OMG, I cannot spam anymore in the Forum Feedback where my question was answered!!!!!!!!!!!111111

[gophne]

Hi Admin

Another of my threads about "being blocked" has been blocked!!!!!!

What is going on here? What about freedom of expression/ scientific thought or evenhandedness?

What am I sinning to deserve such treatment. I have never been disrespectful to anybody on the Site. My only crime seems to be that I am dumb or that I dare to defend my positions.

Please help _^_

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by gophne

Another of my threads about "being blocked" has been blocked!!!!!!

What is going on here? What about freedom of expression/ scientific thought or evenhandedness?

I wasn’t the one to close the thread, but it’s pretty clear that it had run its course.

Originally Posted by gophne

What am I sinning to deserve such treatment. I have never been disrespectful to anybody on the Site. My only crime seems to be that I am dumb or that I dare to defend my positions.

On the other thread you’ve been quite disrespectful, IMO. You presented the Fermat test as if it were a new discovery and claimed that it had no counterexamples. When you were shown the counterexamples you pretended that you had never claimed that your test worked in all cases. You then proceeded to badger everyone on the thread for a more explicit demonstration of the equality, and persisted in your claim that they were different. It would have been reasonable to close the thread at that point, but instead several forum members jumped to the task and showed painfully explicit baby steps of how the two were the same. But even then you complained that you didn’t understand and that you wanted someone to make it even simpler for you.

At a certain point you should recognize that you don’t have the necessary skills in elementary number theory because you are the only one who couldn’t follow what was going on. If you want to understand you will need to study the basics of modular arithmetic so you can understand us.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by gophne

Hi Admin

Another of my threads about "being blocked" has been blocked!!!!!!

What is going on here? What about freedom of expression/ scientific thought or evenhandedness?

What am I sinning to deserve such treatment. I have never been disrespectful to anybody on the Site. My only crime seems to be that I am dumb or that I dare to defend my positions.

Please help _^_

One of your "crimes" is that you are vague to the point of incomprehensibility. The post above gives absolutely no clue as to which thread has been blocked.

What is going on here is an object lesson in the value of precise and concise communication. You appear to be failing the tests.

[gophne]

Hi Admin

I have a bad feeling that I am going to be debarred soon.

I am very aware that that it is the right of the Site Mods to do so.

Now also my original heading on a tread I have posted to the "feedback" forum has been changed to ridicule me.

Please note this algorithm;

2^n-1 mod (n+2) == (n+1)/2

It is going to make waves.....whether it is Fermat's theorem or not.

I leave it to you and to the users of this forum to decide whether I have been disrespectful. Ignorance is not disrespect.

Would the Mods also be able to close down the sub-blog that you have allocated to me?

[gophne]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

I wasn’t the one to close the thread, but it’s pretty clear that it had run its course.



On the other thread you’ve been quite disrespectful, IMO. You presented the Fermat test as if it were a new discovery and claimed that it had no counterexamples. When you were shown the counterexamples you pretended that you had never claimed that your test worked in all cases. You then proceeded to badger everyone on the thread for a more explicit demonstration of the equality, and persisted in your claim that they were different. It would have been reasonable to close the thread at that point, but instead several forum members jumped to the task and showed painfully explicit baby steps of how the two were the same. But even then you complained that you didn’t understand and that you wanted someone to make it even simpler for you.

At a certain point you should recognize that you don’t have the necessary skills in elementary number theory because you are the only one who couldn’t follow what was going on. If you want to understand you will need to study the basics of modular arithmetic so you can understand us.

Hi CRGreathouse

Fermat's Primality algorith is;

a^(p-1) ≡ 1 mod p ....source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat_primality_test

How is this the same as

2^n-1 mod (n+2) == (n+1)/2 ?

For starters Fermat's test is always congruant to 1. The other algorithm is congruant to (n+1)/2, i.e. the modulo is always changing with n

It boggles my mind that anybody can claim that the two are the same.

Yes I did make incorrect claims about the 100% effectiveness of the algorithm in the beginning , but as a results of the promps by the users, I ran code which identified a multitude of false positives. This was partly due to me rushing the post w.r.t to me stated intentions, largely as a result of my disappointment with the "many' "false primes" identified during the running the first 500 000 odd numbers with SAGEMATH.

Referencing Fermat's Primality test, (quoted above) in Wikipedia, highlighted the fact that the Fermat Primality check also contained many pseudo-primes in the range of 28 000 for up to 2.5*10^10

As you have stated right in the beginning perhaps to prepare a paper might be a avenue, as the academic system and the publishing institutions would without a measure of doubt be able to indentify any fraud that might have been committed.

I have repeatedly stated that I have back-up work to show how the algorithm was derived, independantly of Fermat's Primality test, which it is very different as can be seen above.

What was very strange as well was that the initial tack was repeatedly that the algorithm was "nonsense" - until awmayer indicated that the algorithm might just be a re-formulation of an existing "Pseudo-prime Checker". Then the tack shifted to "copy of"/plagiarism. Would this change of argument then not also be "disrespectful" and dis-honest, as both positions cannot be correct at the same time.

“Many people, xxxxxxxxxxx, want to punish you for speaking the truth, for being correct, for being you. Never apologize for being correct, or for being years ahead of your time. If you’re right and you know it, speak your mind. Speak your mind. Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.”

― Mahatma Gandhi

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by gophne

I have repeatedly stated that I have back-up work to show how the algorithm was derived, independantly of Fermat's Primality test, which it is very different as can be seen above.

If one can be transformed into the other they are equivalent statements. This doesn't change just because it was derived differently.

[GP2]

Help us, R.D. Silverman. You're our only hope.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cc_h5Ghuj4

[gophne]

Hi GP2

I like it...perhaps Luke Skywalker will come to my rescue :)

Cheers....Happy New Yera if you are in the zone.

[gophne]

Originally Posted by science_man_88

If one can be transformed into the other they are equivalent statements. This doesn't change just because it was derived differently.

Hi Science_man_88

For the last time LoL....you may be correct....BUT you must prove identity....identity is not so because you or Billy The Kid might say so. And even if the statement is repeated over and over...the matter is not resolved until the fat lady sings....the fat lady in this case being the results generated by the algorithms using the same inputs...nothing else would suffice, even if the claim is made by Chuck Norris :)

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by gophne

Hi Science_man_88

For the last time LoL....you may be correct....BUT you must prove identity....identity is not so because you or Billy The Kid might say so. And even if the statement is repeated over and over...the matter is not resolved until the fat lady sings....the fat lady in this case being the results generated by the algorithms using the same inputs...nothing else would suffice, even if the claim is made by Chuck Norris :)

Your same inputs part has nothing to do with it. If you input is n-2 Fermat's output would be for n.

[jnml]

Originally Posted by science_man_88

Your same inputs part has nothing to do with it. If you input is n-2 Fermat's output would be for n.

If this doesn't help, nothing probably will.