20181127, 00:16  #12  
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville
10000011000000_{2} Posts 
Quote:


20200317, 21:01  #13 
Mar 2016
245_{10} Posts 
A peaceful and pleasant day,
may be someone has time and fun to read my book about prime generators for irreducible quadratic polynomials. http://devalco.de/quadratic_prime_sieves.pdf I thought about writing a second book, but i think it would be helpful to get a little feedback from the first. If you make homework because of Corona, it might be an interesting reading. Greetings from the Euler Affinity Bernhard 
20200317, 21:34  #14  
Nov 2003
16327_{8} Posts 
Quote:
[I do make allowances that the author is not a native English speaker]. It fails to discuss or connect wellknown conjectures such a BatemanHorn. It adds nothing that can't be found in an elementary number theory text and what little is present is totally lacking in rigor. 

20200318, 02:36  #15 
Aug 2006
5×1,171 Posts 
Could I have a pointer to the poorlywritten, otherthantrivial parts, please? I'd like to understand what he's trying to do but I've always had trouble making sense of it, and you seem to have made more progress than most.

20200318, 08:43  #16  
Nov 2003
3·23·107 Posts 
Quote:
However, proper punctuation and use of capitalization is often ignored. The table is full of totally trivial tables of factorizations of small numbers. He repeats his "sieve code" for every different polynomial. The paper contains almost no mathematics. His algorithm descriptions are just bad. The paper, supposedly about distribution of primes actually says nothing about the subject. He babbles about primes that "appear periodically twice" while failing to realize that f(x) = 0 mod p has two roots unless the discriminant is 0 mod p. He fails to realize that if f(x) = 0 mod p then f(x + kp) = 0 mod p. Indeed, the words "arithmetic progression" never appear. Much of this book could be contained by a short discussion of these two trivial modular equations. He fails to define variables. The code that is presented is trivial and pointless. He uses phrases such as "seems to be a linear distribution". Such phrases have no place in a math paper. Indeed, he fails to define "linear distribution". The author is totally unaware of existing literature, fails to mention or use any algebraic number theory, and sometimes uses the same definition for supposedly different objects, e.g. "reducible prime" and "big prime" have the same definition. It is replete with trivial tables. He discusses "periodical distribution" then gives a table with no explanation of what is meant. He fails to discuss even the simplest things about the density of primes within the range set of his various polynomials. He appears to know nothing about the role of the discriminant or class group/class number. This paper is a superb example of Dunning & Kruger. The author is totally ignorant of his subject and cannot write even simple mathematics. I give this socalled book an F. I can hear the authors protest that it does not deserve an F. He is right. Unfortunately, it is the lowest grade I can give. It is complete garbage. Last fiddled with by R.D. Silverman on 20200318 at 08:43 Reason: typo 

20200318, 10:09  #17 
Romulan Interpreter
Jun 2011
Thailand
5·23·73 Posts 
You are a bit too harsh.
The book has a merit, tho: It is written in a very big font, so, skipping the long contents in the beginning, and of course skipping the tables (who is going to read all those numbers?) you can read the 74 pages, very fast and get rid of it Better than 74 pages written in small font and with no tables, nor contents. Last fiddled with by LaurV on 20200318 at 10:16 
20200318, 13:19  #18  
Feb 2017
Nowhere
101111100110_{2} Posts 
Quote:
Even though I picked up the pace as I went through, and even though I'd had a good night's sleep and was fully caffeinated, by the time I got to the end I felt myself starting to nod off. This might be a cure for insomnia! 

20200318, 21:41  #19 
Bamboozled!
May 2003
Down not across
3×17×193 Posts 
Is it available on Amazon?
I ask because all the supermarkets have run out of regular toilet paper. 
20200318, 22:18  #20 
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
2^{2}×29×67 Posts 

20200319, 08:51  #21  
Bamboozled!
May 2003
Down not across
3×17×193 Posts 
Quote:
48 SHEETS OF TOILET PAPER FREE WITH THIS ISSUE. 

20200319, 22:14  #22 
Mar 2016
11110101_{2} Posts 
@sm
You are not able to see the beauty of the described algorithms, nor you could appreciate a piece of mathematic, which may be not quite perfect. Do all famous mathematicians get grumpy at a certain level ? What does a mathematician do, if he is not pleased anymore by the math ? 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
QS polynomials  Till  Factoring  5  20180212 16:30 
the multiplicativ structur of the discriminant for quadratic polynomials  bhelmes  Computer Science & Computational Number Theory  3  20170527 01:33 
SNFS polynomials.  chris2be8  FactorDB  1  20120310 16:49 
SNFS polynomials for k*b^n+1  mdettweiler  Factoring  15  20100114 21:13 
Polynomials and Probability  Orgasmic Troll  Puzzles  4  20030916 16:23 