Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or  rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power realtime personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
Search  "primes"

I messaged a professor at MIT and surprisingly got a response back.
He told me that "generating primes deterministically is a solved problem" and he would be very surprised if what I wrote beat wheel factorization, but that he would be interested if it did.
It didnt when he messaged me.
It does now.
Tested on primes up to 26 digits.
Current time tends to be 1100th to 2100th of a second.
Seems to be steady.
First n=1million digits *always* returns false for composites, while for primes the rate is 56% true vs false, and now that I've made it faster, I'm fairly certain I can get it to 100% accuracy.
In fact what I'm thinking I'll do is generate a random semiprime using the suspected prime, map it over to some other factor tree using the variation on modular expotentiation several of us on devrant stumbled on, and then see if it still factors. If it does then we know the number in question is prime. And because we know the factor in question, the semiprime mapping function doesnt require any additional searching or iterations.
The false negative rate, I think goes to zero the larger the prime from what I can see. But it wont be an issue if I'm right about the accuracy being correctable.
I'd like to thank the professor for the challenge. He also shared a bunch of useful links.
That ones a rare bird.22 
Two big moments today:
1. Holy hell, how did I ever get on without a proper debugger? Was debugging some old code by eye (following along and keeping track mentally, of what the variables should be and what each step did). That didn't work because the code isn't intuitive. Tried the print() method, old reliable as it were. Kinda worked but didn't give me enough finegrain control.
Bit the bullet and installed Wing IDE for python. And bam, it hit me. How did I ever live without stepthrough, and breakpoints before now?
2. Remember that nonsieve prime generator I wrote a while back? (well maybe some of you do). The one that generated quasi lucas carmichael (QLC) numbers? Well thats what I managed to debug. I figured out why it wasn't working. Last time I released it, I included two core methods, genprimes() and nextPrime(). The first generates a list of primes accurately, up to some n, and only needs a small handful of QLC numbers filtered out after the fact (because the set of primes generated and the set of QLC numbers overlap. Well I think they call it an embedding, as in QLC is included in the series generated by genprimes, but not the converse, but I digress).
nextPrime() was supposed to take any arbitrary n above zero, and accurately return the nearest prime number above the argument. But for some reason when it started, it would return 2,3,5,6...but genprimes() would work fine for some reason.
So genprimes loops over an index, i, and tests it for primality. It begins by entering the loop, and doing "result = gffi(i)".
This calls into something a function that runs four tests on the argument passed to it. I won't go into detail here about what those are because I don't even remember how I came up with them (I'll make a separate post when the code is fully fixed).
If the number fails any of these tests then gffi would just return the value of i that was passed to it, unaltered. Otherwise, if it did pass all of them, it would return i+1.
And once back in genPrimes() we would check if the variable 'result' was greater than the loop index. And if it was, then it was either prime (comparatively plentiful) or a QLC number (comparatively rare)these two types and no others.
nextPrime() was only taking n, and didn't have this index to compare to, so the prior steps in genprimes were acting as a filter that nextPrime() didn't have, while internally gffi() was returning not only primes, and QLCs, but also plenty of composite numbers.
Now *why* that last step in genPrimes() was filtering out all the composites, idk.
But now that I understand whats going on I can fix it and hypothetically it should be possible to enter a positive n of any size, and without additional primality checks (such as is done with sieves, where you have to check off multiples of n), get the nearest prime numbers. Of course I'm not familiar enough with prime number generation to know if thats an achievement or worthwhile mentioning, so if anyone *is* familiar, and how something like that holds up compared to other linear generators (O(n)?), I'd be interested to hear about it.
I also am working on filtering out the intersection of the sets (QLC numbers), which I'm pretty sure I figured out how to incorporate into the prime generator itself.
I also think it may be possible to generator primes even faster, using the carmichael numbers or related setor even derive a function that maps one set of upperandlower bounds around a semiprime, and map those same bounds to carmichael numbers that act as the upper and lower bound numbers on the factors of a semiprime.
Meanwhile I'm also looking into testing the prime generator on a larger set of numbers (to make sure it doesn't fail at large values of n) and so I'm looking for more computing power if anyone has it on hand, or is willing to test it at sufficiently large bit lengths (512, 1024, etc).
Lastly, the earlier work I posted (linked below), I realized could be applied with ECM to greatly reduce the smallest factor of a large number.
If ECM, being one of the best methods available, only handles 5060 digit numbers, & your factors are 70+ digits, then being able to transform your semiprime product into another product tree thats nonsemiprime, with factors that ARE in range of ECM, and which *does* contain either of the original factors, means products that *were not* formally factorable by ECM, *could* be now.
