Determining if $973$ is prime

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
4
down vote

favorite
1













Without a calculator, determine if $973$ is prime or not




I was given this question to solve. I know $973$ is not prime. I was told a strategy to solve whether a number is prime or not is to test all the numbers less than the square root of $973$



So I would have to test till $32$



and i find $1,7,139$ and $973$ are factors of this number. Basically, what I want to find out is are there any other strategies to solve this question? then i wouldn't have to check till 1-32 to see if any of the numbers are factors.







share|cite|improve this question
















  • 6




    It suffices to try primes below $sqrt n$, so here you need only test $2,3,5,7$ and the fourth test already succeeds. If $n$ were prime, you'd only go on testing $11,13,17,19,23,29,31$, so only $11$ instead of $32$ trial divisions ...
    – Hagen von Eitzen
    Oct 25 '15 at 21:06










  • Do you know the Erathostene's sieve?
    – Emilio Novati
    Oct 25 '15 at 21:10






  • 1




    And since the non divisibilities by 2, 3 and 5 are trivial, you are left with checking the divisibility by 7, which reduces successively to testing 973, 273 (take 700 away), 63 (take 210 away), bingo (table of 7).
    – Did
    Oct 25 '15 at 21:25






  • 1




    One should test all of the primes less than or equal to the square root of the number. Otherwise we would wrongly conclude, e.g., that $9$ is prime.
    – Travis
    Oct 25 '15 at 21:38










  • @EmilioNovati, if i had to guess Erathostene's sieve would go hand in hand with hagenvoneitzen point
    – mika
    Oct 25 '15 at 23:54














up vote
4
down vote

favorite
1













Without a calculator, determine if $973$ is prime or not




I was given this question to solve. I know $973$ is not prime. I was told a strategy to solve whether a number is prime or not is to test all the numbers less than the square root of $973$



So I would have to test till $32$



and i find $1,7,139$ and $973$ are factors of this number. Basically, what I want to find out is are there any other strategies to solve this question? then i wouldn't have to check till 1-32 to see if any of the numbers are factors.







share|cite|improve this question
















  • 6




    It suffices to try primes below $sqrt n$, so here you need only test $2,3,5,7$ and the fourth test already succeeds. If $n$ were prime, you'd only go on testing $11,13,17,19,23,29,31$, so only $11$ instead of $32$ trial divisions ...
    – Hagen von Eitzen
    Oct 25 '15 at 21:06










  • Do you know the Erathostene's sieve?
    – Emilio Novati
    Oct 25 '15 at 21:10






  • 1




    And since the non divisibilities by 2, 3 and 5 are trivial, you are left with checking the divisibility by 7, which reduces successively to testing 973, 273 (take 700 away), 63 (take 210 away), bingo (table of 7).
    – Did
    Oct 25 '15 at 21:25






  • 1




    One should test all of the primes less than or equal to the square root of the number. Otherwise we would wrongly conclude, e.g., that $9$ is prime.
    – Travis
    Oct 25 '15 at 21:38










  • @EmilioNovati, if i had to guess Erathostene's sieve would go hand in hand with hagenvoneitzen point
    – mika
    Oct 25 '15 at 23:54












up vote
4
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
4
down vote

favorite
1






1






Without a calculator, determine if $973$ is prime or not




I was given this question to solve. I know $973$ is not prime. I was told a strategy to solve whether a number is prime or not is to test all the numbers less than the square root of $973$



So I would have to test till $32$



and i find $1,7,139$ and $973$ are factors of this number. Basically, what I want to find out is are there any other strategies to solve this question? then i wouldn't have to check till 1-32 to see if any of the numbers are factors.







share|cite|improve this question













Without a calculator, determine if $973$ is prime or not




I was given this question to solve. I know $973$ is not prime. I was told a strategy to solve whether a number is prime or not is to test all the numbers less than the square root of $973$



So I would have to test till $32$



and i find $1,7,139$ and $973$ are factors of this number. Basically, what I want to find out is are there any other strategies to solve this question? then i wouldn't have to check till 1-32 to see if any of the numbers are factors.









share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Oct 25 '15 at 21:04









mika

517210




517210







  • 6




    It suffices to try primes below $sqrt n$, so here you need only test $2,3,5,7$ and the fourth test already succeeds. If $n$ were prime, you'd only go on testing $11,13,17,19,23,29,31$, so only $11$ instead of $32$ trial divisions ...
    – Hagen von Eitzen
    Oct 25 '15 at 21:06










