Timeline for Bitflip-resistant composite numbers
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 22, 2017 at 12:06 | history | edited | Jonathan Allan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2603 characters in body
|
| Feb 22, 2017 at 11:05 | history | edited | Jonathan Allan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 101 characters in body
|
| Feb 22, 2017 at 10:12 | history | edited | Jonathan Allan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 101 characters in body
|
| Feb 22, 2017 at 9:58 | history | edited | Jonathan Allan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1151 characters in body
|
| Feb 22, 2017 at 9:31 | history | edited | Jonathan Allan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 53 characters in body
|
| Feb 22, 2017 at 9:09 | history | edited | Jonathan Allan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1153 characters in body
|
| Feb 22, 2017 at 8:48 | history | edited | Jonathan Allan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1226 characters in body
|
| Feb 22, 2017 at 7:47 | comment | added | Jonathan Allan | It can be removed if we know that no prime exists such that all of it's bit-flipped cousins are composite; but I am not sure of that fact. | |
| Feb 22, 2017 at 7:43 | comment | added | Jonathan Allan |
No, that is why the ;0 is there - Œċ gets all unordered pairs with replacement of the indexes (J), so for 84, which has 7 bits that's 28 (including the likes of [1,1] for the single bit-flips (from the "with replacement" part), not 29 (plus no change).
|
|
| Feb 22, 2017 at 7:39 | comment | added | JungHwan Min | Is the input included in your set of all numbers that differ by at most 2 bits? If so, it would check the compositeness of the input itself anyway. | |
| Feb 22, 2017 at 7:33 | history | edited | Jonathan Allan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 23 characters in body
|
| Feb 22, 2017 at 7:22 | history | edited | Jonathan Allan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 23 characters in body
|
| Feb 22, 2017 at 6:38 | history | answered | Jonathan Allan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |