See this proof:
http://cr.yp.to/talks/2003.03.23/slides.pdf
Anyone else has a better solution?
I tried Wilson's Theorem, but it's still too lengthy and full of arithmetic calculation.
I tried Miller-Rabin Test, but to prove \(41\) is another prime is another daunting task.
I tried Pocklington primality test, but there's still plenty of calculations to work on.
Help!
Note by
Pi Han Goh
3 years, 11 months ago
No vote yet
1 vote
Easy Math Editor
*italics*or_italics_**bold**or__bold__paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)> This is a quote# I indented these lines # 4 spaces, and now they show # up as a code block. print "hello world"2 \times 32^{34}a_{i-1}\frac{2}{3}\sqrt{2}\sum_{i=1}^3\sin \theta\boxed{123}Comments
Sort by:
Top NewestI may seem a bit dumb here, but isn't a prime number a number which isn't divisible by any numbers but \(1\) and itself?
Log in to reply
Sieve of Eratosthenes is the fastest way, but not the elegant way I think.
Log in to reply
I don't suppose you want a Computer Code , do you sis ?
Log in to reply
83 is a prime number because it is not divisible by 2, 3, 5, 7 and is less than 10^2. That takes just 5 operations to show.
Why are you looking for something else?
Log in to reply
It might be unrelated , but do you know of Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead who wrote a 360 page proof for proving something as obvious as \(1+1=2\) ?
Log in to reply
I've heard of that one. Do you have a link to it?
Anyhow, which part of my proof is not valid?
Log in to reply
I don't have the link to the proof , but here's the link to the article which I read just over a week ago .
There's nothing wrong in your proof , since we just have to check that there's no number less than 83 that's a factor of 83.
But I think @Pi Han Goh wants to prove that 83 is prime using some other proof , I guess so .
Log in to reply
I think that maybe he wanted a proof based on mathematical logic for the primality of \(83\) and not a computational one (albeit computational methods are the most efficient for small values). Maybe he's considering a general solution to test the primality of a number \(n\) in the most efficient and logical way possible that does not rely on heavy computations. Maybe he considered \(n=83\) to get the ball rolling.
I think I used too many "maybe"s in a single comment. :P
Log in to reply
I think it should be a "she" instead of "he" .
Log in to reply
What the *$#@?? @Pi Han Goh is female? :o
Log in to reply
MAIL
Log in to reply
But your comment sounds \(\large LAIM\). :3
Log in to reply
I think you like to irritate people, don't you ? No offence, really :)
Log in to reply
Well, doesn't my profile pic already answer that question?
Log in to reply
Yeah, should have guessed so :)
Log in to reply
:P
Log in to reply
"Mail" ????
Log in to reply
Maybe....
Log in to reply
\(\ddot\smile\)
Log in to reply
You look like a dude though. :P
Log in to reply
Why mot try AKS?
Log in to reply
Sorry, but what is "AKS" ?
Log in to reply
The best primality test on this planet and two others
Log in to reply
Thanks dude, I didn't know about it :)
Log in to reply
If I remember correctly, that is a deterministic algorithm that requires you to check for as many values of \(a\) as possible [because there are infinitely many numbers coprime to a given prime] to ensure that the number taken is prime and we also have to keep \(x\) as a free variable, so the computation requires extensive use of binomial theorem when larger numbers are to be tested.
How do you expect someone to expand a binomial to the power \(83\) quickly? Ain't nobody got time for that! :3
Image
A formal mathematical proof is completely different from a computational (computer-assisted) one. Your approach works if someone were to check the primality using a computer program but that doesn't work in pure mathematics. Atleast, that's what I think!
Log in to reply
There is no reason to not accept a computer assisted proof as formal/pure. After all, the computer algorithms are proven to be mathematically working.
Why'd you expect to run the algorithm by hand?
Log in to reply
But it doesn't guarantee the primality. You can be extra sure by testing for several coprime values but you can never formally state that the number is prime without a rigorous proof. And no matter how much you say, a computer has its limits too.
Take the \(3n+1\) conjecture as an example. Many people have proved the validity of the conjecture for extremely high values of \(n\) but it is still an open unsolved problem in mathematics awaiting for a rigorous proof.
Log in to reply
Excuse me!! The AKS test is deterministic, it definitely guarantees primality and has been rigorously proven. You have misunderstood the algorithm.
(I do not claim that I know the algorithm fully but there are definitely \( \phi (n) \) such integers less than n and just using the integers less than n suffices to work because you are working in Z/nZ)
I did not claim that the Collatz Conjecture has been proven at all. The purpose of running through high numbers was to check for a counterexample, not prove it.
Computers can be and has been used to create rigorous proofs. Unfortunately, at least 80% of all people outside proffessional mathematics think otherwise.
Log in to reply
No need to get offended. I was merely expressing my opinion.
Log in to reply
\(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}=\{[0],[1],[2,],\ldots,[n-1]\}\)
where, \([k]\) is an equivalence class in the subgroup \(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}\), i.e., the elements of the class give a residue of \(k\) modulo \(n\).
So, the elements that are considered in the subgroup are not limited to the totatives of \(n\). Now, I haven't yet read the full proof of AKS nor do I understand it properly yet but I'd like to ask if your claim is that the test works for the whole equivalence class just by testing for the smallest non-negative element of that class?
On second thoughts, maybe it does work since we are working with a congruence relation after all.
P.S - My arguments may sound stupid sometimes, don't get offended by that. We aren't fighting over here. We're just expressing our opinions and having a friendly discussion. :)
Log in to reply
It's alright and I apologise for getting excited too.
Log in to reply
Interesting observation, I totally forgot about AKS. I was considering Lucas Primality Test too, but then I got stumped when I have yet to prove that \(41\) is another prime, but even if I had proven that \(41\) is prime, finding a value of \(1<a<83\) such that \(a^{82} \equiv 1 \pmod {83} \) and \( a^{ 82/q} \not\equiv 1 \pmod {83} \) will be another painful task. But still not as tough as Sieve of Eratosthenes. Thank you!
Log in to reply
I think the simplest thing to do here is trial division because of the small input.
Log in to reply
Yes, I'm looking for something else, \(5\) operations is getting a little tedious, don't you think?
Log in to reply
I saw a video of terance tao on prime numbers . He provided a contradictory proof that there are infinety many primes. The same proof can be applied here too.
Taking 82 decomposing as 41 . 2 and then adding one will provide us with a number which can't be divisible by any other number other than 1 and itself
Log in to reply
I think you have misunderstood Euclid's argument
Multiplying two prime numbers and adding one does not guarantee a prime. Consider \( 2 \times 7 + 1 \)
Log in to reply
Thanks
Log in to reply
Do you know the correct version lf the argument?
Log in to reply
Nope , I made it incorrect .
Log in to reply
Yes now too I am not understanding it.
Log in to reply
Which part are you not able to comprehend >
Log in to reply
What about Fermat's little theorem?
Log in to reply