@ Supermods: Error Correction please
 

Due to an error in my own code,
I posted wrongly, verified correctly by now.

[U][B]Major Correction[/B][/U][B][U]s[/U][/B][U][B] Please[/B][/U]
In this thread,
[URL]http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=17736[/URL]
post #3

For k = 16
Is it possible to change with the last paragraph so that it looks like

N can be written as a²+16b² if and only if
- N is not congruent to 2 (mod 4) or 8 (mod 16).
- N has no prime factors congruent to {3, 7} mod 8 to an odd power.
- If N is odd, then the sum of exponents of {5} mod 8 prime factors of N is even.

Similarly, for k = 28
please change with the last paragraph so that it looks like

N can be written as a²+28b² if and only if
- N is not congruent to 2 (mod 4) or 8 (mod 16).
- N has no prime factors congruent to {3, 5, 13, 17, 19, 27} mod 28 to an odd power.
- If N is odd, then the sum of exponents of {7, 11, 15, 23} mod 28 prime factors of N is even.

[B]After these corrections have been made, please delete with this thread completely.

Thanks for your[/B][B] own time[/B][B].

[/B][U]Minor Corrections [/U][U]Please[/U]
It is also being good to delete the lines saying
k = [SPOILER]96[/SPOILER]
k = [SPOILER]107[/SPOILER]
from post #9.

They are being false statements.

I verified again to check that they are not being the case,
but my own code showed them up incorrectly,
due to an use of arbitrary limit
down that way

Just post another one.

Why? I don't want false statements to be present in
inside the thread, by itself.

At least please correct with those last paragraphs for
k = 16, k = 28

k = 16

N can be written as a²+16b² if and only if
- N is not congruent to 2 (mod 4) or 8 (mod 16).
- N has no prime factors congruent to {3, 7} mod 8 to an odd power.
- If N is odd, then the sum of exponents of {5} mod 8 prime factors of N is even.

k = 28

N can be written as a²+28b² if and only if
- N is not congruent to 2 (mod 4) or 8 (mod 16).
- N has no prime factors congruent to {3, 5, 13, 17, 19, 27} mod 28 to an odd power.
- If N is odd, then the sum of exponents of {7, 11, 15, 23} mod 28 prime factors of N is even.

[QUOTE=Raman;328127]Why? I don't want false statements to be present in
inside the thread, by itself.[/QUOTE]

It is a tenet of the Sciences that participates admit their mistakes.

A self-correction is always welcome, but post-editing of published errors never is.

I hope you don't understand me.

Instead of chatting with me, you could take a moment to correct them for k = 16, k = 28 cases.

If in case that someone refers to it into the future time, then
it's being impolite to convey with false information to other people.

[QUOTE=Raman;328129]Instead of chatting with me, you could take a moment to correct them for k = 16, k = 28 cases.[/QUOTE]

I could. I won't.

I hope you don't misunderstand us.

Someone please correct them with, sincerely.

I do not want a false statement to be sandwiched between the true statements.
It's not being fair to misguide with other people.

It will take with a moment's time.

But, for this reason, the users / members can be allowed to edit with their own posts indefinitely, by itself.

Sincerely, trusting with faith

What they're saying is just make another post saying that "lines x, y, and z for k = i and j in post a and b are incorrect due to a bug; instead here's the correct info: ...".

Perhaps they would consider posting a note in your message pointing to separate correction post if you were to make one.

(I'm not quite sure I agree with their methodology, but this is how you'd deal with it.)

[QUOTE=Raman;328131]Someone please correct them with, sincerely.[/QUOTE]

You are barking up the wrong tree here.

You might find Dr. Andrew Lyne's [URL="http://www.failurethebook.com/2011/02/25/cosmic-error-standing-ovation/"]experience[/URL] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Lyne"]worth noting[/URL].

[QUOTE]When Lyne announced the retraction of his results at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society, he received a standing ovation from his scientific colleagues for having the intellectual integrity and the courage to admit this error publicly.[/QUOTE]

This *IS* the Scientific Method in its best form.

This is hardly a scientific method sort of thing though; this is just a bug found in code, that is now fixed. It's not like he's retracting a major claim or study or anything. (Also note this is mathematics, not science; it is logical and provably correct, as opposed to scientific empiricism which is not.)

I have posted again with the corrected versions
for k = 16, k = 28 cases, inside
in that same thread, by me itself.

Can a super-mod right now please remove
with those incorrect versions, from old post?

I can't believe I need to fight / argue very much
with super-mods in order to correct with my own
errors, by me itself,

from within my own post, by itself