This site is supported by donations to The OEIS Foundation.
Talk:Chinese hypothesis
From OeisWiki
Name and evidence
I wish we wouldn't give credence to the hoary old legend by the page name (even if the text disclaims it). I'm not even sure of the claim "a preponderance of evidence that suggested no composite number satisfies the condition". This, at the least, should be substantiated with some kind of contemporary reference or modern historical analysis. I'm not aware of any mathematician making the claim "'2^n = 2 mod n if and only if n is prime' is likely true".
Charles R Greathouse IV 18:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Some of it was kind of clunky anyway so I reworded it. Actually computing 2^341 may have seemed prohibitively time-consuming in th 18th century, but they could simply have done the computations mod 341, and then if deemed necessary carry out the computation "normally" for verification.
- As for the page name, the term "Chinese hypothesis" is as entrenched (at least in America) as "English horn." However, it may be detrenched in Europe, given that Joerg Arndt said he was unfamiliar with it. Alonso del Arte 03:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've heard the term before but I certainly wouldn't call it "entrenched". (For example, I've never heard it used in any math class, only in places like Wikipedia.) Where have you heard it?
- Charles R Greathouse IV 20:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Either a book or Mathworld, I can't remember. Maybe "English horn" is more entrenched than "Chinese hypothesis." Alonso del Arte 04:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)