![]() |
![]() |
#1 |
Mar 2010
26×3 Posts |
![]()
Recently I have written a page http://www.literka.addr.com/mathcoun...mth/proof4.htm with a proof that59649589127497217 is a factor of Fermat number F7. It is something similar to my previous work about F5 and F6 (see my posts in this section "Factoring" or visit my description page http://www.literka.addr.com/mathcountry.
Unfortunately factors of F7 are large numbers, hence some computation had to be with numbers of same size. Still these numbers are incomparably smaller than F7. Last fiddled with by literka on 2013-11-14 at 03:26 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Aug 2006
3×1,993 Posts |
![]() Code:
Mod(2,59649589127497217)^2^7+1 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Mar 2010
26·3 Posts |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Aug 2010
Kansas
547 Posts |
![]()
He was giving a simple code to accomplish the same thing as your proof. Except his version goes straight to (11) in yours, negating the need for, well, your entire "proof". Might I ask why you are "proving" known Fermat divisors? Do you think this will give some unknown insight into Fermat divisors to allow one to predict what unknown divisors are?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Undefined
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair
144708 Posts |
![]()
Even one my my lessor minions can do this longhand
Code:
5704689200685129054721 ---------------------------------------- 59649589127497217)340282366920938463463374607431768211457 298247945637486085||||||||||||||||||||| ------------------||||||||||||||||||||| 420344212834523784|||||||||||||||||||| 417547123892480519|||||||||||||||||||| ------------------|||||||||||||||||||| 279708894204326563|||||||||||||||||| 238598356509988868|||||||||||||||||| ------------------|||||||||||||||||| 411105376943376953||||||||||||||||| 357897534764983302||||||||||||||||| ------------------||||||||||||||||| 532078421783936517|||||||||||||||| 477196713019977736|||||||||||||||| ------------------||||||||||||||| 548817087639587814||||||||||||||| 536846302147474953||||||||||||||| ------------------||||||||||||||| 119707854921128616|||||||||||||| 119299178254994434|||||||||||||| ------------------|||||||||||||| 408676666134182074||||||||||| 357897534764983302||||||||||| ------------------||||||||||| 507791313691987723|||||||||| 477196713019977736|||||||||| ------------------|||||||||| 305946006720099871||||||||| 298247945637486085||||||||| ------------------||||||||| 76980610826137867|||||||| 59649589127497217|||||||| -----------------|||||||| 173310216986406506||||||| 119299178254994434||||||| ------------------||||||| 540110387314120728|||||| 536846302147474953|||||| ------------------|||||| 326408516664577521|||| 298247945637486085|||| ------------------|||| 281605710270914361||| 238598356509988868||| ------------------||| 430073537609254934|| 417547123892480519|| ------------------|| 125264137167744155| 119299178254994434| ------------------| 59649589127497217 59649589127497217 ----------------- 0 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Mar 2010
110000002 Posts |
![]() Quote:
It is proof not a "proof". The purpose is obvious, so obvious that I did not mention if: to find a proof that something is a factor with no help of a computer and avoid time-consuming computations as presented by Retina. In mathematics something computed by a computer is not regarded as a proof. This problem arose with a "proof" of Four Colors Theorem. Many mathematicians regarded this as not a proof because of intense using of computers. I suspect that my proof of F7 is not best possible i.e. there must be a proof more straightforward, using less computations. Last fiddled with by literka on 2013-11-15 at 15:12 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Undefined
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair
23·3·269 Posts |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Mar 2010
26×3 Posts |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Nov 2003
22·5·373 Posts |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Mar 2010
26·3 Posts |
![]() I don't want to ague with you about it, it is not a subject of this post. No statistics is made. I heard the story, but it is only a story, I am not sure that it is a true story. And the story is this: Long time ago it was announced that a proof of Four Colors Theorem was found. It was presented in Finland and I talked to mathematicians, who were there. They did not accept this proof because of use of computers. They even told that the method was known long before. Presenters just wrote a program to verify what was known before. This is everything I know about it. I heard this from a second hand so I cannot be sure that it is true. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 | |
Account Deleted
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA
7×13×47 Posts |
![]() Quote:
Since you're already working from the prior knowledge that the factor exists, why not take both factors and multiply them together? That'd be a much less difficult feat. Last fiddled with by Mini-Geek on 2013-11-15 at 16:16 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
On Fermat's Last Number | c10ck3r | Miscellaneous Math | 14 | 2012-11-29 20:36 |
Fermat number F6=18446744073709551617 is a composite number. Proof. | literka | Factoring | 5 | 2012-01-30 12:28 |
Fermat number and Modulo for searching divisors | CyD | Factoring | 4 | 2011-05-31 11:24 |
Fermat number factors | Citrix | Math | 35 | 2007-01-23 23:17 |
New Fermat number divisor! | ET_ | Factoring | 1 | 2004-10-08 03:34 |