20200913, 16:46  #12 
"Roman V. Makarchuk"
Aug 2020
Ukraine
2·17 Posts 

20200913, 16:49  #13 
"Roman V. Makarchuk"
Aug 2020
Ukraine
2·17 Posts 

20200913, 17:05  #14  
Sep 2002
Database er0rr
6655_{8} Posts 
Quote:
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==1R==n1, 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] Besides it makes no sense to use an inequality symbol when working with modular arithmetic. Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 20200913 at 17:19 

20200913, 17:23  #15 
"Roman V. Makarchuk"
Aug 2020
Ukraine
2·17 Posts 
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 20200913 at 17:36 
20200913, 17:29  #16 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr
110110101101_{2} Posts 
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==1R==n1, print([n,u,R]);break(2)))))} [1002001, 1000000, 1002000] Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 20200913 at 17:40 
20200913, 17:39  #17 
"Roman V. Makarchuk"
Aug 2020
Ukraine
2·17 Posts 
make test for u+1 for this case
Thank You for the link! Last fiddled with by RMLabrador on 20200913 at 17:58 
20200915, 07:53  #18 
"Roman V. Makarchuk"
Aug 2020
Ukraine
2·17 Posts 
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~010000 P/S You may ask me about the proof. 
20200915, 09:06  #19  
Sep 2002
Database er0rr
3^{2}·389 Posts 
Quote:
Quote:


20200915, 09:49  #20 
"Roman V. Makarchuk"
Aug 2020
Ukraine
2·17 Posts 
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. 
20200915, 10:39  #21 
Romulan Interpreter
Jun 2011
Thailand
2^{2}·7·11·29 Posts 
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.

20200915, 11:10  #22 
"Roman V. Makarchuk"
Aug 2020
Ukraine
2·17 Posts 
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. 
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  20200211 19:49 
+/ 6 Primality Test  a1call  Miscellaneous Math  29  20181224 01:42 
Modifying the Lucas Lehmer Primality Test into a fast test of nothing  Trilo  Miscellaneous Math  25  20180311 23:20 
there is another way to test the primality of a no  shawn  Miscellaneous Math  5  20070717 17:55 
A primality test for Fermat numbers faster than Pépin's test ?  T.Rex  Math  0  20041026 21:37 