20131115, 16:30  #12  
Undefined
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair
6,143 Posts 
Sure. If the hackers/NSA/GCHQ haven't gotten their codez into it.
Quote:
I considered making him do it in hexadecimal just to show that he understood how hex works but somehow that seemed a little bit too cruel even for me. 

20131115, 17:07  #13  
Nov 2003
16444_{8} Posts 
Quote:
"computer proof is not accepted by mathematicians" assertion as fact. The story, as you heard is is half true. But you carefully omitted relevant facts, probably out of ignorance rather than an attempt at deceit. Despite this, you still made a bold, incorrect assertion. 

20131115, 17:11  #14  
Nov 2003
1110100100100_{2} Posts 
Quote:
Lucas used some 'templates' (which were basically analog mechanisms for simulating binary arithmetic) to speed the arithmetic. Lucas did the whole calculation in binary. I heard Hugh give a talk on this. I believe he also put it in his book. I would have to go look; I am in the office and the book is at home. 

20131115, 18:14  #15  
Mar 2010
2^{6}×3 Posts 
Quote:
At least I supported my statement with some facts. This what you wrote (your way of thinking) can be reversed for your case. You boldly write that my assertion is incorrect and you give no arguments. You presented a naked statement and you assume this as a fact. Of course I am using a double standard comparing me with you (it is your double standard theory, which you applied before). 

20131115, 18:57  #16  
Nov 2003
2^{2}×5×373 Posts 
False. You presented no facts.
Quote:
Quote:
of the mathematical community in which computer proof systems have been developed, used, and discussed. It is only YOUR ignorance of the literature which leads you to erroneously believe that there is no evidence. I am part of the mathematical community. I talk with other mathematicians all the time. I attend conferences where people talk. I am asked to referee papers where people use computers as part of their work. I took part in the active discussion regarding Haken & Appel's proof when it was first presented. Extensive discussion followed in the 80's over the Internet. There was never a question of the validity of the proof method. The only question was about the accuracy of the code that was used and of the reliability of the computation. Doubts were dispelled when others performed an independent verification using other computers and source code. Last fiddled with by R.D. Silverman on 20131115 at 18:58 Reason: typos 

20131115, 19:09  #17 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
2^{2}·7·337 Posts 
literka,
Could you please present the number of operations needed to carry on all your calculation (1)  (5), etc, compared to a simple multiplication of two factors. It appears that to assert these: Code:
Several equalities will be needed: (1) p=208648999^2+126945596^2 = 512 * q+1 (2) s = 208648999*52542249 + 126945596*31967597 (3) 126945596*52542249  208648999*31967597 = 1 (4) 309*q + r = 2^55 (5) r = (s div 512)+1 Code:
59649589127497217 * 5704689200685129054721 = 340282366920938463463374607431768211457 = 2^128+1 Code:
2^128+1 = 4000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 (note: this equality you will have for free!) and then 3237257607274243001 * 1152401672664431414535001 = 4000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 Last fiddled with by Batalov on 20131116 at 02:49 Reason: 309*q + r = 2^55. Very important and extremely easy to verify! ;) 
20131115, 19:20  #18  
Mar 2010
2^{6}×3 Posts 
Quote:
I did not see anything you did in mathematics. At least I did not see any announcement of your achievements in this forum, while I presented new results from time to time. I read your book, but only to check the level of your mathematics. I am not surprised that people of a community, in which computer proof systems have been developed, used, and discussed, think that computer based proofs must be accepted in mathematics. Frankly saying I have enough to see your insults. Take care of yourself and don't write in my threads. 

20131115, 19:27  #19 
"William"
May 2003
New Haven
3·787 Posts 

20131115, 19:33  #20  
Mar 2010
2^{6}·3 Posts 
Quote:
Go to the page of Wikipedia, where the proof that 641 is a factor of F5. Compute the number of operations in this proof and number number of operations to multiply 641 by 6700417. Page of Wikipedia is not about F5 but about all Fermat numbers. Still, they thought that it is worthy to include proof about the number 641. So, if you have complains, write to Wikipedia first. And yes, I have new ideas to find proofs corresponding to Fermat numbers with larger indexes. 

20131115, 19:40  #21  
Mar 2010
300_{8} Posts 
Quote:
I understand that you care that nobody should write insults. Silverman wrote that I am crank after I wrote my first post here. I never exceed level of insulting Silverman used with respect to me. 

20131115, 20:07  #22 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
10010011011100_{2} Posts 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
On Fermat's Last Number  c10ck3r  Miscellaneous Math  14  20121129 20:36 
Fermat number F6=18446744073709551617 is a composite number. Proof.  literka  Factoring  5  20120130 12:28 
Fermat number and Modulo for searching divisors  CyD  Factoring  4  20110531 11:24 
Fermat number factors  Citrix  Math  35  20070123 23:17 
New Fermat number divisor!  ET_  Factoring  1  20041008 03:34 