Score:0

Checksum function verifying even numbers as the sum of two halves

tr flag

Does the following checksum function make sense?

I am attempting to show that for all even numbers there exists at least two summands that, when normalized to $\frac{1}{2}$, asymptotically sum to 1:

$\lim \limits_{n \to \infty}\frac{n-1}{2[a+ \varphi(a)]}+\frac{n-1}{2[b+\varphi(b)]}\sim \frac{n}{n}=1$

where $n$ are even numbers $\geq 4$, $(a,b)$ are natural numbers where $a+b=n$ and $2 \leq a\leq b$ and $\varphi(n)$ is Euler's totient function

This result holds iff the normalization is performed on prime summands, otherwise the limiting value diverges slightly above 1.

The idea is putting summands through a kind of checksum function that verifies whether or not they are the 'integral' or 'true' sums of the even number. The checksum in this case being the multiplicative identity of $n$, or 1.

Example: $n$ = 10

Input values: (1, 9), (2, 8), (3, 7), (4, 6), (5, 5)

Of the $\frac{n}{2}$ possible summand pairs, only one (5, 5) has the checksum 1 with the next lowest being (3, 7) $\approx$ 1.246. As $n$ tends to infinity so do the checksums tend to 1 for summand pairs that consist only of primes.

fgrieu avatar
ng flag
The relation to crypto is unclear, thus I would suggest [math-SE](https://math.stackexchange.com/). I think the result thought would follow from the plausible proposition: for any $f$, exits $n_0$ such that any even $n>n_0$ can be expressed as the sum of two odd positive $a$ and $b$ having no factor smaller than $f$.
user7013 avatar
tr flag
@fgrieu Understood. What would be another problem or concept in crypto that's based on the proposition you describe? Thanks.
mangohost

Post an answer

Most people don’t grasp that asking a lot of questions unlocks learning and improves interpersonal bonding. In Alison’s studies, for example, though people could accurately recall how many questions had been asked in their conversations, they didn’t intuit the link between questions and liking. Across four studies, in which participants were engaged in conversations themselves or read transcripts of others’ conversations, people tended not to realize that question asking would influence—or had influenced—the level of amity between the conversationalists.