20180105, 17:32  #188 
Dec 2012
The Netherlands
2·839 Posts 
@gophne:
You appear to be experiencing culture shock. Imagine spending some time at one of the world's top universities. You would find spaces devoted to socializing, spaces for education, and other spaces dedicated to research. In the research spaces, the focus would be on ideas and results, at a very high level, and not on people. Everyone is extremely critical of new ideas because that way we make progress faster. This forum is organized in much the same way. To socialize, you can browse people's posts and react in the Lounge or the Soap Box. To learn the basics, head for the Number Theory Discussion Group. But in the parts of the forum dedicated to new ideas and results, you can expect us to be highly critical and focus on the concepts, not the people. You say you arrived at your results independently and worked very hard to do so. We do not doubt it. But once it became clear that your result was equivalent to something already well known, we lost interest. That is not personal  our reaction would have been the same whoever presented the idea. It is the normal culture in research. 
20180105, 17:55  #189  
Aug 2006
3^{2}·5·7·19 Posts 
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That modesty might be your saving grace. Good luck, and may your proofs always hold. 

20180105, 17:58  #190  
Aug 2006
1761_{16} Posts 
Quote:


20180105, 18:28  #191  
Feb 2017
165_{10} Posts 
Quote:
Good post, I like it very much (I do not know yet how to add smileys to post like some of the other contributors, but I would have liked to add a "good post" smiley to your post, because eventhough you are very thorough and firm in your stance (and clearly not impressed with time wasting and spiels), you nevertheless criticise in such a way that it actually feels good! Seriously. For your information I am contesting the verdict that the algorithm in question was in fact a copy or clone (of Fermat's Primality Test or another)...BUT NOT ON THIS SITE OT THREAD, I promise!!!!!! I am contesting this finding on five grounds (I am working with friends who are having another closer look at this matter and the supporting premises for the current accepted status, much of it which is due to my own acceptance of the suggestions of sameness), but the conundrum is this as well....I am such a dunce, why is it that when I accept suggestions of the "sameness" of the posted algorith, I suddenly become a guruji. For you information, should you be interested at all, which I doubt and don't blame you for, and won't bore you with it as well! the grounds for the contestation are the follow, just for the information of other readers; 1) Fermat's Primality test works with congruancy, whilst the accused algorithm works with equality (changing remainders for changing inputs) 2) Reducing the formula's of the two algorithms to standard form, LHS mod x, furnishes different dividends. 3) Changing the base of the dividend from base 2, does not furnish the same remainders. For Fermat's Primality the remainder/congruancy is always one(1) for prime witness. 4) Fermat's Primality Test does not utilize mersenne numbers at all! the accused algorithm has the mersenne form as the dividend of the algorithm! 5) Running the suspect algorithm for false negatives up to 1,000,000 none was found This has been confirmed unintentionally by one of the senior contributors on the site that was running the algorithm in Pari, I think check some of the earlier posts. Fermat's Primality check has a problem with false negatives (Carmichael Numbers). It is only over once the fat lady sings, but this is not for this Site or Forum. Thanx and regards. 

20180105, 18:35  #192  
Feb 2012
Prague, Czech Republ
10101011_{2} Posts 
Quote:


20180105, 18:38  #193 
Feb 2017
3·5·11 Posts 

20180105, 18:54  #194  
Feb 2017
245_{8} Posts 
Quote:
I like everything you say, and finds your comments very uplifting, yet firm yet balanced. I shall take to heart all you say and model my responses making use of your counsel. What can I say, ever since my first post on this thread, making outlandish claims, you have been very positive yet authoritive in demanding a professional standard w.r.t claims made, research done, supporting evidence required, etc. You came/come accross as a Sage who can see the folly in other mortals, but do not stamp on them like they are insects because of their ignorance/stubbornness/foolhardiness. For this I thank you, and I think I speak for many others, especially the inexperienced contributors on the site. Whatever happens on the site/thread in days to come, I will only have gratitude for your approach, even to the unwise, as I admit I could be, or possibly am. Last fiddled with by gophne on 20180105 at 18:56 Reason: spelling/typing errors!!!!!! 

20180105, 19:10  #195 
Feb 2012
Prague, Czech Republ
AB_{16} Posts 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by gophne > 5) Running the suspect algorithm for false negatives up to 1,000,000 none was found > This has been confirmed unintentionally by one of the senior contributors on the site that > was running the algorithm in Pari, I think check some of the earlier posts. > Fermat's Primality check has a problem with false negatives (Carmichael Numbers). Please link that post you're talking about. Making claims that no one can verify is a typical crackpot tactic. Don't be a crackpot. 
20180105, 19:14  #196 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville
2^{6}×131 Posts 
Maybe this will help as well

20180105, 19:17  #197  
"Dana Jacobsen"
Feb 2011
Bangkok, TH
908_{10} Posts 
Quote:
I put a reference to the paper in my project documentation in 2012. Github backs me up on this. I was mainly pointing you to their matrices looking at arrangements of primes/composites/squares. I did a crapton of that on my whiteboard trying to figure out how to write code to exploit it. Which makes me really impressed with some of the people who internalize this more. Last fiddled with by danaj on 20180105 at 19:21 

20180105, 19:40  #198 
Feb 2017
245_{8} Posts 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
gpuOwL: an OpenCL program for Mersenne primality testing  preda  GpuOwl  2713  20210516 16:00 
GQQ: a "deterministic" "primality" test in O(ln n)^2  Chair Zhuang  Miscellaneous Math  21  20180326 22:33 
AouessareEl HaddouchiEssaaidi "test": "if Mp has no factor, it is prime!"  wildrabbitt  Miscellaneous Math  11  20150306 08:17 
"New primality proving test from Alex Petrov"  ewmayer  Math  11  20070423 19:07 
P1 B1/B2 selection with "Test=" vs "Pfactor="  James Heinrich  Software  2  20050319 21:58 