mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Miscellaneous Math

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2022-01-24, 18:16   #12
Dr Sardonicus
 
Dr Sardonicus's Avatar
 
Feb 2017
Nowhere

577010 Posts
Default

Let us not forget the numbers that have changed status.

Fermat (letters, 1630's - 1640's) claimed that all numbers 2^(2n) + 1 were prime.

Thus, 232 + 1 changed from prime to composite (Euler, 1732; published 1738)

Mersenne claimed 2p - 1 was prime (at least for p ≤ 257) when p = 2, 3, 5, 7, 13, 17, 19, 31, 67, 127, 257.

Thus,

261 -1 changed from composite to prime (Peruvshin, 1883)

267 - 1 changed from prime to composite (Cole, 1903)

etc
Dr Sardonicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-01-24, 19:54   #13
rudy235
 
rudy235's Avatar
 
Jun 2015
Vallejo, CA/.

100010001012 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus View Post
Let us not forget the numbers that have changed status.

Fermat (letters, 1630's - 1640's) claimed that all numbers 2^(2n) + 1 were prime.

Thus,

etc
In this line of thought –and this may has been asked and answered before– is there any pseudoprime to many bases (but not a Carmichael number) that was assumed to be a PRP and was later confirmed as composite?
rudy235 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-01-24, 19:55   #14
RomanM
 
Jun 2021

2F16 Posts
Default

prime numbers boring. take a look into prime angles
RomanM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-01-24, 21:07   #15
Dr Sardonicus
 
Dr Sardonicus's Avatar
 
Feb 2017
Nowhere

2×5×577 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rudy235 View Post
In this line of thought –and this may has been asked and answered before– is there any pseudoprime to many bases (but not a Carmichael number) that was assumed to be a PRP and was later confirmed as composite?
Actually, that should probably be something like, "Are there any pseudoprimes that were assumed to be prime because they tested PRP to many bases, but were later proven to be composite?"

A PRP is generally understood to mean any integer greater than 1 that does not test as composite to some base(s) with a Fermat (or Euler or Miller-Rabin) test, while a "pseudoprime" is generally understood to mean a composite number that does not so test as composite.

I don't know about "assumed to be prime because they tested as PRP's but then proved composite." I don't know of any examples offhand. There might be "mundane" examples of numbers that individual users of some software package assumed to be prime because it tested as a PRP with the package's test, but later proved to be composite.

I note that though a Carmichael number n is guaranteed to test PRP by a Fermat test to any base prime to n, it may well be revealed as composite by a Miller-Rabin test. In such a case, Miller-Rabin provides a square root of 1 other than 1 or -1, hence a proper factorization. For example, Mod(2,561)^560 and Mod(2,561)^280 are both Mod(1,561), but Mod(2,560)^140 = Mod(67,561). Then gcd(67-1,561) = 33 and gcd(67+1,561) 17 are proper factors.

There are, however, ways of constructing numbers which are the product of two prime numbers, that will test as PRP's by Miller-Rabin to any given finite set of (usually prime) bases.

But who knows? The next Mp that tests PRP to base 3 may be proven composite by an LL test.
Dr Sardonicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-01-24, 21:28   #16
paulunderwood
 
paulunderwood's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr

10000000110102 Posts
Default

https://primes.utm.edu/notes/proofs/a_pseudoprimes.html shows how to construct base-a pseudoprimes.

https://www.fq.math.ca/Scanned/41-4/chen.pdf and https://www.d.umn.edu/~jgreene/baillie/Baillie-PSW.html supposedly shows how to construct BPSW pseudoprimes

http://pseudoprime.com/dopo.pdf Pomerance argues for the infintude of BPSW pseudoprimes.

More at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailli...est#References

Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 2022-01-24 at 21:29
paulunderwood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-01-24, 21:33   #17
rudy235
 
rudy235's Avatar
 
Jun 2015
Vallejo, CA/.

21058 Posts
Default

Quote:
while a "pseudoprime" is generally understood to mean a composite number that does not so test as composite.

Yes, I messed up when using the word pseudoprime. What I meant was along he line of a number that after many tests and varied approaches is indistinguishable from a true PRP but is eventually found to be composite. I.e pseudoprime. I had read somewhere of this but I can’t remember where.
rudy235 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-01-30, 04:48   #18
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
"name field"
Jun 2011
Thailand

7·1,423 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus View Post
Let us not forget the numbers that have changed status.
Fermat ...
Euler ...
Mersenne ...
Peruvshin ...
Cole ...
This post sounds like pledge for rehabilitation for the crackpots that visit the forum periodically...

I mean, if so many big guys made mistakes...
LaurV is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Primes of the form prime(a)+prime(b)+1=prime(c) and prime(b)-prime(a)-1=prime (c) Hugo1177 Miscellaneous Math 1 2021-01-05 08:09
Agrawal's conjecture revisited carpetpool carpetpool 5 2020-02-15 20:06
Revisited "Primorial as Product of Consective Number" MARTHA Miscellaneous Math 7 2018-11-02 01:24
Problem Ten revisited Harvey563 Open Projects 97 2011-09-30 20:19
Intel Atom revisited hj47 Hardware 15 2010-07-08 20:19

All times are UTC. The time now is 11:58.


Thu May 19 11:58:36 UTC 2022 up 35 days, 9:59, 1 user, load averages: 2.74, 2.35, 2.05

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