[QUOTE=gophne;475677]For the last time LoL....you may be correct....BUT you must [I][B]prove[/B][/I] identity....identity is not so because you or Billy The Kid might say so. And even if the statement is repeated over and over...the matter is not resolved until the fat lady sings....the fat lady in this case being the results generated by the algorithms using the [B]same inputs[/B]...nothing else would suffice, even if the claim is made by Chuck Norris :)[/QUOTE]

It was proven to you, but you do not accept the proof, so there is not much else we can do.

You agreed your algorithm gave the same false positives as I showed for fermat pseudoprime base 2 right? So why is it so hard to believe they are the same?

Try and find different beginners guides to modular arithmetic, because you do not understand it yet.

[QUOTE=ATH;475686]It was proven to you, but you do not accept the proof, so there is not much else we can do.

You agreed your algorithm gave the same false positives as I showed for fermat pseudoprime base 2 right? So why is it so hard to believe they are the same?

Try and find different beginners guides to modular arithmetic, because you do not understand it yet.[/QUOTE]
Hi ATH

Please I beg you as well, please publish the figures for the comparison. Publish the data for running the algorithms using the same imputs, say for about 10,000 inputs and see if the two algorithms generates the[I] same[/I] OUTPUTS. If they do not generate the same outputs (eventhought the outputs may have many values in common) the two algorithms would NOT be the same, or more correctly put would not be IDENTICAL. If generating "the same/common output" is a criteria for rejecting an algorithm as "a copy" then many Primality algorithms, bar the original one, would not pass muster.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;475682]Your same inputs part has nothing to do with it. If you input is n-2 Fermat's output would be for n.[/QUOTE]
DO IT...............PLEASE

[QUOTE=gophne;475694]Hi ATH

Please I beg you as well, please publish the figures for the comparison. Publish the data for running the algorithms using the same imputs, say for about 10,000 inputs and see if the two algorithms generates the[I] same[/I] OUTPUTS. If they do not generate the same outputs (eventhought the outputs may have many values in common) the two algorithms would NOT be the same, or more correctly put would not be IDENTICAL. If generating "the same/common output" is a criteria for rejecting an algorithm as "a copy" then many Primality algorithms, bar the original one, would not pass muster.[/QUOTE]

Here is some Pari code to run your test for numbers n+2 from 1 to 10000, and print the false positives along with a counter:
[CODE]x=0;for(n=-1,9998,if(isprime(n+2)==0&&(2^n-1)%(n+2)==(n+1)/2,x++;print(x" "n+2)))[/CODE]

Here is its output:

[CODE]1 341
2 561
3 645
4 1105
5 1387
6 1729
7 1905
8 2047
9 2465
10 2701
11 2821
12 3277
13 4033
14 4369
15 4371
16 4681
17 5461
18 6601
19 7957
20 8321
21 8481
22 8911[/CODE]

Here is some code to run Fermat's test to base 2 for n from 1 to 10000, and similarly print the false positives:
[CODE]x=0;for(n=1,10000,if(isprime(n)==0&&(2^(n-1))%n==1,x++;print(x" "n)))[/CODE]

Here is its output:
[CODE]1 341
2 561
3 645
4 1105
5 1387
6 1729
7 1905
8 2047
9 2465
10 2701
11 2821
12 3277
13 4033
14 4369
15 4371
16 4681
17 5461
18 6601
19 7957
20 8321
21 8481
22 8911[/CODE]

Does that look at all familiar?

Rephrasing the algorithm is as follows: (n + 1)/2 ≡ 2^n - 1 (mod n)
 

Here, I have rephrased it to avoid conclusiona dn I believe this is what gophne means. gophne says that this is the primality tester, because this holds truth iff (if and only if) n is a prime number. I think there was heaps of confusion based on the way he wrote it, and because of this, I don’t think it comes from Fermat’s Little Theorem. I believe, actually, it comes from Wilson’s Theorem: (n - 1)! ≡ -1 (mod n) iff n is prime.

Rephrasing the algorithm as follows: (n + 1)/2 ≡ 2^n - 1 (mod n)
 

Here, I have rephrased it to avoid conclusiona dn I believe this is what gophne means. gophne says that this is the primality tester, because this holds truth iff (if and only if) n is a prime number. I think there was heaps of confusion based on the way he wrote it, and because of this, I don’t think it comes from Fermat’s Little Theorem. I believe, actually, it comes from Wilson’s Theorem: (n - 1)! ≡ -1 (mod n) iff n is prime.

Come on man, all you need is a little self awareness to see that you haven't been snubbed or mistreated. This forum is very supportive in helping people understand and work through theories, and is amazingly tolerant when it goes beyond that. Don't worry about the thread renaming, that's a meme around here and is not evidence that you're being persecuted.

I couldn’t agree more with the guy above this post.
 

If this forum was mean and punishing, I would be outta here. Look, what I’m trying to say is that we are here to help. It may not come across it like that, but we got people that did code and plugged in a bunch of data to test your algorithm. Inside, we do all appreciate your efforts :)

[QUOTE=GP2;475670]Help us, R.D. Silverman. You're our only hope.

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cc_h5Ghuj4[/URL][/QUOTE]
LOL, on the RDS appeal! :goodposting:

You have been given your own domain to spout off as you will.

[url]http://mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=149[/url]

You have moderator powers there. Please keep your ranting and ideas there. If you have general comments on other threads, ok. But keep your stuff in your sub-forum. That is freedom of speech.

,,,