NOTE: **use Perl;** is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

##
All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.

## Engineers and Prime Numbers (Score:2)

## Re:Engineers and Prime Numbers (Score:2)

The way I heard it, there was also a physicist, who piped up between the mathematician and the engineer. Her sequence went:

## sicp (Score:1)

By the way, what you said about cosmic radiation is correct, and probabilistic primality testing algorithms are indeed used in practice. However, I believe there's some refinement of Fermat's theorem that suceeds on Carmichael's - maybe by detecting them, I don't quite remember.

## Re:sicp (Score:2)

You are correct. There is a refinement that handles Carmichaels correctly, but I don't recall what it is and I don't have the book handy. And yes, SICP is fantastic. Fortunately, everyone can visit the link I provided above and download a free copy :)

## Re:sicp (Score:1)

"Perl users are the Greatful Dead fans of computer science." --slashdot comment

## Re:sicp (Score:2)

The other one is the Agrawal-Kayal-Saxena test which is deterministic and avoids the Riemann assumption. With

`O(log^10.5 n)`

i## Re:sicp (Score:2)

haveto mention SICM [mit.edu].## Re: (Score:1)

## Probalistic Primality Tests (Score:1)

## Goals (Score:1)

The analogy as it is misses a fundamental point: it's not a mathematician's job to get things done. It skips over the fact that without past mathematicians' relentless pursuit for correctness, the engineers of today wouldn't have any better tools than those their ancestors worked with.

There is a divide between those building solutions and those crafting tools. You should know which camp you are in, or you're going to be ineffective. An engineer's methodology is as inappropriate for a mathematician as vice

## Re:Goals (Score:2)