mersenneforum.org > Math Are Legendre symbols proven to be defective?
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2008-03-17, 02:59 #1 jasong     "Jason Goatcher" Mar 2005 3·7·167 Posts Are Legendre symbols proven to be defective? It's not going to surprise me if this gets put in Miscellaneous Math, or hurt my feelings, but I'm going to try to phrase things in order to avoid getting this thread switched over. I know I'm way out of my league with these questions, but a friend of mine, who I very much respect, brought these to my attention. He swore me to secrecy, for reasons I'm not prepared to disclose, so I'm going to be asking questions that may not seem to be connected. (1) The Legendre symbol method of sieving,(sorry if this is nonsensical, I'm hoping I can make myself understood), is it 100% proven, or is it simply BELIEVED to be 100% effective? (2) The idea that a Fermat prime cannot have odd prime factors in the exponent, is it proven, or just BELIEVED to be effective? If I give a number, like 2^68544+1, can you give me an actual factor with that information, or is it mathematics that makes you believe it has a factor? Are there ANY gaps in the reasoning? (3) How many of the top-5000 primes have been tested via integer based math? After that twin prime fiasco with Intel, wouldn't it be better to test numbers with an integer based test after the normal test is run? As I said, there's a lot of stuff that I'm suppressing on request. My friend has told me(approximate quote),"A lot of the stuff that people accept as fact is not true, so-and-so(note: I'm not telling who or what was mentioned, but it isn't George :) ) intentionally stacked the deck so that they would find the first 10-million digit prime. Because of this, a lot of primes on the top-5000 list are actually composite. You(jasong) have the necessary skills to figure it out with a good amount of work." From the way he said it(as I said, it's an approximate quote), it sounds like people have discovered what he discovered in the past(further than you would believe) and it is being suppressed. Lastly, is there an integer based prime testing program that would work on an x86 LInux box? If I could get my hands on one and use it, I could establish 100% in my own mind that I wasn't simply being taken for a ride. I don't think my friend is a liar, but there are only two possibilities left, delusional and genius. I badly want to believe it's the latter, but I don't have the education to have a worthwhile opinion. Right now, it's totally up in the air.
 2008-03-17, 03:02 #2 Jay     Dec 2007 2×17 Posts Aren't conspiracy theories so much fun?
 2008-03-17, 03:12 #3 retina Undefined     "The unspeakable one" Jun 2006 My evil lair 2×3×52×43 Posts jasong: You can use google to answer your questions within just a few minutes. I think it took you longer to type your question than it would take to search for the answer yourself.
2008-03-17, 03:22   #4
jasong

"Jason Goatcher"
Mar 2005

3×7×167 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by retina jasong: You can use google to answer your questions within just a few minutes. I think it took you longer to type your question than it would take to search for the answer yourself.
As I said, it will take me a good amount of work to get my education to the level where I can answer my own question. If this is being suppressed, then it's doubtful it could be found easily on the web.

As an example, what form of government is in effect in the United States? Most people would say "democracy" without even thinking about it, but the word democracy isn't in any state Constitution, nor is it in any of the major documents of the US government. Democracy is just a feel-good term that the politicians employ to control our emotions. If you look it up on the web, there's a good chance you'll receive erroneous information, even from a so-called expert. We are a constitutional republic.

If the mathematics is being suppressed, there's a good chance that Wikipedia is part of that. It would simply be a matter of a government employee working from home, so that there's no .gov extension on the name.

That being said, my IQ is extremely high, I took my last IQ test while I was badly delusional, and still managed to stun my advisor. If I wasn't a paranoid schizophrenic, I'd probably be another super-conceited R.D. Silverman type. It's only recently, with the help of a medication called Invega, that I've gotten to a place where I can try to get back to a normal life. My point is that if there's any hanky-panky going on anywhere, and from a value-based standpoint I'll tackle any form of lying out there, I'm a good person to find it.

Okay, go ahead and place this in Miscellaneous Math, or probably more appropriately, Soap Box, :) since I've probably lost all credibility in this thread. :)

Edit: On second thought, can we leave it here, and split off any Conspiracy theory stuff?

