Talk:Factors of a Mersenne number: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(New page: == Algorithm incorrect? == In testing some other Mersenne numbers, I get false negatives from the Python program. Both M<sub>59</sub> and M<sub>6007</sub> are not prime and should yield a...) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Algorithm incorrect? == |
== Algorithm incorrect? == |
||
In testing some other Mersenne numbers, I get false negatives from the Python program. Both M<sub>59</sub> and M<sub>6007</sub> are not prime and should yield a factor, right? If this is expected, maybe some more clarification is needed in the description. --[[User:IanOsgood|IanOsgood]] 19:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC) |
In testing some other Mersenne numbers, I get false negatives from the Python program. Both M<sub>59</sub> and M<sub>6007</sub> are not prime and should yield a factor, right? If this is expected, maybe some more clarification is needed in the description. --[[User:IanOsgood|IanOsgood]] 19:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
:I think the arbitrary limit of (16384 / p) is too small for those cases. I found a factor for M<sub>59</sub> by increasing the limit. But I don't know how to determine what is a good limit to use. In the worst case we can just use sqrt(M<sub>p</sub>) as the limit I guess. That will make testing the actual prime cases take really long. --[[User:Spoon!|Spoon!]] 19:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 19:59, 16 January 2009
Algorithm incorrect?
In testing some other Mersenne numbers, I get false negatives from the Python program. Both M59 and M6007 are not prime and should yield a factor, right? If this is expected, maybe some more clarification is needed in the description. --IanOsgood 19:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think the arbitrary limit of (16384 / p) is too small for those cases. I found a factor for M59 by increasing the limit. But I don't know how to determine what is a good limit to use. In the worst case we can just use sqrt(Mp) as the limit I guess. That will make testing the actual prime cases take really long. --Spoon! 19:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)