Talk:AKS test for primes: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→Lower Limit: Yea, 1!) |
(→Lower Limit: so it is an edge case) |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
:If you can "sweep it under the carpet" then why not? It is a small part of the task. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 19:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC) |
:If you can "sweep it under the carpet" then why not? It is a small part of the task. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 19:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC) |
||
: It would't be the first time a primality test has had some weird edge cases. (What about negative numbers? They'd need infinite polynomial expansions…) –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] ([[User talk:Dkf|talk]]) 21:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:55, 7 February 2014
Combinations
There is a link between the coefficients of the expansion of and nCr. --Paddy3118 (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Lower Limit
Again... 1 appears as an "is it prime, isn't it prime" candidate.
is prime if all the coefficients of the polynomial expansion of: are divisible by . All the coefficients is the empty set. 1 is divisible by absolutely everything in the empty set. Is there a better wording out there? (That doesn't include the phrases "any number not 1" or "any number > 1") Tim-brown
It could also be worded that there isn't any number in the empty set that is divisible by . I think 1 should simply be ignored Denommus
- If you can "sweep it under the carpet" then why not? It is a small part of the task. --Paddy3118 (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- It would't be the first time a primality test has had some weird edge cases. (What about negative numbers? They'd need infinite polynomial expansions…) –Donal Fellows (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)