Re: [boost] [xint] Boost.XInt formal review

Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] Boost.XInt formal review
From: Chad Nelson (chad.thecomfychair_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-05 14:31:07

On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 21:57:24 +0000
Christopher Jefferson <chris_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> [...] Mathematica just says "PrimeQ", but they make the claim that
> they have done extensive mathematical and practical testing, and never
> found a number which their probabilistic algorithm fails on.

Given the extreme rarity of such numbers, that's easily believable.
Even with the speed of modern computers, it could take a *very* long
time to locate one, with "very long" measured in at least years, and
likely decades or more on a single machine. And if they tweaked the
parameters a little, they could bump the probability much, much lower,
at the expense of slightly more time.

> Unless someone is willing to put that amount of work in, I personally
> would much prefer is_probably_prime. [...]

Your wish is granted. :-) See my previous message for the reason.
-- 
Chad Nelson
Oak Circle Software, Inc.
*
*
*