Cambridge Chat (previously New Cambridge Students Entry 2004)

homoterror

you guys do know that fermat's little theorem is just the prime case of euler's totient theorem?

yes. I can stay not caring about it for the next 3 month.

Reply 16521

homoterror

you guys do know that fermat's little theorem is just the prime case of euler's totient theorem?

yes - your point being?

It's also Lagrange's Theorem applied to the multiplicative group of the field of p elements

and euler's theorem is another simple application of lagrange's theorem

Reply 16522

RichE

yes - your point being?

It's also Lagrange's Theorem applied to the multiplicative group of the field of p elements

and euler's theorem is another simple application of lagrange's theorem

Is this how mathmos do the bitching? :confused:

Reply 16523

My willy is bigger than your willy!! :p:

(I dare not convert that to maths speak :eek:

)

Reply 16524

~Raphael~

My willy is bigger than your willy!! :p:

(I dare not convert that to maths speak :eek:

)

dude...

Reply 16525

Camford

Is this how mathmos do the bitching? :confused:

Not really - I would have been much more to the point

It's just that there was no need to mention euler's theorem really as its generality is not needed for the RSA to work

Reply 16526

RichE

Not really - I would have been much more to the point

It's just that there was no need to mention euler's theorem really as its generality is not needed for the RSA to work

Obviously, compscis don't do as much maths as mathmos do.

Reply 16527

Camford

dude...

I apologise :biggrin:

Reply 16528

~Raphael~

My willy is bigger than your willy!! :p:

(I dare not convert that to maths speak :eek:

)

I hope Willa has a go at proof by contradiction with this - perhaps with photograph evidence - and accounting for Lorentzian contraction of course :rolleyes:

Reply 16529

Camford

Obviously, compscis don't do as much maths as mathmos do.

...Their fatal flaw :wink:

Reply 16530

~Raphael~

I apologise :biggrin:

hmmmm - why does that emoticon not exude sincerity? :rolleyes:

Reply 16531

RichE

I hope Willa has a go at proof by contradiction with this - perhaps with photograph evidence - and accounting for Lorentzian contraction of course :rolleyes:

Well, he wouldn't know what to do with it. (the proof by contradiction that is :p:

)

Reply 16532

RichE

hmmmm - why does that emoticon not exude sincerity? :rolleyes:

Why, indeed :biggrin:

Reply 16533

~Raphael~

Well, he wouldn't know what to do with it. (the proof by contradiction that is :p:

)

That's true. I guess that's the reason why he was only a pseudo-compsci.

Reply 16534