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

Missing Something?

Expand Messages
  • Milton Brown
    1. 10^999 + 7 is prime (Is this in dispute, see msg of Milton Brown, 1/9/01, Titanix) 2. OpenPFGW says: Primality testing 10^999+7 [N+1,
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 2, 2001
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      1. 10^999 + 7 is prime
      (Is this in dispute, see msg of Milton Brown, 1/9/01, Titanix)

      2. OpenPFGW says:

      Primality testing 10^999+7 [N+1, Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge]
      Running N+1 test using discriminant 5, base 1+sqrt(5)
      Calling Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge with factored part 1.30%
      10^999+7 is Lucas PRP! (12.580000 seconds)

      Are these contradictory? Or is someone misinterpreting the latter?

      Milton L. Brown
      miltbrown@...
    • Paul Jobling
      PRP does *not* mean prime. It means Probable Prime . There is a huge difference! Probable primes are not primes, they are just not definitely composite
      Message 2 of 4 , Feb 2, 2001
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        PRP does *not* mean prime. It means "Probable Prime". There is a huge
        difference! Probable primes are not primes, they are just not definitely
        composite (though they might be). For this reason you cannot submit them until
        they are proved to be definitely prime, rather than just probably prime.

        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Milton Brown [mailto:miltbrown@...]
        > Sent: 02 February 2001 15:53
        > To: primenumbers@yahoogroups.com; miltbrown@...
        > Subject: [PrimeNumbers] Missing Something?
        >
        >
        > 1. 10^999 + 7 is prime
        > (Is this in dispute, see msg of Milton Brown, 1/9/01, Titanix)
        >
        > 2. OpenPFGW says:
        >
        > Primality testing 10^999+7 [N+1, Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge]
        > Running N+1 test using discriminant 5, base 1+sqrt(5)
        > Calling Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge with factored part 1.30%
        > 10^999+7 is Lucas PRP! (12.580000 seconds)
        >
        > Are these contradictory? Or is someone misinterpreting the latter?
        >
        > Milton L. Brown
        > miltbrown@...
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        > ---------------------~-~>
        > eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
        > Click here for more details
        > http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/0/_/_/_/981129257/
        > --------------------------------------------------------------
        > -------_->
        >
        > Unsubscribe by an email to: primenumbers-unsubscribe@egroups.com
        > The Prime Pages : http://www.primepages.org
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > __________________________________________________
        > Virus checked by MessageLabs Virus Control Centre.
        >


        __________________________________________________
        Virus checked by MessageLabs Virus Control Centre.
      • Phil Carmody
        Put on your asbestos underpants, Kerosene Man s on the case... ... http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/lists/SmallestTitanics.html
        Message 3 of 4 , Feb 2, 2001
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Put on your asbestos underpants, Kerosene Man's on the case...

          On Fri, 02 February 2001, Milton Brown wrote:
          > 1. 10^999 + 7 is prime
          > (Is this in dispute, see msg of Milton Brown, 1/9/01, Titanix)

          http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/lists/SmallestTitanics.html
          <<<
          This list was compiled by David Broadhurst.
          1.The smallest pair of titanic primes is
          10^999+7
          10^999+663
          as proven by Preda Mihailescu and Giovanni La Barbera.
          >>>

          _Proven_ using Titanix. The certificate was certainly available for verification at the time.

          No, it is not in despute.

          > 2. OpenPFGW says:
          >
          > Primality testing 10^999+7 [N+1, Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge]
          > Running N+1 test using discriminant 5, base 1+sqrt(5)
          > Calling Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge with factored part 1.30%
          > 10^999+7 is Lucas PRP! (12.580000 seconds)
          >
          > Are these contradictory? Or is someone misinterpreting the latter?

          OpenPFGW cannot prove a number with only 1.30% factorisation.
          Period.
          It can perform a probable prime test, but that's not a proof.

          Now aht have either of those two proofs (proof of rimality, and proof of probable-primality) got to do with this new number?

          The 20000 digit number probably is provable, but I reckon it would take at least 25 years, and a lot of money, as it requires you to hire some programmers to extend the capabilities of the only software that could prove it. The 25 years figure comes from blind belief that Moore's law with continue at the same rate, and that we'll have machines 100000 times as quick by then.

          The ball's in your court now. I'm prepared to hear your side off-list if you don't wish to continue on-list. The list is for discussions about primes, not ethics.

          Phil

          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
        • d.broadhurst@open.ac.uk
          ... No. ... Yes. David
          Message 4 of 4 , Feb 2, 2001
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Milton Brown asked:

            > Are these contradictory?

            No.

            > Or is someone misinterpreting the latter?

            Yes.

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