You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
I’ve got two ideas which if proven wrong will hopefully be a learning experience.
The first is a different way to do the Fermat Primality test.
And the second is that 2p^2 + 1 if it passes the Fermat Primality test and is not factorable by 3 will be prime.
Anyone interested? (I don’t know anything about Maths really, apart from GCSE and A-levels and my own research)
"Time not important. Only life important." - The Fifth Element 1997
Offline
The second proposition can be proven or disproven as follows:
If we assume that p is a prime number then we would have:
Offline
Thanks a lot Grantingriver! I think I understood all that you said. That’s great stuff.
I’ve actually posted on another forum where the idea’s been changed to:
If an integer, 2p + 1, where p is a prime number, is a divisor of the Mersenne number , then 2p + 1 is a prime number.
My argument is that because divisors of the Mersenne number
can’t be < p if p is a prime number. Therefore if 2p +1 is a divisor of it has no divisors as p is > the square root of 2p + 1. This will therefore make 2p + 1 a prime number.What I’m also interested in is how to put the idea that:
An integer minus one, divided by 2, p times equals zero, will be a factor of .
You may add the integer as necessary if minus one, divided by 2 results in an even number.
"Time not important. Only life important." - The Fifth Element 1997
Offline
Pages: 1