Last fiddled with by jasong on 2008-03-17 at 03:32

 2008-03-17, 04:48 #5 jasong     "Jason Goatcher" Mar 2005 3·7·167 Posts If I wanted to take all the numbers that NewPGen threw out after sieving to a billion, from the 66 Riesel ks that are left, and test them independently for the factor given, would anyone be willing to help me do that? I say Riesel ks, but I'm willing to consider other possibilities. :) Edit: try sieving, with newpgen, with k*2^n+1, for k=1 to 5, and n=3355583. And then, if possible, tell me the factor for 2*2^3355583+1, with newpgen if you can manage it, but some other way if newpgen won't tell you and you know another way. Last fiddled with by jasong on 2008-03-17 at 04:56
 2008-03-17, 11:24 #7 jchein1   May 2005 1111002 Posts Jasong, Write n = e*o, where e is even and o is odd. Then 1 + 2^n = 1 + 2^(e*o) = 1 + (2^e)^o = 1 + ((2^e+1) - 1)^o = 1 + (-1)^o = 0 mod (2^e+1). Thus 2^e+1 divides 1 + 2^n. Regards, Joseph
2008-03-17, 13:26   #8
R.D. Silverman

Nov 2003

22·5·373 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by jasong It's not going to surprise me if this gets put in Miscellaneous Math, or hurt my feelings, but I'm going to try to phrase things in order to avoid getting this thread switched over. I know I'm way out of my league with these questions, but a friend of mine, who I very much respect, brought these to my attention. He swore me to secrecy, for reasons I'm not prepared to disclose, so I'm going to be asking questions that may not seem to be connected. (1) The Legendre symbol method of sieving,(sorry if this is nonsensical, I'm hoping I can make myself understood), is it 100% proven, or is it simply BELIEVED to be 100% effective? (2) The idea that a Fermat prime cannot have odd prime factors in the exponent, is it proven, or just BELIEVED to be effective? If I give a number, like 2^68544+1, can you give me an actual factor with that information, or is it mathematics that makes you believe it has a factor? Are there ANY gaps in the reasoning? (3) How many of the top-5000 primes have been tested via integer based math? After that twin prime fiasco with Intel, wouldn't it be better to test numbers with an integer based test after the normal test is run? As I said, there's a lot of stuff that I'm suppressing on request. My friend has told me(approximate quote),"A lot of the stuff that people accept as fact is not true, so-and-so(note: I'm not telling who or what was mentioned, but it isn't George :) ) intentionally stacked the deck so that they would find the first 10-million digit prime. Because of this, a lot of primes on the top-5000 list are actually composite. You(jasong) have the necessary skills to figure it out with a good amount of work." From the way he said it(as I said, it's an approximate quote), it sounds like people have discovered what he discovered in the past(further than you would believe) and it is being suppressed. Lastly, is there an integer based prime testing program that would work on an x86 LInux box? If I could get my hands on one and use it, I could establish 100% in my own mind that I wasn't simply being taken for a ride. I don't think my friend is a liar, but there are only two possibilities left, delusional and genius. I badly want to believe it's the latter, but I don't have the education to have a worthwhile opinion. Right now, it's totally up in the air.

(1)
What does it mean for a theorem to be "100% effective"? I know how
mathematicians use the word "effective", but that is clearly not what you
mean here. Analytic number theorists use the word effective to describe
a theorem where the implied constants in asymptotic (and other) estimates
are explicitly known or can be computed. What do YOU mean?????

(2)
What do you mean by the "Legendre symbol method of sieving"? Please
specify the exact sieve algorithm and its context. AFAIK, there is no such
method of sieving. One might use Legendre symbols in a sieve pre-computation, but I doubt if they are used during the actual sieve; their
computation would be too slow.

(3)
For your second question, Fermat numbers are of the form 2^2^n + 1.
It follows immediately from their definition that the exponent is even.
What does "belief" have to do with it? And the word "effective" is again
word salad. And the rest of the question is gibberish.

(4) As for how many of the top 5000 primes have been tested by purely
integer methods, I doubt anyone knows. What difference does it make?
The prior Intel FP bug is now a red herring. The problem has been corrected.
People have thoroughly checked the current IA32 chips for their FP
correctness.

