Talk:Proth prime

Inconsistency
The lead:
 * A Proth number is a number N of the form $N=k 2^n +1$ where e and t are positive integers and $ 2^n > k$.

is inconsistent with the definition section:
 * A Proth number takes the form $N=k 2^n +1$ where $2^n>k,\ k,n\in\N$ and $k$ is odd.

in several ways, including: —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 08:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * in the lead formula, there is no e nor t corresponding to where e and t are positive integers;
 * in the lead, there is no requirement for k to be odd (as there is in the definition section);
 * in the definition section, it's unclear what the second k in $2^n>k,\ k,n\in\N$ means (perhaps $$2^n>k,\ k\in\N, n\in\N$$);
 * and assuming the lead means to say that n and k (not e and t) are positive integers, this seems different from the definition section requiring n being in the set $$\N$$ as ambiguously defined at at List of mathematical symbols, where it says $\N$ means either { 0, 1, 2, 3, ...} or { 1, 2, 3, ...}.
 * FWIW, the definition in the Sze paper (the first cite), says $N=2^e\cdot t+1$ for some odd t with $2^e>t>0$. (1.1) —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 08:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So, I would suggest that both should say:
 * ... number N of the form $N=k 2^n +1$ where k and n are positive integers, k is odd, and $2^n > k$.
 * —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 09:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Of course you are right about consistency, but in fact the requirement that k be odd is irrelevant: the set being defined does not change if we drop that condition. --JBL (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

den Boer reduction
Regarding the redlinked den Boer reduction, would it be useful to additionally cite or EL either: or maybe the older published version: (I haven't reviewed the differences) ? —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 17:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)