Please double-check me (easy, important?)

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter CRGreathouse
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Important
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the identification of strong pseudoprimes for the number N = 252,505,670,761 across various bases. Participants are verifying calculations related to number theory, specifically focusing on the properties of pseudoprimes.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses uncertainty about their calculations regarding whether N = 252,505,670,761 is a strong pseudoprime for specific bases.
  • Another participant asserts that N appears to be a strong pseudoprime for the bases 2, 3, 5, and 4086253, but not for 7.
  • A later reply confirms the previous results and suggests that the claim made by Jaeschke regarding the pseudoprime status is incorrect.
  • One participant expresses agreement with the results presented, indicating a consensus on the bases where N is a strong pseudoprime.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

While there is agreement on the bases 2, 3, 5, and 4086253, there is a lack of consensus regarding the implications of Jaeschke's claim, and the status of base 7 remains contested.

Contextual Notes

Participants do not clarify the assumptions or definitions used in determining the pseudoprime status, and there are unresolved aspects regarding the implications of Jaeschke's claim.

CRGreathouse
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
2,832
Reaction score
0
Please double-check me! (checked)

I'm not entirely sure of my math here, but this should be a simple calculation. I want to make sure I'm right, though, so I'm posting here.

To which of the following bases is N = 252,505,670,761 a strong pseudoprime? {2, 3, 5, 7, 4086253}
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
It appears to be a strong pseudoprime to the bases 2, 3, 5, and 4086253 but not 7.
 
shmoe said:
It appears to be a strong pseudoprime to the bases 2, 3, 5, and 4086253 but not 7.

Excellent, those were my results. (The 7 was just a double-check and doesn't matter as the others do.) This shows, minimally, that Jaeschke's claim [tex]\chi_{(2, 3, 5, 4086253)}=736775510329[/tex] is wrong.
http://math.crg4.com/primes.html
 
Yup Yup Yup
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K