OMG, I cannot spam anymore in the Forum Feedback where my question was answered!!!!!!!!!!!111111
 

Hi Admin

Another of my threads about "being blocked" has been blocked!!!!!!

What is going on here? What about freedom of expression/ scientific thought or evenhandedness?

What am I sinning to deserve such treatment. I have never been disrespectful to anybody on the Site. My only crime seems to be that I am dumb or that I dare to defend my positions.

Please help _^_

[QUOTE=gophne;475629]Another of my threads about "being blocked" has been blocked!!!!!!

What is going on here? What about freedom of expression/ scientific thought or evenhandedness?[/QUOTE]

I wasn’t the one to close the thread, but it’s pretty clear that it had run its course.

[QUOTE=gophne;475629]What am I sinning to deserve such treatment. I have never been disrespectful to anybody on the Site. My only crime seems to be that I am dumb or that I dare to defend my positions.[/QUOTE]

On the other thread you’ve been quite disrespectful, IMO. You presented the Fermat test as if it were a new discovery and claimed that it had no counterexamples. When you were shown the counterexamples you pretended that you had never claimed that your test worked in all cases. You then proceeded to badger everyone on the thread for a more explicit demonstration of the equality, and persisted in your claim that they were different. It would have been reasonable to close the thread at that point, but instead several forum members jumped to the task and showed painfully explicit baby steps of how the two were the same. But even then you complained that you didn’t understand and that you wanted someone to make it even simpler for you.

At a certain point you should recognize that you don’t have the necessary skills in elementary number theory because you are the only one who couldn’t follow what was going on. If you want to understand you will need to study the basics of modular arithmetic so you can understand us.

[QUOTE=gophne;475629]Hi Admin

Another of my threads about "being blocked" has been blocked!!!!!!

What is going on here? What about freedom of expression/ scientific thought or evenhandedness?

What am I sinning to deserve such treatment. I have never been disrespectful to anybody on the Site. My only crime seems to be that I am dumb or that I dare to defend my positions.

Please help _^_[/QUOTE]One of your "crimes" is that you are vague to the point of incomprehensibility. The post above gives absolutely no clue as to which thread has been blocked.

What is going on here is an object lesson in the value of precise and concise communication. You appear to be failing the tests.

I have a bad feeling
 

Hi Admin

I have a bad feeling that I am going to be debarred soon.

I am very aware that that it is the right of the Site Mods to do so.

Now also my original heading on a tread I have posted to the "feedback" forum has been changed to ridicule me.

Please note this algorithm;

[B]2^n-1 mod (n+2) == (n+1)/2[/B]

It is going to make waves.....whether it is Fermat's theorem or not.

I leave it to you and to the users of this forum to decide whether I have been disrespectful. Ignorance is not disrespect.

Would the Mods also be able to close down the sub-blog that you have allocated to me?

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;475643]I wasn’t the one to close the thread, but it’s pretty clear that it had run its course.



On the other thread you’ve been quite disrespectful, IMO. You presented the Fermat test as if it were a new discovery and claimed that it had no counterexamples. When you were shown the counterexamples you pretended that you had never claimed that your test worked in all cases. You then proceeded to badger everyone on the thread for a more explicit demonstration of the equality, and persisted in your claim that they were different. It would have been reasonable to close the thread at that point, but instead several forum members jumped to the task and showed painfully explicit baby steps of how the two were the same. But even then you complained that you didn’t understand and that you wanted someone to make it even simpler for you.

At a certain point you should recognize that you don’t have the necessary skills in elementary number theory because you are the only one who couldn’t follow what was going on. If you want to understand you will need to study the basics of modular arithmetic so you can understand us.[/QUOTE]
Hi CRGreathouse

Fermat's Primality algorith is;

[B]a^(p-1) ≡ 1 mod p[/B] ....source [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat_primality_test[/url]

How is this the same as

[B]2^n-1 mod (n+2) == (n+1)/2[/B] ?

For starters Fermat's test is always congruant to 1. The other algorithm is congruant to (n+1)/2, i.e. the modulo is always changing with n

It boggles my mind that anybody can claim that the two [I]are the same[/I].

