mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Miscellaneous Math

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2020-09-13, 16:46   #12
RMLabrador
 
RMLabrador's Avatar
 
"Roman V. Makarchuk"
Aug 2020
Ukraine

2×17 Posts
Default

Click image for larger version

Name:	CodeCogsEqn (3).gif
Views:	33
Size:	9.4 KB
ID:	23318
I can explain why this test do not suffer for flaw of modulo computation.
RMLabrador is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-09-13, 16:49   #13
RMLabrador
 
RMLabrador's Avatar
 
"Roman V. Makarchuk"
Aug 2020
Ukraine

2·17 Posts
Default

Click image for larger version

Name:	CodeCogsEqn (3).gif
Views:	21
Size:	9.4 KB
ID:	23319

I can explain why this test do not suffer modulo flaw.
RMLabrador is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-09-13, 17:05   #14
paulunderwood
 
paulunderwood's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr

3×31×37 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RMLabrador View Post
Attachment 23318
I can explain why this test do not suffer for flaw of modulo computation.
Code:
{forstep(n=9,77,2,
if(!ispseudoprime(n),
for(u=round(log(n)^2),n,
A=Mod(Mod([1+i,1;1,u],n),i^2+1);
X=A^n;
R=lift(lift(trace(X*i)))%i;
if(R==1||R==n-1,
print([n,u,R])))))}
[25, 11, 24]
[25, 12, 24]
[25, 16, 24]
[25, 17, 24]
[25, 21, 24]
[25, 22, 24]
[49, 15, 48]
[49, 21, 48]
[49, 22, 48]
[49, 28, 48]
[49, 29, 48]
[49, 35, 48]
[49, 36, 48]
[49, 42, 48]
[49, 43, 48]
[49, 49, 48]
[65, 20, 64]
[65, 22, 1]
[65, 30, 64]
[65, 33, 64]
[65, 41, 1]
[65, 43, 64]
[65, 59, 64]
[65, 61, 1]
[77, 25, 76]
[77, 44, 76]
[77, 58, 76]
You test works for some composites too.

Besides it makes no sense to use an inequality symbol when working with modular arithmetic.

Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 2020-09-13 at 17:19
paulunderwood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-09-13, 17:23   #15
RMLabrador
 
RMLabrador's Avatar
 
"Roman V. Makarchuk"
Aug 2020
Ukraine

3410 Posts
Default

ok. Key in the u value. Let them bigger! I'm put log^2 without deep thinking, there is some value, after all be ok.
Just let u=1000000 and see result
Believe me

P/S
Results are oscillating for the small u and for prime numbers go stable
after some u
For all other numbers for every u we got another result
so if You found "exception" just
test u+1

Last fiddled with by RMLabrador on 2020-09-13 at 17:36
RMLabrador is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-09-13, 17:29   #16
paulunderwood
 
paulunderwood's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr

65618 Posts
Default

That might take some time

However:

Code:
{forstep(n=1001*1001,100000000,2,
if(!ispseudoprime(n),
for(u=1000000,n,
A=Mod(Mod([1+i,1;1,u],n),i^2+1);
X=A^n;
R=lift(lift((trace(X*i))))%i;if(R==1||R==n-1,
print([n,u,R]);break(2)))))}
[1002001, 1000000, 1002000]
You can play with this code by installing pari-gp if you have linux or by getting Pari/GP for windows at this site.

Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 2020-09-13 at 17:40
paulunderwood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-09-13, 17:39   #17
RMLabrador
 
RMLabrador's Avatar
 
"Roman V. Makarchuk"
Aug 2020
Ukraine

2×17 Posts
Default

make test for u+1 for this case
Thank You for the link!

Last fiddled with by RMLabrador on 2020-09-13 at 17:58
RMLabrador is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-09-15, 07:53   #18
RMLabrador
 
RMLabrador's Avatar
 
"Roman V. Makarchuk"
Aug 2020
Ukraine

2·17 Posts
Default

At any rate, I am convinced that He [God] does not play dice./ Albert Einstein

As mentioned, God do not play dice. Its true, I am convinced that He play Cards instead. /Roman V. Makarchuk

Remember this.
If we want to build skyscraper (of math) taller, we need good basement, isn't?
Somebody know the rules of factors in numbers, their appearing, emerging, combination,
I mean the RULES? We play the game in the blind state)

For proof this simple test. we need to go deep below, to the kernel foundation, away of high grade construction, no matter how shiny wise or flying so mathematical high they are.

test in this form still have probability nature, for every non prime number for any u chance of false exception 2/n where n is testing number. For u, u+1 - 4/n^2 and so on, for big numbers this goes to zero very fast.
Repeated modulo operation erase the (easy) way to make the test deterministic,
once again that arise form modulo computation. Just see the oscillation of result with only one modulo operation in the last step, you can do this for the small n~0-10000
P/S
You may ask me about the proof.
RMLabrador is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-09-15, 09:06   #19
paulunderwood
 
paulunderwood's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr

3·31·37 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RMLabrador View Post
At any rate, I am convinced that He [God] does not play dice./ Albert Einstein

As mentioned, God do not play dice. Its true, I am convinced that He play Cards instead. /Roman V. Makarchuk
Quote:
God may not play dice with the universe, but something strange is going on with the prime numbers -- Paul Erdos
paulunderwood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-09-15, 09:49   #20
RMLabrador
 
RMLabrador's Avatar
 
"Roman V. Makarchuk"
Aug 2020
Ukraine

2·17 Posts
Default

I'm one, who know.
I'm reveal the part (of rules) and they resembling the card game)
I can proof of this my claim for now, but just like recurrent sequence represent deferential equation, mention above will be represent of equation (of quantum mechanic) and above.
So. if somebody wold like became the part of the history and have a some math level -
you ale welcome.
I have an unlimited amount of ideas, and, I suspect, no time.
So, check this test first.
or message me, and we discuss the proof of Riemann hypothesis - my ideas, your write in good English.
RMLabrador is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-09-15, 10:39   #21
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
Jun 2011
Thailand

8,837 Posts
Default

The fact that god plays dice or not or she is scratching her ass (i mean donkey) is non sequitur. The test is just PRP in disguise.
LaurV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-09-15, 11:10   #22
RMLabrador
 
RMLabrador's Avatar
 
"Roman V. Makarchuk"
Aug 2020
Ukraine

2216 Posts
Default

Well, I'm explain why, not my fault if someone do not understand or do not at least check this out. This is my poor English. For the small u values, if we rise matrix to power without of modulo on the every step, and do it only one time, in the end, the result for prime and not prime numbers ARE deterministic, and, in general, is result of computing limitation or more precise, on the difference between analytical and numerical computation.
if You look why this test work, you understand my point.
RMLabrador is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I found the primality test, there seems to be no composite numbers that pass the test sweety439 sweety439 7 2020-02-11 19:49
+/- 6 Primality Test a1call Miscellaneous Math 29 2018-12-24 01:42
Modifying the Lucas Lehmer Primality Test into a fast test of nothing Trilo Miscellaneous Math 25 2018-03-11 23:20
there is another way to test the primality of a no shawn Miscellaneous Math 5 2007-07-17 17:55
A primality test for Fermat numbers faster than P├ępin's test ? T.Rex Math 0 2004-10-26 21:37

All times are UTC. The time now is 03:44.

Thu Oct 22 03:44:55 UTC 2020 up 42 days, 55 mins, 0 users, load averages: 1.67, 1.66, 1.68

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.