  • Do you know the Erathostene's sieve?
    – Emilio Novati
    Oct 25 '15 at 21:10






  • 1




    And since the non divisibilities by 2, 3 and 5 are trivial, you are left with checking the divisibility by 7, which reduces successively to testing 973, 273 (take 700 away), 63 (take 210 away), bingo (table of 7).
    – Did
    Oct 25 '15 at 21:25






  • 1




    One should test all of the primes less than or equal to the square root of the number. Otherwise we would wrongly conclude, e.g., that $9$ is prime.
    – Travis
    Oct 25 '15 at 21:38










  • @EmilioNovati, if i had to guess Erathostene's sieve would go hand in hand with hagenvoneitzen point
    – mika
    Oct 25 '15 at 23:54












  • 6




    It suffices to try primes below $sqrt n$, so here you need only test $2,3,5,7$ and the fourth test already succeeds. If $n$ were prime, you'd only go on testing $11,13,17,19,23,29,31$, so only $11$ instead of $32$ trial divisions ...
    – Hagen von Eitzen
    Oct 25 '15 at 21:06










  • Do you know the Erathostene's sieve?
    – Emilio Novati
    Oct 25 '15 at 21:10






  • 1




    And since the non divisibilities by 2, 3 and 5 are trivial, you are left with checking the divisibility by 7, which reduces successively to testing 973, 273 (take 700 away), 63 (take 210 away), bingo (table of 7).
    – Did
    Oct 25 '15 at 21:25






  • 1




    One should test all of the primes less than or equal to the square root of the number. Otherwise we would wrongly conclude, e.g., that $9$ is prime.
    – Travis
    Oct 25 '15 at 21:38










  • @EmilioNovati, if i had to guess Erathostene's sieve would go hand in hand with hagenvoneitzen point
    – mika
    Oct 25 '15 at 23:54







6




6




It suffices to try primes below $sqrt n$, so here you need only test $2,3,5,7$ and the fourth test already succeeds. If $n$ were prime, you'd only go on testing $11,13,17,19,23,29,31$, so only $11$ instead of $32$ trial divisions ...
– Hagen von Eitzen
Oct 25 '15 at 21:06




It suffices to try primes below $sqrt n$, so here you need only test $2,3,5,7$ and the fourth test already succeeds. If $n$ were prime, you'd only go on testing $11,13,17,19,23,29,31$, so only $11$ instead of $32$ trial divisions ...
– Hagen von Eitzen
Oct 25 '15 at 21:06












Do you know the Erathostene's sieve?
– Emilio Novati
Oct 25 '15 at 21:10




Do you know the Erathostene's sieve?
– Emilio Novati
Oct 25 '15 at 21:10




1




1




And since the non divisibilities by 2, 3 and 5 are trivial, you are left with checking the divisibility by 7, which reduces successively to testing 973, 273 (take 700 away), 63 (take 210 away), bingo (table of 7).
– Did
Oct 25 '15 at 21:25




And since the non divisibilities by 2, 3 and 5 are trivial, you are left with checking the divisibility by 7, which reduces successively to testing 973, 273 (take 700 away), 63 (take 210 away), bingo (table of 7).
– Did
Oct 25 '15 at 21:25




1




1




One should test all of the primes less than or equal to the square root of the number. Otherwise we would wrongly conclude, e.g., that $9$ is prime.
– Travis
Oct 25 '15 at 21:38




One should test all of the primes less than or equal to the square root of the number. Otherwise we would wrongly conclude, e.g., that $9$ is prime.
– Travis
Oct 25 '15 at 21:38












@EmilioNovati, if i had to guess Erathostene's sieve would go hand in hand with hagenvoneitzen point
– mika
Oct 25 '15 at 23:54




@EmilioNovati, if i had to guess Erathostene's sieve would go hand in hand with hagenvoneitzen point
– mika
Oct 25 '15 at 23:54










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
4
down vote













Another method is $973 = 1000-27$ which can be represented as $(10)^3-(3)^3$



Therefore, applying the identity that $(a)^3-(b)^3=(a-b)(a^2+b^2+ab)$, we see that