Yes I did make incorrect claims about the 100% effectiveness of the algorithm in the beginning , but as a results of the promps by the users, I ran code which identified a multitude of false positives. This was partly due to me rushing the post w.r.t to me stated intentions, largely as a result of my disappointment with the "many' "false primes" identified during the running the first 500 000 odd numbers with SAGEMATH.

Referencing Fermat's Primality test, (quoted above) in Wikipedia, highlighted the fact that the Fermat Primality check also contained many pseudo-primes in the range of 28 000 for up to 2.5*10^10

As you have stated right in the beginning perhaps to prepare a paper might be a avenue, as the academic system and the publishing institutions would without a measure of doubt be able to indentify any fraud that might have been committed.

I have repeatedly stated that I have back-up work to show how the algorithm was derived, independantly of Fermat's Primality test, which it is very different as can be seen above.

What was very strange as well was that the initial tack was repeatedly that the algorithm was "nonsense" - until [B]awmayer[/B] indicated that the algorithm might just be a re-formulation of an existing "Pseudo-prime Checker". Then the tack shifted to "copy of"/plagiarism. Would this change of argument then not also be "disrespectful" and dis-honest, as both [I]positions[/I] cannot be correct at the same time.

“Many people, xxxxxxxxxxx, want to punish you for speaking the truth, for being correct, for being you. Never apologize for being correct, or for being years ahead of your time. If you’re right and you know it, speak your mind. Speak your mind. Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.”

― Mahatma Gandhi

[QUOTE=gophne;475662]

I have repeatedly stated that I have back-up work to show how the algorithm was derived, independantly of Fermat's Primality test, which it is very different as can be seen above.
[/QUOTE]
If one can be transformed into the other they are equivalent statements. This doesn't change just because it was derived differently.

Help us, R.D. Silverman. You're our only hope.

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cc_h5Ghuj4[/url]

Hi GP2

I like it...perhaps Luke Skywalker will come to my rescue :)

Cheers....Happy New Yera if you are in the zone.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;475666]If one can be transformed into the other they are equivalent statements. This doesn't change just because it was derived differently.[/QUOTE]
Hi Science_man_88

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=gophne;475677]Hi Science_man_88

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]

Your same inputs part has nothing to do with it. If you input is n-2 Fermat's output would be for n.

[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]

If this doesn't help, nothing probably will.

[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.

,,,

[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]
Correct.

But what should then happen is for "equivalent" inputs to be run...that is [I](n-2)[/I] for the first case and [I]n[/I] for Fermat.

Any volunteers. I do not want to do it myself, because my expertise is under suspicion (no problem), so I think whatever I come up with might be questionable right from the starting blocks.

So I think it would be better to come from more established contributors.

[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]
POST RESULTS FOR ALL TO SEE.

[QUOTE=10metreh;475700]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?[/QUOTE]
Hi 10metreh

OMG. It is exactly THE SAME.

[B]I accept now that the algorithm is a "clone" and that it is a repitition of Fermat. I shall not persue this matter any further.
[/B]
I apologise to all the contributors that tried to unsuccessfully point this out to me for wasting your time all the while.

[I]Now all that remains, if anybody might be interested, would be how I derived "my" algorithm. I did not reference to Fermat.[/I]

Oh my goodness!

[QUOTE=gophne;475794]POST RESULTS FOR ALL TO SEE.[/QUOTE]


:caps-lock:

Hi MisterBitcoin

Hahaha

We need to develop some kind of operational manual for dealing with people who appear, at first glance, to be having an acutely difficult time with … . To ban people in such a state does a disservice to someone who is seeking a community for whatever comfort.

I see a lot of people at risk who are mocked and dismissed. Is engaging the right method; doubtful.

I do not have a solution but I think we need to do better.

[QUOTE=flagrantflowers;476104]

I do not have a solution but I think we need to do better.[/QUOTE]

...then you are part of the problem... :smile: just kidding.

[ATTACH]17456[/ATTACH]

Yay! :razz: