1 (mod N, L^2-x*L+1) (Lucas)
      > >
      >
      > Note: I should say gcd(30,N)==1 because gcd(x^3-x,N)==1 and kronecker(x^2-4,n)==-1.
      >
      > Re: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/primenumbers/message/24090?l=1
      >
      > Now consider combining the 2 Euler tests with the Lucas test:
      >
      > (L*D)^((n+1)/2)==D (mod N, L^2-x*L+1) (D=x^2-4.)
      >
      > with the restriction kronecker(x+2,N)==-1.
      >
      > These together with the Fermat test makes for a 1+2-selfridge test.
      >
      > Can you find a counterexample?
      >
      > So far the near-refutation from Pinch's carmichael list is:
      > N,x,gcd(x^2-1)
      > ------------------
      > 1909001 884658 1909001
      >
      > Paul
      >

      Combining fails with the composite counterexample n=256999 and x=32768, However, I have tested the 1+1+1+2 conjecture up to n<10^7,

      Paul -- restoring symmetry
    • paulunderwooduk
      ... Combining fails with the composite counterexample n=256999 and x=32768, However, I have tested the 1+1+1+2 conjecture up to n
      Message 46 of 46 , Apr 14 10:19 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "paulunderwooduk" <paulunderwood@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "paulunderwooduk" <paulunderwood@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Hi,
        > >
        > > I have added a Fermat test to make a 1+1+1+2 selfridge test:
        > >
        > > For N>5, with gcd(6,N)==1, find an integer x:
        > > gcd(x^3-x,N)==1
        > > kronecker(x^2-4,N)==-1
        > >
        > > and check:
        > > (x+2)^((N-1)/2)==kronecker(x+2,N) (mod N) (Euler)
        > > (x-2)^((N-1)/2)==kronecker(x-2,N) (mod N) (Euler)
        > > x^(N-1)==1 (mod N) (Fermat)
        > > L^(N+1) == 1 (mod N, L^2-x*L+1) (Lucas)
        > >
        >
        > Note: I should say gcd(30,N)==1 because gcd(x^3-x,N)==1 and kronecker(x^2-4,n)==-1.
        >
        > Re: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/primenumbers/message/24090?l=1
        >
        > Now consider combining the 2 Euler tests with the Lucas test:
        >
        > (L*D)^((n+1)/2)==D (mod N, L^2-x*L+1) (D=x^2-4.)
        >
        > with the restriction kronecker(x+2,N)==-1.
        >
        > These together with the Fermat test makes for a 1+2-selfridge test.
        >
        > Can you find a counterexample?
        >
        > So far the near-refutation from Pinch's carmichael list is:
        > N,x,gcd(x^2-1)
        > ------------------
        > 1909001 884658 1909001
        >
        > Paul
        >

        Combining fails with the composite counterexample n=256999 and x=32768, However, I have tested the 1+1+1+2 conjecture up to n<10^7,

        Paul -- restoring symmetry
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.