"New" primality test/check

[gophne]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Hi gophne. With all due respect, I wasn't name calling, nor meaning to insult.

The referral to monkeys and typewriters and Shakespeare is a very common reference in statistics.

You have, of course, read the prior art.

I apologise if I manage to insult you, or anyone.

Hi chalsall

Apology excepted. I have a very thick skin! :)

[gophne]

Originally Posted by chalsall

What about x==y vs. x!=y?

Hi chalsall

I don't get you...the two statements are clearly different...was this a typo?

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by gophne

I don't get you...

That doesn't surprise me at all.

[gophne]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

Rediscovery is commonplace, and not a problem. All of us have rediscovered existing theorems, algorithms, or the like at some point. The trouble in your case isn’t that you rediscovered Fermat’s test, but that you claimed that it was a primality test (no exceptions) rather than a probable-prime test.

Hi CRGreathouse

I had a look at the post by ewmayer again after the tread was reopened. For me they are similar but not the same...big difference.

I think ewmayer might unwittingly have slightly tweaked my algorithm as posted.

I would think that a simle and difinitive way to confirm the equivalance or otherwise would be to substitute values into the formulas...if the give the same exact result...they are the same....if they give different results, the formulas/algorithms are different.

I claimed that the algorthm I had posted determines primality and compositeness (albeit with false positives which is not unique with primality algorithms), not that it was a pseudo-prime/false prime test.

ewmayer suggested that "my" algorithm might or is likely a copy of an existing pseudo-prime checker (which I am willing to accept), but simple substitution with values does not support the statement that the two algorithms are the same.

Regards

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by gophne

I think ewmayer might unwittingly have slightly tweaked my algorithm as posted.

No difference. It was a simple symbolic algebra reduction which you should have been taught in high school.

If you weren't, that's your problem, not ours.

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by gophne

I claimed that the algorthm I had posted determines primality and compositeness (albeit with false positives which is not unique with primality algorithms), not that it was a pseudo-prime/false prime test.

You seem to be confused as to the definitions of those terms.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Batalov

I wrote a ground-breaking new poem and I shall go around telling everyone that I've truly made something out of myself. Here is small bit of it. I have more, much more! --

Now some people keep telling me that some guy with a spear (never heard of him) already wrote something similar. But it is false. Mine is completely different. His version has some extra commas and the words are not the same; first of all, they are completely unnecessary, and secondly, surely this makes it not the same.

I like my take on the great speech more than yours. It goes:

To be, or not to be -- that is what we must ask:
If it is more good in the mind to bear the
The slings and darts of sheer bad luck
Or take up arms to a sea of woes.
And through a fight back, end them. To die, to sleep --
No more -- and by a sleep to say we end
The heart's ache, and the ten times ten times ten real shocks
That flesh is heir to. 'Tis an end
Much to be wished. To die, to sleep --
To sleep -- a chance to dream: ay, there's the rub,
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have left this life,
Must give us pause. There's the thing
That makes a curse of so long life.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time.

[guptadeva]

Originally Posted by xilman

I like my take on the great speech more than yours. It goes:

To be, or not to be -- that is what we must ask:
If it is more good in the mind to bear the
The slings and darts of sheer bad luck
Or take up arms to a sea of woes.
And through a fight back, end them. To die, to sleep --
No more -- and by a sleep to say we end
The heart's ache, and the ten times ten times ten real shocks
That flesh is heir to. 'Tis an end
Much to be wished. To die, to sleep --
To sleep -- a chance to dream: ay, there's the rub,
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have left this life,
Must give us pause. There's the thing
That makes a curse of so long life.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time.

great ... also your "ten times ten times ten" is a very appropriate opportunity to emphasize the pain of hamlet

for completeness - here's the original quote:

To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, ’tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish’d. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there’s the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there’s the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law’s delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover’d country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.–Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remember’d.

[gophne]

Originally Posted by chalsall

No difference. It was a simple symbolic algebra reduction which you should have been taught in high school.

If you weren't, that's your problem, not ours.

Hi chalsall

I cannot understand the underlying agression of the senior contributors on this site towards me and I suppose my submissions. To me it seems reminiscent of the suppression of ideas in the Dark Ages actually. I cannot understand the hostility on such a reputable site such as the mersenneforum.

What is more baffling is that evrybody sems to be flinging accusations and comments around and none is doing the math.

IF the algorithms are the same (not what ewmayer or any other contributer might say), the only way is the math/science way...DO THE MATH. COMPARE. POST THE FINDINGS....NOT COMMENTS.

That I believe would be what other interested contributors would appreciate.

Thanx

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by gophne

Hi chalsall

I cannot understand the underlying agression of the senior contributors on this site towards me and I suppose my submissions. To me it seems reminiscent of the suppression of ideas in the Dark Ages actually. I cannot understand the hostility on such a reputable site such as the mersenneforum.

What is more baffling is that evrybody sems to be flinging accusations and comments around and none is doing the math.

IF the algorithms are the same (not what ewmayer or any other contributer might say), the only way is the math/science way...DO THE MATH. COMPARE. POST THE FINDINGS....NOT COMMENTS.

That I believe would be what other interested contributors would appreciate.

Thanx

The math has been shown already. I like to play around more than most here.

[gophne]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

You seem to be confused as to the definitions of those terms.

Hi CRGreathouse

I might be confused, but still I am only getting comments on the issue/comparisons. That is neither here nor there. I know that you are a very senior, knowledgable and respected person on this Site (possibly a Professor at some University as well I think). Could you please run the two algorithms, the one I posted (on gophne thread #73 I think) and the one that awmayer "reduced" a bit further on in the thread. If you could that present to all your results. If the two algorithms gives the same result/s then I will accept that the two algorithms are indeed the same.

Perhaps if you could also advise what the name/source of the algorithm that ewmayer has reduced to...he did not state this in his post...I have taken it on trust that such analgorithm exists.

Thanx so much.