Timeline for Are there open problems for primes which are known for probable primes?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 3, 2015 at 9:37 | comment | added | joro | Your answer isn't rocket science, but for me this is positive result, which might be counterexample to the other answer. | |
| Sep 3, 2015 at 7:57 | comment | added | S. Carnahan♦ | @TerryTao I had been a bit hesitant to post this answer because it seemed rather trivial, but your observation makes it look much more interesting. | |
| Sep 3, 2015 at 5:18 | comment | added | joro | @TerryTao Actually there is conjecture that starting from $2$ your map is genuine prime: primes.utm.edu/mersenne see "Let C0 = 2, then let C1 = 2^C0-1, C2 = 2^C1-1...Are these all prime?" | |
| Sep 2, 2015 at 21:59 | comment | added | Terry Tao | One consequence of this is that one can rapidly and deterministically generate arbitrarily large (albeit quite sparse) probable primes via iterating the map $p \mapsto 2^{p-1}$. This is in contrast to genuine primes, for which a fast deterministic algorithm to generate large primes is still not known, see michaelnielsen.org/polymath1/index.php?title=Finding_primes | |
| Sep 2, 2015 at 5:48 | comment | added | joro | Indeed :-) Probably more complicated proof for p prime is from the factorization of $2^p-1$. | |
| Sep 2, 2015 at 2:28 | history | answered | S. Carnahan♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |