"New" primality test/check

[jnml]

Originally Posted by gophne

See my reply #21 to Batalov w.r.t to testing "all" primes to M34.

I said the algorithm is mindblowingly simple...it involves an (elusive) prime relationship.

Just show the proof. It's that simple.

[gophne]

Originally Posted by chalsall

There is no dilemma. Publishing here would prove that you are the original discoverer.

If you look at the bottom of this page (and every other page on this site) you will see a GNU Free Documentation License. Thus, as the author, you maintain copyright and must be credited for any duplication.

Iff this turns out to be true, you'll go down in history. If it isn't, you won't be banned. Being incorrect is encouraged around here; it's how everyone learns.

Hi chalsall

Thanks so much for this assurance, this is very comforting. Thanks also for the general positivity...I would not expect anything but derision, because the claims are gargantuan.

I am well aware that I am setting up a theatre of increduality with this spiel (involving respected mathematians), but I am not a fraud looking for notoriety. I am a serious prime researcher in my own way. I have been busy with prime research since my school days and has been spending many hours in research/hobby in my spare time.

So all I can say is that I am not a confidence trickster and I fully aware of the seriousness of making such a claim. Time will tell.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by gophne

Time will tell.

Publish. And then we all will know.

[gophne]

Originally Posted by jnml

Just show the proof. It's that simple.

Noted. Please just give me a little bit of time to double check the algorithm for obvious errors and typos, etc. I have committed to post asap.

[gophne]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Publish. And then we all will know.

Noted. I will post asap.

Will do editing of the algorithm to fit onto arXiv forum.

I can possibly post within the next week or two given the feedback and comments from the users w.r.t site protocols.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by gophne

I can possibly post within the next week or two given the feedback and comments from the users w.r.t site protocols.

This is already sounding a bit fishy. But I still have hope.

Two last pieces of advise: publish under your own name, and consult a lawyer to make sure you maintain copyright (what I said above about the GNU Free Documentation License is true, but it is always good to get an independent second opinion).

[gophne]

Originally Posted by chalsall

This is already sounding a bit fishy. But I still have hope.

Two last pieces of advise: publish under your own name, and consult a lawyer to make sure you maintain copyright (what I said above about the GNU Free Documentation License is true, but it is always good to get an independent second opinion).

Thanx for advice.

I am going to stop replying to miscellaneous comments under the circumstances. I will concentrate on posting the algorithm.

I will advise shortly when i will be ready...I don't want to set myself up with an early date, only to fail to deliver, so I rather want to give myself enough time...two to three weeks...to double, triple, quadruple check the algorithm and remove any typo's, bugs, etc.

I think that is fair for what I am claiming, to change the face of primality testing.

I have spoken enough. Next I will either post or indicate when I will post based on the time frame given.

"Tempus volat hora fugit"

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by gophne

"Tempus volat hora fugit"

Est tempus habemus.

[guptadeva]

first of all, i totally agree with chalsall:

There is no dilemma. Publishing here would prove that you are the original discoverer.

however, i would like to write some words about submitting a paper to arxiv or other online servers :

unfortunately in the academic world, there has been a growing tendency to measure scientific progress through 'impact factors' or 'number of publications'.
grants are primarily given to scientists that may show a high number of publications - no matter if the content is original or not.
in consequence, many authors simply publish rubbish ... a lot of rubbish !

you are in the lucky case of having made a discovery as a hobby-prime-researcher and are not subject to any publishing pressure.

no matter if your algorithm is correct or not, you have already experienced the joy of having made some discovery and this has given you the urge to share this joy with others ...

maybe you have re-discovered something, that has already been known for many years

some time ago a colleague re-discovered a simple continued fraction for pi:

4/pi == 1 + 1^2/(3 + 2^2/(5 + 3^2/(7 + 4^2/(9 + 5^2/(11 + 6^2/(13 + ... ))))))

the fact, that he was not the first to obtain this expression didn't diminish his joy - on the contrary.

maybe your algorithm is flawed or simply wrong ...

many of us here in this forum can only dream of learning to know some new connection between the prime numbers or some simple (elusive) connection between them.

and if cause - don't worry - you will get your credit for any original or novel method no matter if you choose to publish your algorithm here or elsewhere.

also don't be afraid of making a fool out of yourself by presenting something that can be disproved in a microsecond ... in that case just get over it and find a new algorithm

the choice is yours ...

[science_man_88]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_of_Sundaram is the closest my knowledge would come to what seems to be described.

[kladner]

Originally Posted by guptadeva

first of all, i totally agree with chalsall:

however, i would like to write some words about submitting a paper to arxiv or other online servers :

unfortunately in the academic world, there has been a growing tendency to measure scientific progress through 'impact factors' or 'number of publications'.
grants are primarily given to scientists that may show a high number of publications - no matter if the content is original or not.
in consequence, many authors simply publish rubbish ... a lot of rubbish !

you are in the lucky case of having made a discovery as a hobby-prime-researcher and are not subject to any publishing pressure.

no matter if your algorithm is correct or not, you have already experienced the joy of having made some discovery and this has given you the urge to share this joy with others ...

maybe you have re-discovered something, that has already been known for many years

some time ago a colleague re-discovered a simple continued fraction for pi:

4/pi == 1 + 1^2/(3 + 2^2/(5 + 3^2/(7 + 4^2/(9 + 5^2/(11 + 6^2/(13 + ... ))))))

the fact, that he was not the first to obtain this expression didn't diminish his joy - on the contrary.

maybe your algorithm is flawed or simply wrong ...

many of us here in this forum can only dream of learning to know some new connection between the prime numbers or some simple (elusive) connection between them.

and if cause - don't worry - you will get your credit for any original or novel method no matter if you choose to publish your algorithm here or elsewhere.

also don't be afraid of making a fool out of yourself by presenting something that can be disproved in a microsecond ... in that case just get over it and find a new algorithm

the choice is yours ...

I left the entire quote without editing because I am so affected by it. It is a wonderful, kind, encouraging, and above all, informative post.

Thanks! May your well-considered words calm the waters of the shark tank.
2nd edit: I do share the sense of "sounding a bit fishy" but that is based on style, as much as anything.