But, then again, what's the purpose of this? It's still unclear what the purpose of that is.

It also seems irrelevant to the thread.. Some obscure theory about the Mersenne numbers.

[QUOTE=3.14159;237744]But, then again, what's the purpose of this? It's still unclear what the purpose of that is.

It also seems irrelevant to the thread.. Some obscure theory about the Mersenne numbers.[/QUOTE]

you obviously don't look at the title of threads before posting nonsense about if they are on track as the name of the thread is theory on Mersenne primes? what else did you think it was about.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;237772]you obviously don't look at the title of threads before posting nonsense about if they are on track as the name of the thread is theory on Mersenne primes? what else did you think it was about.[/QUOTE]

Neither do you. I was merely asking what the purpose of the useless trivia you were posting. How was that "posting nonsense"?

Therefore; What I ask still stands: What's the purpose of this useless trivia?

[QUOTE=3.14159;237865]Therefore; What I ask still stands: What's the purpose of this useless trivia?[/QUOTE]

I think scienceman is collecting information for his web page.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;237905]I think scienceman is collecting information for his web page.[/QUOTE]

crg I wasn't but I can as this is very interesting lol I keep on getting told my idea's are pointless so I change my ideas. my latest idea about something cool is in the [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=237936#post237936"]basics of relativity[/URL] thread

I stupidly couldn't find what I wanted but got redirected back here:

I have something new to add to the k search from post #9, based on if the exponent is a 4x+1 or 4x+3 prime and the last digit I don't have it completely worked out but I do know all 4x+3 exponents make the number end in 7 all the 4x+1 exponents end the number in 1, and I think using basically multiplication and mod 10 we can possibly limit the k further depending on the end digit of the exponent. Anyone care for more details? or are you sick of me?

Calculating mod 10: 16[sup]x[/sup] = 6 (mod 10) so:
2[sup]4x+1[/sup] - 1 = 2[sup]4x[/sup]*2 - 1 = 16[sup]x[/sup]*2 - 1 = 6*2 - 1 = 1 (mod 10)

2[sup]4x+3[/sup] - 1 = 2[sup]4x[/sup]*2[sup]3[/sup] - 1 = 16[sup]x[/sup]*8 - 1 = 6*8 - 1 = 7 (mod 10)

So you are right, mersenne numbers with exponent 4x+1 ends in 1 and those with exponent 4x+3 ends in 7.

But what does this have to do with the factors? Factors 2*k*p+1 only depends on the exponent p and not the mersenne number 2[sup]p[/sup]-1.

[QUOTE=ATH;244274]Calculating mod 10: 6[sup]x[/sup] = 6 (mod 10) so:
2[sup]4x+1[/sup] - 1= 2[sup]4x[/sup]*2 - 1 = 16[sup]x[/sup]*2 - 1 = 6[sup]x[/sup]*2 - 1 = 6*2 - 1 = 1 (mod 10)

2[sup]4x+3[/sup] - 1= 2[sup]4x[/sup]*2[sup]3[/sup] - 1 = 16[sup]x[/sup]*8 - 1 = 6[sup]x[/sup]*8 - 1 = 6*8 - 1 = 7 (mod 10)

So you are right, mersenne numbers with exponent 4x+1 ends in 1 and those with exponent 4x+3 ends in 7. But what does this have to do with the factors? Factors 2*k*p+1 only depends on the exponent p and not the mersenne number 2[sup]p[/sup]-1.[/QUOTE]

I was thinking it might tell us an ending digit for possible factors that we could possibly eliminate k that way for a give set of prime exponents.

though I see the flaw you talk of it can come through as 3*9 or 1*7 for a ending of 7 so not eliminating any not sure for an ending of 1.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;244275]not sure for an ending of 1.[/QUOTE]

1*1, 3*7, 9*9, so again, no possible final digits are eliminated.

[QUOTE=Mr. P-1;244277]1*1, 3*7, 9*9, so again, no possible final digits are eliminated.[/QUOTE]

guess I'll have to keep trying maybe it rest in another modulo.

Once I also thought I could find new insights with just some "handwaving" and "numbercrunching" and lucky guesses, but if it was so "easy" someone else would have already discovered it.

Mathematics have evolved so far now, and so many great minds have been working on it for centuries that most new discoveries only comes from deep study of theories by professional mathematicians. New proofs are now mostly hundreds of pages long and are so complicated it takes months or years for peers to review and accept them.

Of course there still *could* be simpler insights left to find just waiting for someone to think "outside the box" or view the problem from another angle, but the chance is small.