🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7449@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
:In article <26797@linus.UUCP> bs@linus.UUCP I wrote:
:-In article <7440@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
:-:In article <977@thumper.bellcore.com> karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes:
:-:>I wonder what implications this might have for cryptography?
 
:-:Probably just as many as a proof of the Riemann hypothesis.
 
:-A proof of the RH would give important cryptographic results.
:-It would mean a fast, deterministic Polynomial Time prime proving algorithm.
:
 
:Something is wrong with this reasoning, Bob.  Since practically everyone
:believes the RH is true, why not assume it is and produce the Polynomial-
:Time algorithm you mention.  What advantage would a formal proof of RH
:(that perhaps few could understand anyway) bring to that effort?



Something is wrong with what reasoning? I said that proof of the RH yields
a fast deterministic algorithm for prime proofs. By your logic we should assume
that if most people believe a theorem is true we should just accept it even
if a proof is lacking. Mathematics doesn't work that way.

 
I think you are being deliberately obtuse and pedantic. What has BELIEF
in the RH got to do with primality PROOF? We have fast probabalistic 
tests now. RH makes those tests into proofs.
 
 
Bob Silverman