$973=(10)^3-(3)^3=(10-3)(100+9+30)=7cdot139$






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • Well found, but in practice that's about the only application case of $10^3-a^3$. In general, finding factorizable expressions can take a lot of work.
    – Yves Daoust
    Aug 24 at 10:01


















up vote
0
down vote













Not a clean method though but I used Fermat's factorization to find that,



$(31)^2<973<(32)^2$



Now applying the fact that a perfect square should end only in 0,1,4,5,6,9
, concentrate only on those numbers the difference of whose square and $973$ give these digits in the last place. Therefore concentrate only on those number whose last digit is either $2,3,7$ as the difference of squares of such numbers and 973 would end in numbers whose digits either end with $1$ or $9$.



Concentrating on such numbers and with a little bit of trial, we find that $(73)^2 - 973 = 5329 - 973 = 4356 = (66)^2$



Therefore, $973=(73-66)(73+66)=7cdot
139$



Hence $973$ is not a prime.






share|cite|improve this answer





























    up vote
    0
    down vote













    For small numbers, there is no much better strategy than trying all prime divisors up to the square root.



    Use divisibility criteria for the tiny divisors.



    • $2$: check the last digit even;


    • $3$: compute the sum of the digits (e.g. $975to21to3$);


    • $5$: last digit must be $0$ or $5$;


    • $7$: subtract twice the unit digits from the rest of the number (e.g. $973to91to7$);


    • $11$: subtract the unit digits from the rest of the number (e.g. $2585to253to22$).






    share|cite|improve this answer





























      up vote
      0
      down vote













      Alternatively, we can apply Fermat's Little Theorem where in if $p$ is a prime number and $a$ is any integer not divisible by $p$ then



      $a^p-1 equiv1 mod p$



      In this case, we can chose $a$ to be $2$ so as to keep things simple.



      It's not hard to see that $(2)^10= 1024 equiv51mod973$



      Therefore, on applying Fermat's Little Theorem



      $(2^10)^97$ . $2^2$ $equiv(51)^97.2^2mod 973$ $notequiv1mod 973$



      Hence, $973$ is not a prime number






      share|cite|improve this answer



























        up vote
        -1
        down vote













        If you're good at arithmetic, you can try this without a calculator $:)$



        Wilson's theorem:



        $p$ prime $iff$ $(p-1)! equiv -1 pmod p$.



        Else, pocklington's test could be fast.






        share|cite|improve this answer


















        • 1




          It's $mod p$, not $mod p-1$. Also how exactly is someone supposed to calculate $972!$ in their head? If you know of some faster trick using Wilson's theorem, an explanation should be given.
          – Cataline
          Oct 25 '15 at 21:21











        Your Answer




        StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
        return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
        StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
        StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
        );
        );
        , "mathjax-editing");

        StackExchange.ready(function()
        var channelOptions =
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "69"
        ;
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
        createEditor();
        );

        else
        createEditor();

        );

        function createEditor()
        StackExchange.prepareEditor(
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        convertImagesToLinks: true,
        noModals: false,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: 10,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        );



        );













         

        draft saved


        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function ()
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1497404%2fdetermining-if-973-is-prime%23new-answer', 'question_page');

        );

        Post as a guest






























        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes








        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes








        up vote
        4
        down vote













        Another method is $973 = 1000-27$ which can be represented as $(10)^3-(3)^3$



        Therefore, applying the identity that $(a)^3-(b)^3=(a-b)(a^2+b^2+ab)$, we see that



        $973=(10)^3-(3)^3=(10-3)(100+9+30)=7cdot139$






        share|cite|improve this answer






















        • Well found, but in practice that's about the only application case of $10^3-a^3$. In general, finding factorizable expressions can take a lot of work.
          – Yves Daoust
          Aug 24 at 10:01















        up vote
        4
        down vote













        Another method is $973 = 1000-27$ which can be represented as $(10)^3-(3)^3$



        Therefore, applying the identity that $(a)^3-(b)^3=(a-b)(a^2+b^2+ab)$, we see that