That wouldn't have been possible though withput enormous help from many others such as hitko who took the time to explain the solution was a form of modular exponentiation, FastNop who contributed on other threads, Voxera who did as well, and support from Scor in particular, and many others.
Thank you all. And more to come.
Links mentioned (because DR wouldn't accept them as they were):
https://pastebin.com/MWechZj912 
Still on the primenumbers bender.
Had this idea that if there were subtle correlations between a sufficiently large set of identities and the digits of a prime number, the best way to find it would be to automate the search.
And thats just what I did.
I started with trace matrices.
I actually didn't expect much of it. I was hoping I'd at least get lucky with a few chance coincidences.
My first tests failed miserably. Eight percent here, 10% there. "I might as well just pick a number out of a hat!" I thought.
I scaled it way back and asked if it was possible to predict *just* the first digit of either of the prime factors.
That also failed. Prediction rates were low still. Like 0.080.15.
So I automated *that*.
After a couple days of onandoff again semiautomated searching I stumbled on it.
[1144, 827, 326, 1184, 1, 1, 1, 1]
That little sequence is a series of identities representing different values derived from a randomly generated product.
Each slots into a trace matrice. The results of which predict the first digit of one of our factors, with a 83.2% accuracy even after 10k runs, and rising higher with the number of trials.
It's not much, but I was kind of proud of it.
I'm pushing for finding 90%+ now.
Some improvements include using a different sort of operation to generate results. Or logging all results and finding the digit within each result thats *most* likely to predict our targets, across all results. (right now I just take the digit in the ones column, which works but is an arbitrary decision on my part).
Theres also the fact that it's trivial to correctly guess the digit 25% of the time, simply by guessing 1, 3, 7, or 9, because all primes, except for 2, end in one of these four.
I have also yet to find a trace with a specific bias for predicting either the smaller of two unique factors *or* the larger. But I haven't really looked for one either.
I still need to write a generate that takes specific traces, and lets me mutate some of the values, to push them towards certain 'fitness' levels.
This would be useful not just for very high predictions, but to find traces with very *low* predictions.
Why? Because it would actually allow for the *elimination* of possible digits, much like sudoku, from a given place value in a predicted factor.
I don't know if any of this will even end up working past the first digit. But splitting the odds, between the two unique factors of a prime product, and getting 40+% chance of guessing correctly, isn't too bad I think for a total amateur.
Far cry from a couple years ago claiming I broke prime factorization. People still haven't forgiven me for that, lol.6 
Music. Music teaches you numbers, creativity, patterns, structure, and basically primes your brain for math and creativity in that space. In addition, it teaches you how to think both within a structure and outside the box, as well as the importance of repetition, memorization, and learning a new language.
Music really was my second language, and the ability to read/write it fluently is a skill that takes a long time to master. I really believe that it increases your brain plasticity so much.4 
In the 90s most people had touched grass, but few touched a computer.
In the 2090s most people will have touched a computer, but not grass.
But at least we'll have fully sentient dildos armed with laser guns to mildly stimulate our mandatory attached cyberclits, or alternatively annihilate thought criminals.
In other news my prime generator has exhaustively been checked against, all primes from 5 to 1 million. I used millerrabin with k=40 to confirm the results.
The set the generator creates is the join of the quasilucas carmichael numbers, the carmichael numbers, and the primes. So after I generated a number I just had to treat those numbers as 'pollutants' and filter them out, which was dead simple.
Whats left after filtering, is strictly the primes.
I also tested it randomly on 5055 bit primes, and it always returned true, but that range hasn't been fully tested so far because it takes 912 seconds per number at that point.
I was expecting maybe a few failures by my generator. So what I did was I wrote a function, genMillerTest(), and all it does is take some number n, returns the next prime after it (using my functions nextPrime() and isPrime()), and then tests it against millerrabin. If miller returns false, then I add the result to a list. And then I check *those* results by hand (because miller can occasionally return false positives, though I'm not familiar enough with the math to know how often).
Well, imagine my surprise when I had zero false positives.
Which means either my code is generating the same exact set as miller (under some very large value of n), or the chance of miller (at k=40 tests) returning a false positive is vanishingly small.
My next steps should be to parallelize the checking process, and set up my other desktop to run those tests continuously.
Concurrently I should work on figuring out why my slowest primality tests (theres six of them, though I think I can eliminate two) are so slow and if I can better estimate or derive a pattern that allows faster results by better initialization of the variables used by these tests.
I already wrote some cases to output which tests most frequently succeeded (if any of them pass, then the number isn't prime), and therefore could cut short the primality test of a number. I rewrote the function to put those tests in order from most likely to least likely.
