View Single Post
Old 2020-03-28, 03:21   #33
Romulan Interpreter
LaurV's Avatar
Jun 2011

52×73 Posts

Ok. Thanks all three (yep, including sweety, in spite of the fact that most of his/her posts are clutter, he/she gave the example with 125 )

I have learned something new today. I was thinking that stuff with algebraic factors are excluded completely (because they are always composite, so Mr. Riesel respective Sierpinsky, would have nothing to "prove" in this case. It is clear that, if you have algebraic factorization, then k*b^n-1 is always composite. Nothing to prove).

The "covering set" should be applied to what is left after getting rid of the sequences with algebraic factors.

It seems I was wrong (which I still refuse to accept, but that is not your problem )

Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2020-03-28 at 03:21
LaurV is offline   Reply With Quote