Timeline for Not especially famous, long-open problems which anyone can understand
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 5, 2023 at 7:46 | history | edited | user3840170 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
rename variable to something less confusing
|
| Nov 9, 2022 at 11:27 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
http -> https (the question was bumped anyway)
|
| Dec 27, 2019 at 17:39 | comment | added | feralin | @DeepakMS for an update on the situation: I made a dumb mistake in my "proof", which I caught shortly after. | |
| Oct 24, 2019 at 3:34 | comment | added | Ryan | @feralin Since you mention Fermat's little Theorem it sounds like you proved that the formula works if p is prime. But the main question you would need to answer is whether or not there is a composite number that would also satisfy this formula. | |
| Sep 30, 2019 at 20:09 | comment | added | Reader Manifold | @feralin So please tell me, Did you actually prove it? Did you publish it somewhere? | |
| Mar 18, 2018 at 20:26 | comment | added | Brevan Ellefsen | @feralin arXiv $\text{}$ | |
| Feb 9, 2017 at 0:58 | comment | added | feralin | I think I may have actually solved this problem, unless I've done something terrible in my proof. I didn't even realize this was an open problem; a classmate posed the question to me as a kind of converse to Fermat's Little Theorem, and I spent about an hour to find a proof. Is there someplace I can put my "proof" to see if it is correct? | |
| Jan 3, 2017 at 2:39 | comment | added | Takahiro Waki | P would be at least a carmichael number or fermat pseudoprime. | |
| Jun 21, 2012 at 21:44 | history | answered | Xarles | CC BY-SA 3.0 |