        $973=(10)^3-(3)^3=(10-3)(100+9+30)=7cdot139$






        share|cite|improve this answer






















        • Well found, but in practice that's about the only application case of $10^3-a^3$. In general, finding factorizable expressions can take a lot of work.
          – Yves Daoust
          Aug 24 at 10:01













        up vote
        4
        down vote










        up vote
        4
        down vote









        Another method is $973 = 1000-27$ which can be represented as $(10)^3-(3)^3$



        Therefore, applying the identity that $(a)^3-(b)^3=(a-b)(a^2+b^2+ab)$, we see that



        $973=(10)^3-(3)^3=(10-3)(100+9+30)=7cdot139$






        share|cite|improve this answer














        Another method is $973 = 1000-27$ which can be represented as $(10)^3-(3)^3$



        Therefore, applying the identity that $(a)^3-(b)^3=(a-b)(a^2+b^2+ab)$, we see that



        $973=(10)^3-(3)^3=(10-3)(100+9+30)=7cdot139$







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Aug 24 at 9:39









        Oscar Lanzi

        10.2k11732




        10.2k11732










        answered Aug 24 at 8:25









        naveen dankal

        4,49321347




        4,49321347











        • Well found, but in practice that's about the only application case of $10^3-a^3$. In general, finding factorizable expressions can take a lot of work.
          – Yves Daoust
          Aug 24 at 10:01

















        • Well found, but in practice that's about the only application case of $10^3-a^3$. In general, finding factorizable expressions can take a lot of work.
          – Yves Daoust
          Aug 24 at 10:01
















        Well found, but in practice that's about the only application case of $10^3-a^3$. In general, finding factorizable expressions can take a lot of work.
        – Yves Daoust
        Aug 24 at 10:01





        Well found, but in practice that's about the only application case of $10^3-a^3$. In general, finding factorizable expressions can take a lot of work.
        – Yves Daoust
        Aug 24 at 10:01











        up vote
        0
        down vote













        Not a clean method though but I used Fermat's factorization to find that,



        $(31)^2<973<(32)^2$



        Now applying the fact that a perfect square should end only in 0,1,4,5,6,9
        , concentrate only on those numbers the difference of whose square and $973$ give these digits in the last place. Therefore concentrate only on those number whose last digit is either $2,3,7$ as the difference of squares of such numbers and 973 would end in numbers whose digits either end with $1$ or $9$.



        Concentrating on such numbers and with a little bit of trial, we find that $(73)^2 - 973 = 5329 - 973 = 4356 = (66)^2$



        Therefore, $973=(73-66)(73+66)=7cdot
        139$



        Hence $973$ is not a prime.






        share|cite|improve this answer


























          up vote
          0
          down vote













          Not a clean method though but I used Fermat's factorization to find that,



          $(31)^2<973<(32)^2$



          Now applying the fact that a perfect square should end only in 0,1,4,5,6,9
          , concentrate only on those numbers the difference of whose square and $973$ give these digits in the last place. Therefore concentrate only on those number whose last digit is either $2,3,7$ as the difference of squares of such numbers and 973 would end in numbers whose digits either end with $1$ or $9$.



          Concentrating on such numbers and with a little bit of trial, we find that $(73)^2 - 973 = 5329 - 973 = 4356 = (66)^2$



          Therefore, $973=(73-66)(73+66)=7cdot
          139$



          Hence $973$ is not a prime.






          share|cite|improve this answer
























            up vote
            0
            down vote










            up vote
            0
            down vote









            Not a clean method though but I used Fermat's factorization to find that,



            $(31)^2<973<(32)^2$



            Now applying the fact that a perfect square should end only in 0,1,4,5,6,9
            , concentrate only on those numbers the difference of whose square and $973$ give these digits in the last place. Therefore concentrate only on those number whose last digit is either $2,3,7$ as the difference of squares of such numbers and 973 would end in numbers whose digits either end with $1$ or $9$.



            Concentrating on such numbers and with a little bit of trial, we find that $(73)^2 - 973 = 5329 - 973 = 4356 = (66)^2$



            Therefore, $973=(73-66)(73+66)=7cdot
            139$



            Hence $973$ is not a prime.






            share|cite|improve this answer














            Not a clean method though but I used Fermat's factorization to find that,



            $(31)^2<973<(32)^2$



            Now applying the fact that a perfect square should end only in 0,1,4,5,6,9
            , concentrate only on those numbers the difference of whose square and $973$ give these digits in the last place. Therefore concentrate only on those number whose last digit is either $2,3,7$ as the difference of squares of such numbers and 973 would end in numbers whose digits either end with $1$ or $9$.



