Primenumbers

[Lillen]

I have no clue what you just said... but ok!

 

[Delphiki]

As a sidenote - Those people hatching ideas has been exposed to their leaven. Remeber delusions does not necessary need to be a lie, with delusions psychiatry means fixated ideas - you get fixated with some ideas. This is caused by pharisees and scribes leaven. As a DEA Agent trained by Uncle Fester, I was exposed to the mentioned leaven, their teachings. I almost blow up the lab in my youth (During the time i still was on drugs, nine years ago) as I almost created nitroglycerin instead of LSD. But illegal drugs and illegal explosives is not the only ideas you can hatch which you become fixated with. There are other ideas as well such as the pentgram and primes mentioned above which can cause paranoia as you see a dobberman pincher drive by your house!

There's no way you can get outside, is there?

 

[Lillen]

Actually like everyone else i need to go to the grocerystore to buy supply for my stomach... So yes I can go outside.

As an unemployed until seventh december i have an excuse to be here. You don't!!

 

[Delphiki]

Perhaps you need to see if you need medicine in addition to groceries is all I'm hinting at. lol

 

[Lillen]

If i were mentally ill i am in some really good company. better company that in yours!!!

 

[Lillen]

What if we define each and every prime to have a roman number, and later devide the roman number and use the answer and translate back the roman number into the latin numerical system. If we use this method we can actually devide primes of the latin numercial system with other values then 1 and itself. The deducation would look like this:

2=I
3=II
5=III
7=IV
11=V
13=VI
... and so on

if we devide VI with II we see that the answer is III. VI/II=III
And we do the defintion the other way around so that III=5

That leads us to the conclution that 13/3=5 using the above deduction and defintion.

 

[Chalnoth]

What if we define each and every prime to have a roman number, and later devide the roman number and use the answer and translate back the roman number into the latin numerical system. If we use this method we can actually devide primes of the latin numercial system with other values then 1 and itself. The deducation would look like this:

2=I
3=II
5=III
7=IV
11=V
13=VI
... and so on

if we devide VI with II we see that the answer is III. VI/II=III
And we do the defintion the other way around so that III=5

That leads us to the conclution that 13/3=5 using the above deduction and defintion.

Well, you can do that. What is the purpose of redefining division, however?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What if we define each and every prime to have a roman number, and later devide the roman number and use the answer and translate back the roman number into the latin numerical system. If we use this method we can actually devide primes of the latin numercial system with other values then 1 and itself. The deducation would look like this:

2=I
3=II
5=III
7=IV
11=V
13=VI
... and so on

if we devide VI with II we see that the answer is III. VI/II=III
And we do the defintion the other way around so that III=5

That leads us to the conclution that 13/3=5 using the above deduction and defintion.

No, it doesn't, as your logic is invalid. Specifically, you're committing the fallacy of equivocation.

You can change the symbols used to denote prime numbers if you want, you can even change them into a confusing mix of Roman numerals, but your crucial error comes when you say "VI / II = III". This statement is only true if you use the standard mathematical definitions for those symbols (VI = 6, etc), but what you do is translate them into your new definitions (where VI = 13, etc).

This translation is fundamentally illogical, as the original statement, "VI / II = III", is no longer true. It's true under standard definitions, but not under your new definitions. You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.

 

[Radagast]

Well, let's take an example.

Let's say we want to test whether or not the number 353 is prime. The square root of 353 is:
18.7882942

So, first of all, we now know that 353 isn't a perfect square.

But is it prime? Well, imagine, for the sake of argument, that there exists a number greater than the square root that is a root of 353, like 19. If this is the case, since 19 is greater than the square root, 353/19 must be less than the square root. So there isn't any need to check the number 19, we can just check the smaller number instead.

So we only need to verify whether or not the numbers 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 17 divide into 353...

And 13.

 

[Radagast]

As for checking for prime numbers, except for a few special cases where you can prove a specific number is prime through other means, you need to verify a prime number by checking whether or not it is divisible by every prime number less than or equal to its square root.

That's the slow, but simple way. There are other, faster, more complex ways.

 

[Paradoxum]

What if we define each and every prime to have a roman number, and later devide the roman number and use the answer and translate back the roman number into the latin numerical system. If we use this method we can actually devide primes of the latin numercial system with other values then 1 and itself. The deducation would look like this:

2=I
3=II
5=III
7=IV
11=V
13=VI
... and so on

if we devide VI with II we see that the answer is III. VI/II=III
And we do the defintion the other way around so that III=5

That leads us to the conclution that 13/3=5 using the above deduction and defintion.

Your last post on this was a year and a half ago. Why are you still talking about prime numbers and why do you care?

Also your equation doesn't work how you want it to. Just because you say 5=3 (III does equal 3) doesn't mean it actually does.

 

[Chalnoth]

That's the slow, but simple way. There are other, faster, more complex ways.

Yeah, I learned about this stuff a few months back. Apparently the most common current method is a probabilistic method where a simple operation always returns either, "Definitely not prime," or "Maybe prime." Prime tests are done so that if enough of the tests return "maybe prime" so that the probability the number is not prime is so absurdly low we don't care any longer (e.g. smaller than the probability that a cosmic ray will screw up the calculation in progress), then the number is assumed to be prime.

 

[Radagast]

Yeah, I learned about this stuff a few months back. Apparently the most common current method is a probabilistic method where a simple operation always returns either, "Definitely not prime," or "Maybe prime." Prime tests are done so that if enough of the tests return "maybe prime" so that the probability the number is not prime is so absurdly low we don't care any longer (e.g. smaller than the probability that a cosmic ray will screw up the calculation in progress), then the number is assumed to be prime.

Yes. More recently there's also been progress on deterministic methods too.

 

[Elendur]

Yes. More recently there's also been progress on deterministic methods too.

So cool!

 

[Chalnoth]

Yes. More recently there's also been progress on deterministic methods too.

True, but it looks like they're still over a million times slower than the probabilistic methods for 1024-bit primes.

 

[Radagast]

True, but it looks like they're still over a million times slower than the probabilistic methods for 1024-bit primes.

Indeed, but they're clearly possible in principle. Now it's just a question of getting smarter about it.

 

[Chalnoth]

Indeed, but they're clearly possible in principle. Now it's just a question of getting smarter about it.

Perhaps. But as a practical matter the probabilistic methods are good enough, as we have methods of detecting and rejecting the numbers which always return "maybe prime" despite not being prime themselves. I would tend to expect that we'll see quantum computers remove the utility of this sort of encryption before deterministic methods become fast enough.

 

[Radagast]

Perhaps. But as a practical matter the probabilistic methods are good enough...

You're right, but the mathematician in me rebels at not getting the right answer, and a little voice whispers: "99.9999999% just isn't good enough."

 

[Chalnoth]

You're right, but the mathematician in me rebels at not getting the right answer, and a little voice whispers: "99.9999999% just isn't good enough."

Yes, well, I do expect that mathematicians will continue to work on this issue for a long time to come. I'm just not expecting it to be useful when it's easy enough to run a prime number generation algorithm to the point where the probability that your "prime" number isn't prime is, say, one in 10^100 or so.

 

[Lillen]

I didn't want to create a new thread so i look up an old one...

I just redefine the primes into the roman numerical system. i could say "1st prime, 2nd prime, 3th prime.." and go from there.

I first hatched the idea in the numercal system i created defining each and every number as a prime. But since the computer can't handle my numbers I altered it to roman numbers...