How do I contact the Site Admin
 

Hi my tread was blocked by a contributer with blocking rights. How do a protest this action? or make representations. Thanks.

[QUOTE=gophne;475313]Hi my tread was blocked by a contributer with blocking rights. How do a protest this action? or make representations. Thanks.[/QUOTE]The users whose ID's are [COLOR="Red"]red[/COLOR] are the SuperMods. They run this forum. There is the owner (who does not appear in red), they are effectively God. But there has been no cases of the SuperMods being over-ruled. Batlov is an expert and a SuperMod. The thread was not locked lightly. Wait a while and re-read the thread from the start. You were given a lot of good help and guidance. Try to put yourself in the place of others (don't worry about the algorithm being yours and trying to defend it). Look at what you can learn from the help and advice that you were given.

The thread is only locked, not deleted. It can be unlocked. Others can see it and learn from it. If you truly believe that action was unjust or spiteful or some other way evil, post that here and you can get other SuperMods to look at the issue. They can decide as a group to reopen it if there is just cause.

But don't hold your breath, the thread was going nowhere quickly. It appeared to me that you where still not grasping the issues that were raised.

:two cents:

Hi Uncwilly

Thank you for you advice and guidance. I respect the Mods and the Site, and especially the mathematics experts.

Forgive me if I am passionate about the"algorithm" and I was only very respectfully trying to defend the algorithm, albeit perhaps being david vs goliath.

I have noticed that the thread was reopened briefly by another Moderator, to indicate that "my" algorithm, might simply be a "re-formulation" of another existing Fermat pseudoprime tester. This might indeed be so! but I developed "my" algorithm independantly (not aware of such formula/algorithm). I can prove this if required by posting/providing the back up work from which I derived "my" algorithm.

However, if this is indeed true....that my algorithm is simply a variation or worse, a [I]copy[/I] of another Pseudo-prime algorithm, then the action and the [I]rebutal[/I] of "my" algorithm by the Mod was hugely unplaced and uninformed, and his comments without merit, since I would assume that the Pseudo-prime check algorithm referred to is an estabilshed algorithm, or else that the other pseudo-prime algorithm is also nonsense....Hope this does not get me debarred.

If "my" algorithm is indeed just just an [I]exact[/I] variation of the other pseudo-prime algorithm/formula, then I would accept this, as the knowledge would be in the public arena, and it would be foolish to believe that what I came up with/posted is anything to go on about. To the contrary, to do so would be dishonest and plagiarism.

Regards

[QUOTE=gophne;475386]If "my" algorithm is indeed just just an [I]exact[/I] variation of the other pseudo-prime algorithm/formula, then I would accept this, as the knowledge would be in the public arena, and it would be foolish to believe that what I came up with/posted is anything to go on about. To the contrary, to do so would be dishonest and plagiarism.[/QUOTE]I don't think anyone is accusing you of dishonesty.

You stand charged of logorrhoea.

Sometimes it is best to remain silent.

in the thread [URL]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=22838[/URL]
you presented an original algorithm and subsequently it was proven to you that it is equivalent to ([I]or in your own words: an exact variation of[/I]) the well-known fermat pseudoprime test ... this test is in turn also known to be correct - so as a conclusion you should be proud and happy, that you managed to discover such a relation by yourself - now knowing it to be true (or more corrctly, it is known to produce false positives called pseudoprimes) - and continue to search for other relations or algorithms.

the moderators seem to believe, that enough words have been said in this case, yet please also take note of the example given through the humble and extremely honest life of grigori perelman:
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman[/URL]

also, i would believe, that you could simply start a new thread ...

Per your request, your thread [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=22838"]has been re-opened[/URL] and moved to your [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=149"]new blog sub-forum[/URL].

:mike:

Hi admin

Thanks so much!

I will look at the last post by the Mod, and if my algorith is an exact copy of an existing pseudo-prime checker, I would still like to explore the possiblities of that algorithm from my personal interest.

I do other work(I will not call it research!) on prime numbers and relationships as well (as a hobbyist) and with an interest in finding very large prime numbers. I would characterize my work as being number-grid/sieve based, but I also have an interest in LL formula, and is looking at ways in which to understand the way the modulo works in terms of the residue it produces, which is clearly "regular" as it produces a zero residue at n-2 iterations. My interest is to see if one cannot find an [I]earlier [/I]marker which could then reduce the time to accertain primality.

The problem with doing your "own" research/work in Prime Number Theory, is that this field is so extensively researched that it would be likely that whatever you find or discover with your own endeavours, would most likely have been discovered before, or have been debunked before as well. But I still believe because I follow my own mind in what I am doing (w.r.t my methodology -grid-sieves), that I could yet stumble onto something interesting that is hopefully unique.

My philosophy is that prime numbers are very regular! based on the regular way they are generated - eliminating the [I]multiples[/I] of numbers(primes) moving forward towards infinity, exposing new primes all the time which escaped the elimination process. The challenge is just to find the relationship between the primes and the composites.

Whatever happens on my blog (whoopy) at least I would be able to entertain myself. Hopefully if somebody is interested I could also share my work and ideas, be it not at an advanced math level, but rather flowing from my believe that prime numbers should ultimately have a non-complex relationship, applicable to the small primes as well as the very large primes.

Thanks for the opportunity.

Best regards

[QUOTE=xilman;475388]I don't think anyone is accusing you of dishonesty.

You stand charged of logorrhoea.

Sometimes it is best to remain silent.[/QUOTE]
@ xilman hahaha :)

[QUOTE=gophne;475386]Forgive me if I am passionate about the"algorithm" and I was only very respectfully trying to defend the algorithm, albeit perhaps being david vshave noticed that the thread was reopened briefly by another Moderator, to indicate that "my" algorithm, might simply be a "re-formulation" of another existing Fermat pseudoprime tester. This might indeed be so! but I developed "my" algorithm independantly (not aware of such formula/algorithm). I can prove this if required by posting/providing the back up work from which I derived "my" algorithm.

However, if this is indeed true....that my algorithm is simply a variation or worse, a [I]copy[/I] of another Pseudo-prime algorithm, then the action and the [I]rebutal[/I] of "my" algorithm by the Mod was hugely unplaced and uninformed, and his comments without merit, since I would assume that the Pseudo-prime check algorithm referred to is an estabilshed algorithm, or else that the other pseudo-prime algorithm is also nonsense....Hope this does not get me debarred.

If "my" algorithm is indeed just just an [I]exact[/I] variation of the other pseudo-prime algorithm/formula, then I would accept this, as the knowledge would be in the public arena, and it would be foolish to believe that what I came up with/posted is anything to go on about. To the contrary, to do so would be dishonest and plagiarism.[/QUOTE]

Rediscovery is commonplace, and not a problem. All of us have rediscovered existing theorems, algorithms, or the like at some point. The trouble in your case isn’t that you rediscovered Fermat’s test, but that you claimed that it was a primality test (no exceptions) rather than a probable-prime test.