Talk:Fermat pseudoprime
Rasta, I would really appreciate it if you didn't cause me more work than necessary. Do I really have to justify every edit on Talk so that you don't revert it? Ok, here we go:
This table
Fermat's little theorem gives us for the first numbers:
| n | an-1-1 | an-1 mod n |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 3 | 3 | 0 |
| 4 | 7 | 3 |
| 5 | 15 | 0 |
| 6 | 31 | 1 |
| 7 | 63 | 0 |
| 8 | 127 | 7 |
| 9 | 255 | 3 |
| 10 | 511 | 1 |
| 11 | 1023 | 0 |
| 12 | 2047 | 7 |
| 13 | 4095 | 0 |
| 14 | 8191 | 1 |
| 15 | 16383 | 3 |
| 16 | 32767 | 15 |
| 17 | 65535 | 0 |
| 18 | 131071 | 13 |
| 19 | 262143 | 0 |
| 20 | 524287 | 7 |
| 21 | 1048575 | 3 |
| 22 | 2097151 | 1 |
| 23 | 4194303 | 0 |
| 24 | 8388607 | 7 |
| 25 | 16777215 | 15 |
| 26 | 33554431 | 1 |
| 27 | 67108863 | 12 |
| 28 | 134217727 | 7 |
| 29 | 268435455 | 0 |
| 30 | 536870911 | 1 |
| 31 | 1073741823 | 0 |
| 32 | 2147483647 | 31 |
| 33 | 4294967295 | 3 |
is completely unintelligible. You don't say what a is; apparently you use a = 2. Furthermore, Fermat's little theorem says that the third column should always be 1, so obviously it wasn't used, contrary to the claim.
I removed the | symbol for division because the rest of the article uses "divides".
I removed the Moebius function values since they don't provide any insight here. What point to you want to prove by including them. Sure it is an arithmetical function, but there are dozens of other arithmetical functions, why didn't you add information about σ(n) and φ(n)? It is pointless; there is no connection that needs to be mentioned. Furthermore, anyone interested in the moebius function can easily find the value, since all they have to do is to count the prime factors, which are already given in the table. In the final paragraph, formulating the (false) conjecture in terms of prime factors makes it much easier to read to the non-specialist.
I removed the link to the super-Poulet integer sequence entry because it belongs on the article about super-Poulet numbers, not here.
I also removed "We do not calculate numbers 2n-1. " because I have no idea what it means. AxelBoldt 16:04 Sep 25, 2002 (UTC)
- (1) I really do not want to cause anyone more work than necessary. But I can't help if someone try to suit every single article to his own fashion. You just throw out everything that does not fit to your personal view. Try to edit articles more for the reader and not for yourself. What is wrong if one sentence is not quite adequate and explicit. On the other hand I am doing my best to compose one article from the scratch and then you come and you 'ruin' almost my whole work. Who is doing fruitless work here? You're obviously to deep in the math and you can't see out anymore. Try to read one original work from an original mathematician, please. If you would have a chance, you would probably change even Gauss' work. Remember on what he had written about the estimation of the number of primes and such.
- (2) I'll try to fix the table, that bothers you so much. (Just give me some time).
- (3) Don't call me Rasta if you're not shure what that means or if you think I am that, if I bear similar cyber nickname, and so on :)
- (4) The symbol |. Sometimes you like and sometimes you don't. For instance it is more clear if we write, once we have agreed what | means, 3 | 9, than 3 divides 9. You have once said that any symbol in fact does not have much sence in math so here we go...
- (5) What is wrong with Möbius function here or elsewhere. When I make a table, it is clear after that what values are, but try to 'calculate' its values from your mind. I gave the function to depict further on the whole subject. It is pointless; there is no connection that needs to be mentioned. That is you opinion, I guess. Everything is important in math, specially in a number theory. If I wouldn't use Möbius function I wouln't be able to find those two numbers 648 and 700. I guess here μ(n) is 'more' important than other arithmetic functions. That's my opinion. Furthermore, anyone interested in the moebius function can easily find the value, since all they have to do is to count the prime factors, which are already given in the table. Yes, that is true. But many readers do not know at first what μ(n) means and shows. Simply as that.
- (6) I am not your student out there somewhere so we have to work for this project. You correct me and I correct you if and only if I can. I am pretty tired of writting articles which envolve math, but I like math very much. And because you know something from the math, you can give your knowledge to others and not just fixing things all around as it is going for one math test. My teachers are mathematicians themselves. Only you change these articles so much, no one else. So I can't figure that they do not understand what is written in them. Egziabeher. --XJamRastafire 17:20 Sep 25, 2002 (UTC)