animeshk

Oh yeah.. absolutely! :D

When a test is contrapositive, it's actually testing for composites. So technically, it should output True for composite but then, the name isPrime doesn't do justice. So I changed the outputs to strings 'Prime' and 'Composite'.

Wow. didn't know that! Will add it to the section on Rabin-Miller. Thanks :)

I wish i could type out that number without losing my sanity.

You're absolutely right. I just made that change in the article. Thanks for pointing it out!

Okay.. so 1 should neither be prime nor composite. Because - a) 1 cannot be written as a product of two different factors : ruling out 1 to be composite b) 1 has only 1 positive divisor : ruling it out to be prime

That's indeed a special case which can be mentioned in the article.

Same here.. My fascination began when I learned about Glitch Primes, Cyclops numbers and the bloody Riemann Hypothesis!

I'm trying to look for the inequivalence you pointed at. The two definitions written are-

1.A prime number is a natural number that has no positive divisors other than 1 and itself.

2. A prime number is a number that has exactly two factors - 1 and itself.

Both statements clearly seem to be accounting for 1. Am I missing something here?

They send both. Seems like the invites for interview are sent first.