I'm also thinking that there may be some clues for faster computation in other bases, or perhaps in binary, or inspecting the patterns of values in the natural logs of nonprimes versus primes. Or even looking into the *execution* time of numbers that successfully pass as prime versus ones that don't. Theres a bevy of possible approaches.
The entire process for the first 1_000_000 numbers, ran 1621.28 seconds, or just shy of a tenth of a second per test but I'm sure thats biased toward the head of the list.
If theres any other approach or ideas I may be overlooking, I wouldn't know where to begin.16 
Maybe I'm severely misunderstanding set theory. Hear me out though.
Let f equal the set of all fibonacci numbers, and p equal the set of all primes.
If the density of primes is a function of the number of *multiples* of all primes under n,
then the *number of primes* or density should shrink as n increases, at an ever increasing rate
greater than the density of the number of fibonacci numbers below n.
That means as n grows, the relative density of f to p should grow as well.
At sufficiently large n, the density of p is zero (prime number theorem), not just absolutely, but relative to f as well. The density of f is therefore an upper limit of the density of p.
And the density of p given some sufficiently large n, is therefore also a lower limit on the density of f.
And that therefore the density of p must also be the upper limit on the density of the subset of primes that are Fibonacci numbers.
WHICH MEANS at sufficiently large values of n, there are either NO Fibonacci primes (the functions diverge), and therefore the set of Fibonacci primes is *finite*, OR the density of primes given n in the prime number theorem
*never* truly reaches zero, meaning the primes are in fact infinite.
Proving the Fibonacci primes are infinite, therefore would prove that the prime number line ends (fat chance). While proving the primes are infinite, proves the Fibonacci primes are finite in quantity.
And because the number of primes has been proven time and again to be infinite, as far back as 300BC,the Fibonacci primes MUST be finite.
QED.
If I've made a mistake, I'd like to know.10 
accurately estimates number of primes under k
from k=29, to k=232 (within +/ 1..2)
ceil(k((phi/(1/((log(phi**(k6), phi))/1))))/2)
Played with an alife I made.
And built a system to explore long chains of polynomials where the exponents were prime.
You can look at it if you like here:
https://pastebin.com/3trWAU7v
Don't blame me if your console explodes though!11 
Up all damn night making the script work.
Wrote a nonsieve prime generator.
Thing kept outputting one or two numbers that weren't prime, related to something called carmichael numbers.
Any case got it to work, god damn was it a slog though.
Generates next and previous primes pretty reliably regardless of the size of the number
(haven't gone over 31 bit because I haven't had a chance to implement decimal for this).
Don't know if the sieve is the only reliable way to do it. This seems to do it without a hitch, and doesn't seem to use a lot of memory. Don't have to constantly return to a lookup table of small factors or their multiple either.
Technically it generates the primes out of the integers, and not the other way around.
Things 0.010.02th of a second per prime up to around the 100 million mark, and then it gets into the 0.151second range per generation.
At around primes of a couple billion, its averaging about 1 second per bit to calculate 1. whether the number is prime or not, 2. what the next or last immediate prime is. Although I'm sure theres some optimization or improvement here.
Seems reliable but obviously I don't have the resources to check it beyond the first 20k primes I confirmed.
From what I can see it didn't drop any primes, and it didn't include any errant nonprimes.
Codes here:
https://pastebin.com/raw/57j3mHsN
Your gotos should be nextPrime(), lastPrime(), isPrime, genPrimes(up to but not including some N), and genNPrimes(), which generates x amount of primes for you.
Speed limit definitely seems to top out at 1 second per bit for a prime once the code is in the billions, but I don't know if thats the ceiling, again, because decimal needs implemented.
I think the core method, in calcY (terrible name, I know) could probably be optimized in some clever way if its given an adjacent prime, and what parameters were used. Theres probably some pattern I'm not seeing, but eh.
I'm also wondering if I can't use those fancy aberrations, 'carmichael numbers' or whatever the hell they are, to calculate some sort of offset, and by doing so, figure out a given primes index.
And all my brain says is "sleep"
But family wants me to hang out, and I have to go talk a manager at home depot into an interview, because wanting to program for a living, and actually getting someone to give you the time of day are two different things.1 
For any product of two nontrivial primes, it is *always* possible to get the quotient of its factors b/a derived solely from the product of those factors, *without* first factoring the product (p).
Fight me.3 
Looking for someone to test a new factorization script I wrote.
https://pastebin.com/Td2XTKe6
Tested against a set of products from all primes under 1000. Worked even on numbers up to 87954921289
Worked for about 66% of the products tested.
Obviously I'm cheating a little bit because I'm checking for four conditions n%a == 0, n%a == 1, n%b == 0, and n%b == 1
It appears it is possible to generate the series from just the product, and then factor each result. The last factor in each each set of factors becomes x, and we do p%x and check for zero.
if it works, we've found our answer.
