On 2012-04-07, quasi <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > William Hughes wrote: >>quasi wrote: >>>barker wrote: >>>> >>>>I repeat - my post starting this thread contains no >>>>mistake(s). >>> >>> It's hard to bet against someone who is presumably looking >>> at two easily verifiable factors. >> >>Not at all, it is easy to bet that an anonymous sci.math >>poster is deluded or lying. Indeed register my bet that >>"barker" will never provide two putative factors of C. >>(However, he will not come up with any excuse even >>remotely as entertaining as those of JSH) > > Perhaps he actually _is_ JSH. > > In any case, there have been enough independent confirmations > that C is prime that, at this point, it's clear that C really > _is_ prime, beyond any reasonable doubt. > > Thus, as you say, the OP is either deluded or lying, and I > suspect the latter -- just another troll looking for attention. > Had I looked at the headers, I would have noticed that the OP > crossposted the original message to alt.politics (for which the > article is clearly off-topic), thus providing another indication > that the OP was trolling.
Has the deterministic primality test been done on it, or only the probabilistic ones?