20180217, 15:39  #243 
Feb 2017
3×5×11 Posts 

20180217, 15:44  #244  
Feb 2017
245_{8} Posts 
Quote:


20180217, 16:02  #245 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dartmouth NS
2×3×23×61 Posts 
Not really, even order of operations was potentially random before the convention we now follow.
Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 20180217 at 16:02 
20180220, 03:50  #246 
Romulan Interpreter
"name field"
Jun 2011
Thailand
2^{2}×7×367 Posts 

20180220, 04:52  #247  
Einyen
Dec 2003
Denmark
D6A_{16} Posts 
Quote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgMn4u61z8c&t=136s 

20180307, 01:54  #248  
Feb 2017
3·5·11 Posts 
Quote:
For what it is worth I am more inclined to agree with the latter part of the premises stated by Don Zagier that prime numbers are very "ordered" and the problem of identifying large primes is more a result of the largeness of the numbers concerned w.r.t computational time required to confirm them as prime numbers, even on the most advanced computers available. The secret would be to discover (or develop?) a formula for primes, which would have the effect of determining primes as high as we could go. My opinion is that since prime numbers are natural numbers missed by the process of sieving by lower natural numbers...the great mathematical minds around should be able to quickly! formulate such formula/algorithm for prime numbers. 

20180307, 02:09  #249  
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dartmouth NS
10000011100010_{2} Posts 
Quote:


20180312, 16:56  #250 
Feb 2017
165_{10} Posts 
Twin Prime Conjecture
I am by now probably known for my exorbitant claims, but nevertheless I would like still to have a crack at offering a "proof" for the twin prime conjecture shortly, in a month or two for te most. I am not sure if posting in the
"mersenneforum.org>Extra Stuff>Bloggorrhea>gophne>"New" primality test/check" would be the right forum to do so (although I believe it would be). Not sure if I would get enough respect for my attempt or that it would be rejected out of hand due to the audacity of trying. I have stated from the first time that I joined the mersenne forum to air my "discovery" of the sum of consecutive prime "sums" generates very "smooth" curves which lends itself to being "predictive" probably to more or less than of the trivial formula for the gap between primes of log N I had to disengage with my tail between my legs as the super mods on the Site felt that I made unsubstantiated claims w.r.t the accuracy of this graphic algorithm. At the time I stated that I wanted to work on new "primality" algorithms while yelping off. I did not make many friends as well with my "reverse algorithm" of the mersenne numbers being divisible by the mersenne index 2 relationship, which was shown to be a variation/copy of Fermat's Little theorem, including the false positives! I have also offered a "primality" algorithm which revolves around doubling of an odd number to be tested for primality . If no odd number smaller than the number being tested shares a common factor with the "sum of the that odd number with double the number being tested", then the number being tested is a prime number. This "algorithm" has been highligthed as a "variation" of "trial division", but more cumbersome in computer calculation time! So needless to say that besides the attempted proof of the "Twin prime conjecture", I am also working on an alternative primality check to the LucasLehmer, which is showing great promise I am working on the complexity of the algorithm at very large values in the ranges of the higher mersenne primes. The algorithm is a sieve/formulaic hybrid which I am hoping to air on this forum as well at some point, if I am not debarred from the Site before that as a Swengali! This algorithm has proven to be true for the lower mersenne numbers primes (my assertion only), so is most likely, or shall I be bold and say "definitely", true for the higher mersenne numbers as well, I am just not sure of the complexity of the algorithm in terms of computational time required at the top levels/magnitude of the known mersenne primes. I however beg for indulgence, as this is a "blogorrhea" thread after all, so therein only lies my dilemma about posting such on this Site/Tread. This I will attempt without fear of ridicule, but with a danger that I will be declared a lunatic of the highest order. So shall my journey begin in due course. Last fiddled with by gophne on 20180312 at 17:02 Reason: Spelling errors 
20180312, 17:31  #251  
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dartmouth NS
2×3×23×61 Posts 
Quote:
I hope you know many variant and attempts have been found to be useless for the first paragraph. And for the second paragraph maybe read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stro..._Small_Numbers Or watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UgZ5FqdYIQ 

20180312, 19:07  #252  
Aug 2006
5,987 Posts 
Quote:
A new thread would be better than reusing this one, I think. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
"Definitely" is far too strong in any case; even if you had tested it on billions it would only be enough evidence to think it a probable prime test. But such tests definitely exist, and who knows, it might even be a primality test  just be scrupulous in your proof! 

20180312, 19:33  #253 
Feb 2017
10100101_{2} Posts 
Thanx I will look at the links.

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
gpuOwL: an OpenCL program for Mersenne primality testing  preda  GpuOwl  2908  20230130 01:25 
GQQ: a "deterministic" "primality" test in O(ln n)^2  Chair Zhuang  Miscellaneous Math  21  20180326 22:33 
AouessareEl HaddouchiEssaaidi "test": "if Mp has no factor, it is prime!"  wildrabbitt  Miscellaneous Math  11  20150306 08:17 
"New primality proving test from Alex Petrov"  ewmayer  Math  11  20070423 19:07 
P1 B1/B2 selection with "Test=" vs "Pfactor="  James Heinrich  Software  2  20050319 21:58 