            Concentrating on such numbers and with a little bit of trial, we find that $(73)^2 - 973 = 5329 - 973 = 4356 = (66)^2$



            Therefore, $973=(73-66)(73+66)=7cdot
            139$



            Hence $973$ is not a prime.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Aug 24 at 8:52

























            answered Aug 24 at 7:49









            naveen dankal

            4,49321347




            4,49321347




















                up vote
                0
                down vote













                For small numbers, there is no much better strategy than trying all prime divisors up to the square root.



                Use divisibility criteria for the tiny divisors.



                • $2$: check the last digit even;


                • $3$: compute the sum of the digits (e.g. $975to21to3$);


                • $5$: last digit must be $0$ or $5$;


                • $7$: subtract twice the unit digits from the rest of the number (e.g. $973to91to7$);


                • $11$: subtract the unit digits from the rest of the number (e.g. $2585to253to22$).






                share|cite|improve this answer


























                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote













                  For small numbers, there is no much better strategy than trying all prime divisors up to the square root.



                  Use divisibility criteria for the tiny divisors.



                  • $2$: check the last digit even;


                  • $3$: compute the sum of the digits (e.g. $975to21to3$);


                  • $5$: last digit must be $0$ or $5$;


                  • $7$: subtract twice the unit digits from the rest of the number (e.g. $973to91to7$);


                  • $11$: subtract the unit digits from the rest of the number (e.g. $2585to253to22$).






                  share|cite|improve this answer
























                    up vote
                    0
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    0
                    down vote









                    For small numbers, there is no much better strategy than trying all prime divisors up to the square root.



                    Use divisibility criteria for the tiny divisors.



                    • $2$: check the last digit even;


                    • $3$: compute the sum of the digits (e.g. $975to21to3$);


                    • $5$: last digit must be $0$ or $5$;


                    • $7$: subtract twice the unit digits from the rest of the number (e.g. $973to91to7$);


                    • $11$: subtract the unit digits from the rest of the number (e.g. $2585to253to22$).






                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    For small numbers, there is no much better strategy than trying all prime divisors up to the square root.



                    Use divisibility criteria for the tiny divisors.



                    • $2$: check the last digit even;


                    • $3$: compute the sum of the digits (e.g. $975to21to3$);


                    • $5$: last digit must be $0$ or $5$;


                    • $7$: subtract twice the unit digits from the rest of the number (e.g. $973to91to7$);


                    • $11$: subtract the unit digits from the rest of the number (e.g. $2585to253to22$).







                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    edited Aug 24 at 9:34

























                    answered Aug 24 at 9:29









                    Yves Daoust

                    113k665207




                    113k665207




















                        up vote
                        0
                        down vote













                        Alternatively, we can apply Fermat's Little Theorem where in if $p$ is a prime number and $a$ is any integer not divisible by $p$ then



                        $a^p-1 equiv1 mod p$



                        In this case, we can chose $a$ to be $2$ so as to keep things simple.



                        It's not hard to see that $(2)^10= 1024 equiv51mod973$



                        Therefore, on applying Fermat's Little Theorem



                        $(2^10)^97$ . $2^2$ $equiv(51)^97.2^2mod 973$ $notequiv1mod 973$



                        Hence, $973$ is not a prime number






                        share|cite|improve this answer
























                          up vote
                          0
                          down vote













                          Alternatively, we can apply Fermat's Little Theorem where in if $p$ is a prime number and $a$ is any integer not divisible by $p$ then



                          $a^p-1 equiv1 mod p$



                          In this case, we can chose $a$ to be $2$ so as to keep things simple.



                          It's not hard to see that $(2)^10= 1024 equiv51mod973$



                          Therefore, on applying Fermat's Little Theorem



                          $(2^10)^97$ . $2^2$ $equiv(51)^97.2^2mod 973$ $notequiv1mod 973$



                          Hence, $973$ is not a prime number






                          share|cite|improve this answer






















                            up vote
                            0
                            down vote










                            up vote
                            0
                            down vote









                            Alternatively, we can apply Fermat's Little Theorem where in if $p$ is a prime number and $a$ is any integer not divisible by $p$ then



                            $a^p-1 equiv1 mod p$



                            In this case, we can chose $a$ to be $2$ so as to keep things simple.