Kind of wonky but basically what its doing is taking p, tacking on a 0 to the right, and then tacking p to the right of *that*.
So if you had a product like
314
The starting number we look at is
3140314
The middle digit becomes i, and the unit digit becomes j.
Don't know why it works more often then not, and don't know if it would really be any faster.
Just think it's cool.9 
Heres a fairly useless but interesting tidbit:
if i = n
then
r = (abs(((((p)(9**i)9)+1))((((9**i)(p)9)2)))p+1+1)
then r%a will (almost*) always return 0. when n = floor(a/2) for the lowest nontrivial factor of a two factor product.
Thats not really the interesting bit though. The interesting bit is the result of r will always be some product with a *larger* factor tree that includes the factor A of p, but not p's other larger factor, B.
So, useless from what I can see. But its an interesting function on its own, simply because of what it does.
I wrote a script to test it. For all twofactor products of the first 1000 primes, (with no repeating combinations, so if we calculated say, 23*31, we skip 31*23), only 3262 products failed this little formula, out of half a million.
All others reliably returned 0 for the following..
~~~
i = floor(a/2)
r = (abs(((((p)(9**i)9)+1))((((9**i)(p)9)2)))p+1+1)
r%a
~~~
The distribution of failures was *very* early on in the set of factors, and once fixed at the value of 3262, stopped increasing for the rest of the run.
I didn't calculate if some primes were more likely to cause a product to fail or not. Nor the factor trees, nor if the factor trees had any factors in common between products, or anything of that nature.
All in all I count this as a worthwhile experiment.
If you want to run the code yourself, I posted it to pastebin here:
https://pastebin.com/Q4LFKBjB
edit:
Tried wolfram alpha just to see what it says, but apparently not much. Wish it could tell me more.41 
https://i.postimg.cc/4ycRFNZf/...
The factorization shit I'm always ranting about? I decided for once to explain it visually in this handy dandy little infographic.
We're essentially transforming the product from an unsmooth set of potential factors in its factor tree, to a factorization tree that guarantees first that the set of potential factors are all 2, 3, 5, and a or b of p, and second, that all the factors are *smooth integers* of a or b.
This is basically what Adi Shamir was trying to do with TWINKLE and TWIRL, despite checking a hundred thousand+ potential primes.
I did it in four.7 
So I made a couple slight modifications to the formula in the previous post and got some pretty cool results.
The original post is here:
https://devrant.com/rants/5632235/...
The default transformation from p, to the new product (call it p2) leads to *very* large products (even for products of the first 100 primes).
Take for example
a = 6229, b = 10477, p = a*b = 65261233
While the new product the formula generates, has a factor tree that contains our factor (a), the product is huge.
How huge?
6489397687944607231601420206388875594346703505936926682969449167115933666916914363806993605...
and
So huge I put the whole number in a pastebin here:
https://pastebin.com/1bC5kqGH
Now, that number DOES contain our example factor 6229. I demonstrated that in the prior post.
But first, it's huge, 2972 digits long, and second, many of its factors are huge too.
Right from the get go I had hunch, and did (p2 mod p) and the result was surprisingly small, much closer to the original product. Then just to see what happens I subtracted this result from the original product.
The modification looks like this:
(p(((abs(((((p)(9**i)9)+1))((((9**i)(p)9)2)))p+1)p)%p))
The result is '49856916'
Thats within the ballpark of our original product.
And then I factored it.
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 23, 29, 46, 58, 69, 87, 92, 116, 138, 174, 276, 348, 667, 1334, 2001, 2668, 4002, 6229, 8004, 12458, 18687, 24916, 37374, 74748, 143267, 180641, 286534, 361282, 429801, 541923, 573068, 722564, 859602, 1083846, 1719204, 2167692, 4154743, 8309486, 12464229, 16618972, 24928458, 49856916
Well damn. It's not asmooth or bsmooth (where 'smoothness' is defined as 'all factors are beneath some number n')
but this is far more approachable than just factoring the original product.
It still requires a value of i equal to
i = floor(a/2)
But the results are actually factorable now if this works for other products.
I rewrote the script and tested on a couple million products and added decimal support, and I'm happy to report it works.
Script is posted here if you want to test it yourself:
https://pastebin.com/RNu1iiQ8
What I'll do next is probably add some basic factorization of trivial primes
(say the first 100), and then figure out the average number of factors in each derived product.
I'm also still working on getting to values of i < a/2, but only having sporadic success.
It also means *very* large numbers (either a subset of them or universally) with *lots* of factors may be reducible to unique products with just two nontrivial factors, but thats a big question mark for now.
@scor if you want to take a look.5