## pollution

Expand Messages
• ... Chris Caldwell has to screen out such PrP impostors. It s an abuse of his time and effort to submit them wilfully. Given how patiently folk here have told
Message 1 of 4 , Feb 2, 2001
Milton Brown has been polluting again:

> 10^20000+56149 20001 p37 01
> Smallest prime with exactly 20001 digits

Chris Caldwell has to screen out such PrP impostors.
It's an abuse of his time and effort to submit them wilfully.
Given how patiently folk here have told Milton
not to do this, on several previous occasions,
this latest is inexcusable.

David :-(
• ... To save others a waste of time probing Milton Brown s false claim (viz p37) of a proof by PrimeForm, here is how far it is from BLS, according to PFGW:
Message 2 of 4 , Feb 2, 2001
I wrote:

> Chris Caldwell has to screen out such PrP impostors.

To save others a waste of time probing Milton Brown's false
claim (viz p37) of a proof by PrimeForm, here is how far
it is from BLS, according to PFGW:

C:\pfgw>pfgw -t -q10^20000+56149
PFGW Windows Release Version 20001129.6 (c) 1998-2000,
The OpenPFGW project.
Primality testing 10^20000+56149 [N-1, Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge]
Running N-1 test using base 2
Calling Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge with factored part 0.04%
10^20000+56149 is PRP! (177.250000 seconds)

C:\pfgw>pfgw -tp -q10^20000+56149
PFGW Windows Release Version 20001129.6 (c) 1998-2000,
The OpenPFGW project.
Primality testing 10^20000+56149 [N+1, Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge]
Running N+1 test using discriminant 3, base 1+sqrt(3)
Running N+1 test using discriminant 3, base 4+sqrt(3)
Running N+1 test using discriminant 3, base 9+sqrt(3)
Running N+1 test using discriminant 3, base 11+sqrt(3)
Calling Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge with factored part 0.05%
10^20000+56149 is Lucas PRP! (2554.370000 seconds)

[Interesting how long it took to find a Lucas test.
Timing on an 900 Mhz Athlon.]

On the bright side, it's notable that not a single
other person in the world seems to cheat in this game,
as far as I know. We make mistakes; but we don't
wilfully misrepresent our findings. Consensual honesty
is taken for granted here, though it may be rare
in other circles.

Of course, it could just be that Milton merely forgot all
our advice, as he may have done when submitting a previous
rogue PrP in 3 succesive weeks.

If so, my apology for cynicism will follow his for amnesia.

David
• ... In order to try to extract some pearls from the swine s ear (*) I pose a little pre-weekend teaser, which probably has been asked and answered before, but
Message 3 of 4 , Feb 2, 2001
On Fri, 02 February 2001, d.broadhurst@... wrote:
> C:\pfgw>pfgw -t -q10^20000+56149
> Calling Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge with factored part 0.04%

> C:\pfgw>pfgw -tp -q10^20000+56149
> Calling Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge with factored part 0.05%

In order to try to extract some pearls from the swine's ear (*) I pose a little pre-weekend teaser, which probably has been asked and answered before, but I've never seen the answered:

1) For _totally_ arbitrary number A of size log(A) digits,
what is the expected factorisation ratio if wheel factorisation is tried to F, where F << A?

2) If instead of arbitrary numbers we take 'primorially doped' numbers which cannot have any factors less than or equal to P, where P << F. This can include P=2 - i.e the odd numbers!

3) If instead of arbitrary numbers we take numbers which we know can have factors only of the form 2xk+1 for some fixed k?

All of the above look as if they should crack given the right brain with the right insight. However presently I have neither!

Phil
(* I make no apologies for my abuse of metaphors)
(PS. log=base 10, << = much less than)

Mathematics should not have to involve martyrdom;
Support Eric Weisstein, see http://mathworld.wolfram.com
Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping!
http://www.shopping.altavista.com
• The retoric seems a little strong here. I am sure you did not mean to accuse me of being dishonest, as your message implies. But, I do appreciate helpful
Message 4 of 4 , Feb 2, 2001
The retoric seems a little strong here.

I am sure you did not mean to accuse me
of being dishonest, as your message implies.

But, I do appreciate helpful suggestions,
as you have done in the past.

Milton L. Brown
miltbrown@...

> I wrote:
>
> > Chris Caldwell has to screen out such PrP impostors.
>
> To save others a waste of time probing Milton Brown's false
> claim (viz p37) of a proof by PrimeForm, here is how far
> it is from BLS, according to PFGW:
>
> C:\pfgw>pfgw -t -q10^20000+56149
> PFGW Windows Release Version 20001129.6 (c) 1998-2000,
> The OpenPFGW project.
> Primality testing 10^20000+56149 [N-1, Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge]
> Running N-1 test using base 2
> Calling Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge with factored part 0.04%
> 10^20000+56149 is PRP! (177.250000 seconds)
>
> C:\pfgw>pfgw -tp -q10^20000+56149
> PFGW Windows Release Version 20001129.6 (c) 1998-2000,
> The OpenPFGW project.
> Primality testing 10^20000+56149 [N+1, Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge]
> Running N+1 test using discriminant 3, base 1+sqrt(3)
> Running N+1 test using discriminant 3, base 4+sqrt(3)
> Running N+1 test using discriminant 3, base 9+sqrt(3)
> Running N+1 test using discriminant 3, base 11+sqrt(3)
> Calling Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge with factored part 0.05%
> 10^20000+56149 is Lucas PRP! (2554.370000 seconds)
>
> [Interesting how long it took to find a Lucas test.
> Timing on an 900 Mhz Athlon.]
>
> On the bright side, it's notable that not a single
> other person in the world seems to cheat in this game,
> as far as I know. We make mistakes; but we don't
> wilfully misrepresent our findings. Consensual honesty
> is taken for granted here, though it may be rare
> in other circles.
>
> Of course, it could just be that Milton merely forgot all
> our advice, as he may have done when submitting a previous
> rogue PrP in 3 succesive weeks.
>
> If so, my apology for cynicism will follow his for amnesia.
>
> David
>
>
>
> Unsubscribe by an email to: primenumbers-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> The Prime Pages : http://www.primepages.org
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.