20151024, 06:03  #23  
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
4393_{10} Posts 
Quote:
So, since your arguments are so far leading us nowhere, you ought to decide how you might convince someone skilled enough in mathematics to check your work and skilled enough in coding to implement your process that you're not a crackpot. You may wish to read the crackpot index guidelines, composed by one of my colleagues John Baez (found at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html). A noncrackpot will be able to realize which of the listed items applies to this thread, and will be able to decide how to go about reducing one's score. Good luck. 

20151024, 06:46  #24  
"Rashid Naimi"
Oct 2015
Remote to Here/There
3×643 Posts 
Quote:
I have already mentioned that I am quite willing to disclose my theorem in confidence along with the mathematical proof that it is true to any party who would be willing to assist me and has the resources to generate and run the code to produce prize winning primes. I'm just not going to post it on the open forum. The following is not relevant to your post. 

20151024, 09:33  #25  
Nov 2008
3×167 Posts 
Quote:


20151024, 13:32  #26  
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the
2·5^{2}·7·17 Posts 
Quote:


20151024, 14:45  #27 
Nov 2003
2^{6}×113 Posts 

20151024, 14:47  #28  
Nov 2003
2^{6}·113 Posts 
Quote:
Would a moderator please move this thread to the crank subforum? 

20151024, 14:52  #29  
"/X\(‘‘)/X\"
Jan 2013
5470_{8} Posts 
Quote:
Afterwards, the next step would be breaking down those individual calculations into to small chunks that a computer is capable of executing. There are many known algorithms for that depending on the calculation, but they may also take a very long time to run. Only if the required run time is small enough would a sane person begin to program. I think coming up with that formula would be the first step in showing you have something without revealing the exact details, plus let a programmer know if it's possible to actually finish the calculations in a lifetime. 

20151024, 14:55  #30  
Nov 2003
2^{6}×113 Posts 
Quote:
Such formulae are well known. See, e.g. Paulo Ribenboim's book. But they are useless for computational purposes. Stop making ridiculous claims that you can not support. You are exhibiting classic crank behavior. 

20151024, 15:27  #31 
"Rashid Naimi"
Oct 2015
Remote to Here/There
3·643 Posts 
To the party who sent me a private message.
Message received. I leave in Eastern time zone. I will reply to your message later today, likely in the evening. Thank you. 
20151024, 16:22  #32  
"Rashid Naimi"
Oct 2015
Remote to Here/There
3·643 Posts 
Quote:
But that's just a guesstimate. Last fiddled with by wblipp on 20151024 at 20:53 Reason: fix sup 

20151024, 17:39  #33  
Nov 2008
3·167 Posts 
Quote:
PUT UP OR PUSH OFF I call this a steaming pile of 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Is CEMPLLA 1.5 "the only software in the world capable of discovering" something? Not really.  CRGreathouse  Number Theory Discussion Group  51  20181216 21:55 
AouessareEl HaddouchiEssaaidi "test": "if Mp has no factor, it is prime!"  wildrabbitt  Miscellaneous Math  11  20150306 08:17 
"Subproject" #10: 200k300k to 110 digits  RobertS  Aliquot Sequences  9  20110507 15:30 
Would Minimizing "iterations between results file" may reveal "is not prime" earlier?  nitai1999  Software  7  20040826 18:12 
Search for a number theoretic function related to "prime divisor sums"  juergen  Math  2  20040710 23:01 