20051115, 19:25  #1 
Sep 2005
1111111_{2} Posts 
Fermat's Fuzzy Theorem  any good for new prime test?
Hi all,
This is a genuine question  I'm hoping someone will be able to enlighten me, especially if it's ground that's been covered before  I don't know the answer... IF this test works at all/can be made to work at all, then it _would_ be valuable as it would potentially allow reuse of exponents. Anyway, I've noticed [from experiment inspired by one of my previous discoveries :)] the following: "Fermat's Fuzzy Theorem" a^p often == a [mod 2^n] The primality test would therefore be like a PRP test, only mod 2^n, rather than mod p. Looking forward to your comments... Thanks, J 
20051115, 20:53  #2  
Bamboozled!
"๐บ๐๐ท๐ท๐ญ"
May 2003
Down not across
25552_{8} Posts 
Quote:
it would be good to hear your views on mathematical truth in the context of nonEuclidean geometry. To remind you: your thesis is that there is but one Mathematical Truth. The three fundamentally different versions of geometry are each internal consistent and each lead to provable theorems. Unfortunately, each lead to theorems which are inconsistent with theorems from either of the others. Which is True and why, and why are the other two not True? When we've heard your contribution to a discussion you left hanging in midair, perhaps people will be more inclined to indulge you with discussion of your latest. Paul 

20051115, 21:26  #3  
Nov 2003
2^{2}·5·373 Posts 
Quote:
Since you do not define the word "often", your question is not mathematics. It is handwaving. Nor do you define or quantify 'n'. Nor do you say or indicate how often it is true for COMPOSITE p. Just trying numbers at random, I note that 7^27 = 7 mod 8 = 7 mod 16. I also suggest that you look up "Hensel's Lemma". Numbers that are a mod 2^n can often be a mod 2^(n+1). In fact, here is some homework for you: Lookup Hensel's lemma and then tell us the conditions under which if x = a mod 2^n then x = a mod 2^(n+1) as well. Try doing some real mathematics. 

20051116, 09:54  #4  
Sep 2005
1111111_{2} Posts 
Quote:
Thanks for your message. Each of the three versions you describe are simply subsets of geometry. They cannot all _simultaneously_ be true, since this _would_ lead to a contradiction in the overarching single Truth that is Geometry. [however there is no problem with having as many subsets as you like, each dependent on differing, incompatible, extra axioms] (Absolute) Truth _never_ contradicts itself (absolutely). HTH, J 

20051116, 09:58  #5  
Sep 2005
127_{10} Posts 
Quote:
Thanks for your message, and yes, I have now done some real math and written a little Java program to test out this suggestion. The upshot is: It doesn't work (reliably/correctly) at all!!! I hereby officially renounce any future attempt to find a _reusable_ prime test  and y'can all hold me to that! :) James 

20051116, 10:04  #6  
Bamboozled!
"๐บ๐๐ท๐ท๐ญ"
May 2003
Down not across
2·5,557 Posts 
Quote:


20051116, 11:42  #7  
Jul 2005
2·193 Posts 
There is some irony here:
Quote:


20051116, 12:52  #8  
Nov 2003
1110100100100_{2} Posts 
Quote:
of the word often, I state EXACTLY what quantifies the use of the word. 

20051116, 13:03  #9 
Jul 2005
2·193 Posts 
Come on, why let facts get in the way of a little humo[u]r?

20051116, 13:19  #10  
Nov 2003
1110100100100_{2} Posts 
Quote:
or tone of voice, I tend to simply take what is written quite literally..... I thought I was being chided for, shall we say, "stowing thrones in grass houses". 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Modified Fermat's theorem  devarajkandadai  Number Theory Discussion Group  2  20170623 04:39 
Fermat's Last Theorem Essay  henryzz  Homework Help  2  20110215 07:39 
Modified fermat's last theorem  Citrix  Math  24  20070517 21:08 
Fermat's Theorem  Crook  Math  5  20050505 17:18 
Fermat,s Theorem  devarajkandadai  Miscellaneous Math  3  20040605 10:15 