(5)
Who is this "friend"? He is clearly clueless.

(6)
I suggest that you consult a psychiatrist for your unreasoned paranoia.

2008-03-17, 15:21   #9
wblipp

"William"
May 2003
New Haven

94316 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by jasong If I give a number, like 2^68544+1, can you give me an actual factor with that information
68544 = 64 * 9 * 7 * 17

Hence the following are all algebraic factors of 268544+1:

264+1
264*3+1
264*7+1
264*9+1
264*17+1
264*3*7+1
264*3*17+1
264*7*17+1
264*9*7+1
264*9*17+1
264*3*7*17+1

2008-03-17, 15:54   #10
R.D. Silverman

Nov 2003

164448 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by wblipp 68544 = 64 * 9 * 7 * 17 Hence the following are all algebraic factors of 268544+1: 264+1 264*3+1 264*7+1 264*9+1 264*17+1 264*3*7+1 264*3*17+1 264*7*17+1 264*9*7+1 264*9*17+1 264*3*7*17+1
This is just 1st or second year junior high school polynomial algebra.
x^ab + 1 is divisible by x^a+1 when b is odd. I would have expected
even Jason to know this.

2008-03-17, 16:19   #11
jasong

"Jason Goatcher"
Mar 2005

DB316 Posts

Quote:
 (1) What does it mean for a theorem to be "100% effective"? I know how mathematicians use the word "effective", but that is clearly not what you mean here. Analytic number theorists use the word effective to describe a theorem where the implied constants in asymptotic (and other) estimates are explicitly known or can be computed. What do YOU mean?????
You didn't quote what I said, and I have a bad memory, so I'll have to come back to this later if it starts looking important.

Quote:
 (2) What do you mean by the "Legendre symbol method of sieving"? Please specify the exact sieve algorithm and its context. AFAIK, there is no such method of sieving. One might use Legendre symbols in a sieve pre-computation, but I doubt if they are used during the actual sieve; their computation would be too slow.
My friend claimed that Legendre symbols weren't a proven method of determining whether a number was a likely candidate to sieved by a p-value. Remember, a lot of times we're dealing with millions of k/n pairs, so if it was wrong, say, 1/10,000,000th of the time, people wouldn't necessarily know, but it would still be wrong.

Quote:
 (3) For your second question, Fermat numbers are of the form 2^2^n + 1. It follows immediately from their definition that the exponent is even. What does "belief" have to do with it? And the word "effective" is again word salad. And the rest of the question is gibberish.
Again, you didn't quote me, but my friend claims that NewPGen spits out the number 2^3355584+1 as having a factor of 2, which is clearly impossible. For the lower number, I just made up my own.

Quote:
 (4) As for how many of the top 5000 primes have been tested by purely integer methods, I doubt anyone knows. What difference does it make? The prior Intel FP bug is now a red herring. The problem has been corrected. People have thoroughly checked the current IA32 chips for their FP correctness.
Intel SAYS the error has been corrected. For most applications, for instance games, video and audio compression software, and probably other stuff I can't think of at the moment, small errors don't matter at all. For something like LLR, they would matter very much.

Quote:
 (5) Who is this "friend"? He is clearly clueless.
I could say the same about you, just not on the subject of math. Have you ever heard of the golden rule?

Quote:
 (6) I suggest that you consult a psychiatrist for your unreasoned paranoia.
I suggest you consult a life coach on personal etiquette. This has gone beyond sniping in your case, and I'm not simply talking about our encounters.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post MarcinLesniak Miscellaneous Math 41 2018-03-29 16:30 pbewig Information & Answers 0 2011-07-14 00:47 cipher Software 3 2009-05-20 13:35 geoff Sierpinski/Riesel Base 5 2 2006-10-24 00:09 ixfd64 Hardware 2 2004-11-28 05:45

All times are UTC. The time now is 12:55.

Fri May 20 12:55:22 UTC 2022 up 36 days, 10:56, 0 users, load averages: 1.63, 1.46, 1.48