                            It's not hard to see that $(2)^10= 1024 equiv51mod973$



                            Therefore, on applying Fermat's Little Theorem



                            $(2^10)^97$ . $2^2$ $equiv(51)^97.2^2mod 973$ $notequiv1mod 973$



                            Hence, $973$ is not a prime number






                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            Alternatively, we can apply Fermat's Little Theorem where in if $p$ is a prime number and $a$ is any integer not divisible by $p$ then



                            $a^p-1 equiv1 mod p$



                            In this case, we can chose $a$ to be $2$ so as to keep things simple.



                            It's not hard to see that $(2)^10= 1024 equiv51mod973$



                            Therefore, on applying Fermat's Little Theorem



                            $(2^10)^97$ . $2^2$ $equiv(51)^97.2^2mod 973$ $notequiv1mod 973$



                            Hence, $973$ is not a prime number







                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer










                            answered Aug 24 at 13:09









                            naveen dankal

                            4,49321347




                            4,49321347




















                                up vote
                                -1
                                down vote













                                If you're good at arithmetic, you can try this without a calculator $:)$



                                Wilson's theorem:



                                $p$ prime $iff$ $(p-1)! equiv -1 pmod p$.



                                Else, pocklington's test could be fast.






                                share|cite|improve this answer


















                                • 1




                                  It's $mod p$, not $mod p-1$. Also how exactly is someone supposed to calculate $972!$ in their head? If you know of some faster trick using Wilson's theorem, an explanation should be given.
                                  – Cataline
                                  Oct 25 '15 at 21:21















                                up vote
                                -1
                                down vote













                                If you're good at arithmetic, you can try this without a calculator $:)$



                                Wilson's theorem:



                                $p$ prime $iff$ $(p-1)! equiv -1 pmod p$.



                                Else, pocklington's test could be fast.






                                share|cite|improve this answer


















                                • 1




                                  It's $mod p$, not $mod p-1$. Also how exactly is someone supposed to calculate $972!$ in their head? If you know of some faster trick using Wilson's theorem, an explanation should be given.
                                  – Cataline
                                  Oct 25 '15 at 21:21













                                up vote
                                -1
                                down vote










                                up vote
                                -1
                                down vote









                                If you're good at arithmetic, you can try this without a calculator $:)$



                                Wilson's theorem:



                                $p$ prime $iff$ $(p-1)! equiv -1 pmod p$.



                                Else, pocklington's test could be fast.






                                share|cite|improve this answer














                                If you're good at arithmetic, you can try this without a calculator $:)$



                                Wilson's theorem:



                                $p$ prime $iff$ $(p-1)! equiv -1 pmod p$.



                                Else, pocklington's test could be fast.







                                share|cite|improve this answer














                                share|cite|improve this answer



                                share|cite|improve this answer








                                edited Oct 25 '15 at 21:28

























                                answered Oct 25 '15 at 21:16









                                YoTengoUnLCD

                                7,30131856




                                7,30131856







                                • 1




                                  It's $mod p$, not $mod p-1$. Also how exactly is someone supposed to calculate $972!$ in their head? If you know of some faster trick using Wilson's theorem, an explanation should be given.
                                  – Cataline
                                  Oct 25 '15 at 21:21













                                • 1




                                  It's $mod p$, not $mod p-1$. Also how exactly is someone supposed to calculate $972!$ in their head? If you know of some faster trick using Wilson's theorem, an explanation should be given.
                                  – Cataline
                                  Oct 25 '15 at 21:21








                                1




                                1




                                It's $mod p$, not $mod p-1$. Also how exactly is someone supposed to calculate $972!$ in their head? If you know of some faster trick using Wilson's theorem, an explanation should be given.
                                – Cataline
                                Oct 25 '15 at 21:21





                                It's $mod p$, not $mod p-1$. Also how exactly is someone supposed to calculate $972!$ in their head? If you know of some faster trick using Wilson's theorem, an explanation should be given.
                                – Cataline
                                Oct 25 '15 at 21:21


















                                 

                                draft saved


                                draft discarded















































                                 


                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function ()
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1497404%2fdetermining-if-973-is-prime%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                );

                                Post as a guest













































































                                這個網誌中的熱門文章

                                How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

                                Mutual Information Always Non-negative

                                Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?