 |
Post AT0tSN5erBlvItAypM by [email protected] |
 |
More posts by [email protected] |
|
Post #AT0lv4wMcLgLmG0T1E by [email protected] |
|
0 likes, 0 repeats |
|
|
|
Wilson's theorem isn't a practical test for primality, but I've nee… |
|
|
|
Post #AT0m3unRhYA0vI35CS by [email protected] |
|
0 likes, 0 repeats |
|
|
|
@johncarlosbaez #ProofInAToot |
|
|
|
Post #AT0oPHldgv5A9hWPCa by [email protected] |
|
0 likes, 0 repeats |
|
|
|
@johncarlosbaez Testing for primality thus takes n multiplications. How fast ar… |
|
|
|
Post #AT0oPHqbOT3IP5qMwC by [email protected] |
|
0 likes, 0 repeats |
|
|
|
@turion - according to Wikipedia the fastest known primality tests take a tiny … |
|
|
|
Post #AT0pPZa9YYcxMRqlTk by [email protected] |
|
0 likes, 0 repeats |
|
|
|
@johncarlosbaez Nice! Quickest way I can think of to go the other way: if n isn… |
|
|
|
Post #AT0tSN0h9dnn3Ur15k by [email protected] |
|
0 likes, 0 repeats |
|
|
|
@johncarlosbaez "This theorem was stated by Ibn al-Haytham in 1000 AD, so … |
|
|
|
Post #AT0tSN5erBlvItAypM by [email protected] |
|
0 likes, 0 repeats |
|
|
|
@wendel - in math, theorems are often not named after their true discoverer. |
|
|
|
Post #AT0tWmANZAlCEaU6aW by [email protected] |
|
0 likes, 0 repeats |
|
|
|
@sstadnicki - nice and quick! |
|
|
|
Post #AT18AiOEQRYvSlu1T6 by [email protected] |
|
0 likes, 0 repeats |
|
|
|
@johncarlosbaez That I can understand, but that sentence reads like it's a … |
|
|
|
Post #AT18SsUtaJwU1VgFBQ by [email protected] |
|
0 likes, 0 repeats |
|
|
|
@wendel - "That I can understand, but that sentence reads like it's a … |
|
|
|
Post #AT18gEKDjzO1UB3PV2 by [email protected] |
|
0 likes, 0 repeats |
|
|
|
Note that this proof even works for the prime 2, though -1 and 1 are the same i… |
|
|
|
Post #AT19sI4jitUEXv7stU by [email protected] |
|
0 likes, 0 repeats |
|
|
|
@johncarlosbaez Though then the proof that only 1 and -1 are there only inverse… |
|
|
|
Post #AT19sI8zT4tCl77HWa by [email protected] |
|
0 likes, 0 repeats |
|
|
|
@irving - the proof is the same. I never really claimed that 1≠−1, though … |
|
|
|
Post #AT1FejJKGWfsgZrpSa by [email protected] |
|
0 likes, 0 repeats |
|
|
|
@johncarlosbaez “Only 1 and -1 are their own inverses in ℤ/p, since x² = 1… |
|
|
|
Post #AT1FenAxtYMafnzCz2 by [email protected] |
|
0 likes, 0 repeats |
|
|
|
@irving @johncarlosbaez actually it kind of does since the real argument is tha… |
|
|
|
Post #AT1FenGdYStsxOdjpA by [email protected] |
|
0 likes, 0 repeats |
|
|
|
Okay, you're right, @irving. Roger Crew's explanation is better. It&… |
