mersenneforum.org Aouessare-El Haddouchi-Essaaidi "test": "if Mp has no factor, it is prime!"
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2015-03-05, 18:04 #2 Dubslow Basketry That Evening!     "Bunslow the Bold" Jun 2011 40
 2015-03-05, 19:10 #3 petrw1 1976 Toyota Corona years forever!     "Wayne" Nov 2006 Saskatchewan, Canada 11F816 Posts Yes MP13 does only take 4 iterations ... ... to determine it is prime vs 11 iterations for Prime95... WOW?!?!?!? However, it took 1,525 iterations for MP59 to find the first factor 748 iterations to determine MP31 is prime and it quickly gets much worse.
 2015-03-05, 20:13 #4 wildrabbitt   Jul 2014 3·149 Posts Thanks Guys. So is it just the claim that it's more efficient CPU time - wise that's wrong ? Does the algorithm actually work? There was no proof on the paper so I'm unable to even attempt to work the answer out for myself.
2015-03-05, 20:33   #5
Dubslow

"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88

3×29×83 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by wildrabbitt Thanks Guys. So is it just the claim that it's more efficient CPU time - wise that's wrong ? Does the algorithm actually work? There was no proof on the paper so I'm unable to even attempt to work the answer out for myself.
Read the other thread I linked. The algorithm is basically trial factoring, like mfakt*, except done really really really really poorly.

2015-03-05, 20:34   #6
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!

"Wayne"
Nov 2006

460010 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by wildrabbitt Thanks Guys. So is it just the claim that it's more efficient CPU time - wise that's wrong ? Does the algorithm actually work? There was no proof on the paper so I'm unable to even attempt to work the answer out for myself.
Using Excel I was able to verify that it works at least up to MP61.....a LONG LONG way from where Prime95 is currently

 2015-03-05, 20:41 #7 wildrabbitt   Jul 2014 1BF16 Posts Without proof it really is useless except to them if they've got one, but why would they keep the proof secret?
 2015-03-05, 22:17 #8 Batalov     "Serge" Mar 2008 Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2 938910 Posts The proof is obvious, however the test is impractical. (I am trying to use only nice words.) It is important to know that "ijcaonline" is a predatory "journal" that publishes anything as long as the submitters pay the required fee. As such, it should be avoided for reading (and as for writing/publishing - only if one likes to publish on the walls of public restrooms; it's the same sort of thing).
2015-03-05, 22:47   #9
ewmayer
2ω=0

Sep 2002
República de California

3·53·31 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by wildrabbitt Without proof it really is useless except to them if they've got one, but why would they keep the proof secret?
The point is, even with proof of correctness the test is useless in practice.

In theory I can do a rigorous '1-iteration' test of any M(p) by simply feeding it to e.g. the Pari 'factor' command. In practice, once p gets larger than a few hundred bits, the needed runtime becomes impractically large.

2015-03-06, 00:30   #10
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502

"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

100101000011002 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Batalov It is important to know that "ijcaonline" is a predatory "journal" that publishes anything as long as the submitters pay the required fee.
Same idea
Quote:
 Originally Posted by rogue WHY A FAKE ARTICLE TITLED "CUCKOO FOR COCOA PUFFS?" WAS ACCEPTED BY 17 MEDICAL JOURNALS

 2015-03-06, 02:11 #11 science_man_88     "Forget I exist" Jul 2009 Dumbassville 838410 Posts did I do the math correct ? I know I shouldn't play with this, However I manipulated the equation in Theorem 1 to: $k>(2np^2-2np+\frac{3}{2}p)$ where k is such that 2*k*p+1 is Mp I was thinking of manipulating it more, but if I've messed up already it's pointless to try to extrapolate further. EDIT: I think I messed up the +3/2 part I think it should be -3/2 now that I looked over my manipulation on paper. EDIT2: I found a fatal error I failed to correct further up if only I hadn't gone through 27 steps. Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 2015-03-06 at 02:53 Reason: had to edit what I said needed editing.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Chair Zhuang Miscellaneous Math 21 2018-03-26 22:33 Unregistered PrimeNet 16 2006-02-28 02:00 James Heinrich Software 2 2005-03-19 21:58 nitai1999 Software 7 2004-08-26 18:12

All times are UTC. The time now is 09:15.

Fri Apr 16 09:15:49 UTC 2021 up 8 days, 3:56, 0 users, load averages: 1.15, 1.30, 1.43