Talk:Lucas primality test/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Untitled 2
Question: what is its complexity ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.2.106.188 (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Nomenclature
This test is described as the Lehmer-Pocklington Theorem by Riesel. He does not use this exact name, but refers to Lehmer's Analogue for Lucas sequences, which is the case where the factorisation of N+1 is known. Richard Pinch (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Could this be any denser?
This page isn't too friendly for those who want to understand but can't due to the density of the text and $5 words. Perhaps a Simple English translation? 74.213.210.40 (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Untitled 3
I do not understand why you name this test as Lucas-Lehmer Test (LLT) ! The LLT was designed by Lucas for proving the primality of Mersenne and Fermat numbers, and it made use of "Lucas" Sequences at first, and then a complete proof was given by Lehmer and he provided one test instead of the two of Lucas (depending on q of 2^q-1). The LLT uses the famous S(i+1)=S(i)^2-2 suite. The test you are talking about is called "Lucas' test as strengthened by Kraitchik and Lehmer" by Chris. Caldwell (see: Caldwell Prime Site), and it is a VERY different test since it is based on Fermat's little theorem and not on "Lucas" sequences nor on the S(i+1)=S(i)^2-2 suite. So, maybe it would be better to name it: Lucas' test. Also, the description of the test is not perfectly correct, compared to Caldwell's version. I've fixed it. (2007/05/20)— Preceding unsigned comment added by T.Rex~enwiki (talk • contribs) 12:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Definititely, this test is not "Lucas-Lehmer test" ! The Pomerance/Crandall book, 2nd Edition, "Prime Numbers, A computational perspective", clearly names it: "Lucas theorem", page 173. Lehmer never did anything about this theorem. So this must be renamed !!!! (but I don't know how to fix the page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.225.223.90 (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Untitled 1
Something is very wrong here. The article seems to use the hidden (and wrong) assumption that a number n is prime if a primitive root mod n can be located. AxelBoldt 15:05, 18 June 2004 (UTC)
- Ooops, sorry. Please ignore the above and excuse my stupidity. AxelBoldt 15:27, 18 June 2004 (UTC)