Timeline for What is wrong with this counterexample to primality test assuming GRH?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 28, 2015 at 7:50 | vote | accept | joro | ||
| Sep 22, 2015 at 11:07 | comment | added | joro | GH, about the false reference I meant in general, not in this case. Hypothetically it is possible Granville cited erroneous source, but I doubt this is the case here. | |
| Sep 22, 2015 at 10:56 | comment | added | GH from MO | @joro: I told an opinion. Of course, it is possible that Granville cited an erroneous source, but given that Granville was who proved that there are infinitely many Carmichael numbers, I find this rather unlikely. It is much more likely that he was writing his notes quickly and made a silly mistake. | |
| Sep 22, 2015 at 10:19 | comment | added | joro | Though your claim "there is no citable reference for a false claim" is quite controversial. | |
| Sep 22, 2015 at 10:16 | comment | added | joro | GH, your revision as of now appears sound answer to me (the initial revision had nothing to do with the question IMHO). Thanks. | |
| Sep 21, 2015 at 21:58 | history | edited | GH from MO | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
revised the whole answer
|
| Sep 21, 2015 at 20:37 | history | edited | GH from MO | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 306 characters in body
|
| Sep 21, 2015 at 19:29 | history | edited | GH from MO | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 221 characters in body
|
| Sep 21, 2015 at 19:18 | history | edited | GH from MO | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 221 characters in body
|
| Sep 21, 2015 at 17:50 | history | edited | GH from MO | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Sep 21, 2015 at 17:27 | comment | added | GH from MO | @joro: One more thought. Granville's paper is a summary of earlier results (or so it seems), much like a textbook. So going back to an earlier paper or book (like Koblitz) makes perfect sense. | |
| Sep 21, 2015 at 17:25 | comment | added | GH from MO | @joro: See my added section. Also, note that I did not speculate about what a primality test under GRH is. Instead, I gave a valid primality test under GRH which corrects Granville's claim in the parentheses (I am sure Granville had this corrected statement in mind in the first place, feel free to ask him about this). | |
| Sep 21, 2015 at 17:23 | history | edited | GH from MO | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 563 characters in body
|
| Sep 21, 2015 at 17:03 | comment | added | joro | @quid I expect answer to Q1 and/or Q2, not speculations about what primality test under GRH is. | |
| Sep 21, 2015 at 16:47 | comment | added | user9072 | @joro what type of answer do you expect? re Q1: the claim is not correct. re Q2: nothing, as far as I can see. The answer here makes an attempt to write something similar in spirit to the incorrect side-remark; other attempts were made by Voloch. In any case it has no real bearing on the Lenstra algorithm discussed there. In that sense your initial comments make no sense to me. | |
| Sep 21, 2015 at 16:40 | comment | added | joro | @quid my question is not about primality test under GRH, it is something else. Please read again. | |
| Sep 21, 2015 at 16:29 | comment | added | user9072 | @joro yes you quoted it correctly, but the part you quote is not part of the test but a side-remark, that happens to be imprecise. Yet the parenthetical could just be omitted without affecting the rest. | |
| Sep 21, 2015 at 16:27 | comment | added | joro | @quid I believe I quoted the paper correctly, don't know why the paper claims so and asked about this. | |
| Sep 21, 2015 at 16:26 | comment | added | user9072 | @joro at the risk of repeating myself, why do you think that parenthetical statement is part of the test? To me it just complements the preceding explanatory remark that the imposed condition (not the one you quote) is unlikely to hold for non-primes as a slightly stronger one even (allegedly) characterizes primes. I think it is really just a tangential remark that came out imprecise. | |
| Sep 21, 2015 at 16:24 | comment | added | joro | Why should I read 1994 book when the paper according to metadata is from 2006? | |
| Sep 21, 2015 at 16:20 | comment | added | joro | Thanks. But Granville quotes/interprets Lenstra's test, not yours or I am missing something? | |
| Sep 21, 2015 at 16:11 | history | answered | GH from MO | CC BY-SA 3.0 |