20170417, 23:38  #23  
"Rashid Naimi"
Oct 2015
Remote to Here/There
17×113 Posts 
Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propag...ay#Electronics An optical gate (say the AND gate) based on interference of two input beams will switch at the speed of light (essentially instantly). Yet this is not what I was referring to as an optical computer. There are other approaches to computation that are task specific and are not logic gate based. For the record, I stand by my assertion. Last fiddled with by a1call on 20170417 at 23:50 

20170418, 00:15  #24  
"Rashid Naimi"
Oct 2015
Remote to Here/There
11110000001_{2} Posts 
A general estimate from Scientific American:
Quote:
Again, there are potentially much more instant approaches to task specific computation than LogicGate based computers. What are they? Well they are mostly proprietary at the moment. 

20170418, 00:17  #25  
"Kieren"
Jul 2011
In My Own Galaxy!
10011100000000_{2} Posts 
Quote:
(Aside: I must get my Irony Detector detuned a bit.) 

20170418, 00:31  #26 
Undefined
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair
2^{2}·1,447 Posts 

20170418, 01:51  #27 
"Rashid Naimi"
Oct 2015
Remote to Here/There
17·113 Posts 
Your Monitor Emits no Yellow Light.
In actuality, I spent a number of years researching optical gates (more than a decade ago). I came up with a concept and discussed it with a leading Scientist in the field. The title of this post is pretty much what I got back from it.
I was under the false assumption that different beams of light readily interfered with each other. After all red and green pixel's light emitted from a monitor (there were only tube monitors available then) would interfere to produce yellow light. If things were only so simple it would be very simple to design an AND and an Inverter gates, which would theoretically entail the possibility of designing any complex logic gates or electronic/computer circuits. In such a circuit the red light would represent a binary 0 while the green light would represent binary 1. Alas it turns out a computer monitor fools our eyes by simultaneous simulation of red and green receptors in our eyes (a characteristic of actual yellow light) into thinking we are seeing yellow light emission. In fact the yellow light frequency is quite different than the interference frequency of the green and red light (greenlightfrequency  redlightfrequency). But fortunately things have progressed since. you might want to look up NonLinear Media in this context. ETA. Another prerequisite for 2 beams of light interfering with each other is that they must be coherent (This too took a number of years to sink in). Last fiddled with by a1call on 20170418 at 02:00 
20170418, 02:02  #28  
Undefined
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair
169C_{16} Posts 
Quote:


20170418, 02:19  #29  
"Rashid Naimi"
Oct 2015
Remote to Here/There
11110000001_{2} Posts 
Quote:
Quote:
Also instantly means quickly, not instantaneously. I was not implying 0 delay, but extremely quickly. I think my post is on topic, since the OP asks about a fast alternative to computing the primality of a large integer. Last fiddled with by a1call on 20170418 at 02:22 

20170418, 02:56  #30 
"Rashid Naimi"
Oct 2015
Remote to Here/There
17×113 Posts 
Here is the closest Wikipedia match I can find in regards to NonLinear Media.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_optics 
20170418, 04:50  #31 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
17·257 Posts 
Let's start with the number of particles in the universe, 10^85 give or take a magnitude or ten.
Exactly how do you propose to do a computation on a number that contains 10^1523 digits with a computer that fits in this universe? Note that merely expressing this number without using exponential shorthand would require each particle in the universe to hold 10^1400 digits. But don't let total ignorance of the size of the number (let alone the size of the task of primality testing) get in the way of telling us how close you are to a magical computer using interference of light to make yellow out of red and green photons. Perhaps you could do the thread a favor and estimate the additional magnitude of computational effort is required per digit added to the exponent. For instance, how much harder is prptesting a number with 10 million digits vs 1 million digits? That's one more digit in the power. We can presently test numbers with 10 million digits. How hard is 100million digits? 1 billion? 10 billion? (Hint: you won't see a test performed on a 100 billion digit number in your lifetime) 100 billion digits is 4 orders of magnitude bigger than present tests. OP's number is One thousand five hundred orders of magnitude bigger. You're going to need a bigger universe. 
20170418, 05:06  #32 
"Rashid Naimi"
Oct 2015
Remote to Here/There
17·113 Posts 

20170418, 05:29  #33 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
3·3,041 Posts 
...is the highest number. Fuggeddaboudit!

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Bug with particular large number  VolMike  YAFU  18  20120409 21:39 
Wagstaff number primality test?  ixfd64  Math  12  20100105 16:36 
newbie question  testing primality of very large numbers  NeoGen  Software  8  20060320 01:22 
is GGNFS checking for SNFS number?  Washuu  Factoring  10  20050811 05:09 
checking smaller number  fortega  Data  2  20050616 22:48 