[QUOTE=science_man_88;245172]obviously sick of guessing:

this sequence I'm trying for is the Mersenne exponents in Lucas sequences as defined at [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_sequence[/url] to get it exact we have to stray from the definition. But in my guessing and thoughts on it I came across the fact that, if you have say 2 and 3 as the start numbers(I did) once you find one way to get a next value you like there are ways to keep it while changing the next value after it. for example to get the [2,3,5] I originally found P=3 Q=2 and starting with [2,3] you can get 5 on the end with those values, to keep it all you have to do it change P by 2 in this case and move Q by 3 you get P=1 Q=-1 if you move down then you get P=-1 Q=-4, which is the one I have now it still keeps the 5 then you alter it's path to change it to what you like. the hard part is I haven't found a way to stay in integer P and Q to get the Mersenne exponents. However if we break away that part and create a new set like Lucas sequences we can likely get it with decimal P and Q. all we should have to do then is find a way to predict a range of P and Q values on a line that I've found to go with my values, and we can then calculate limits to what the next in the sequence must be, if in fact it is a sequence.[/QUOTE]

To get back on topic ? For me the equation the q,p ( treat as x,y) values take on is y=(2/3)x +(5/3) so it seems to me the best so far found on this line is -4,-1 .

the problem is the fourth value drifting off from this as the x and y values change so my only other idea on this is maybe every 3-5 coming to a new equation to follow.

[QUOTE=davar55;246904]Tell jokes in the Misc Math Sub-forum?

What will we think of next.

Maybe a new theory on Mersenne Primes?

But this is the sub-forum for cranks and crackpots !

No good could possibly come of this.

Run, fly, escape, get the h*ll out of here !

BTW can cmd or sm88 locate the other math or puzzles thread
in which I posted the FLY (Fermat-Lucas-Yablon) Theorem
(not yet proved by me) ?[/QUOTE]

Yes, not yet proved (by me, I don't know about by you).

[QUOTE=davar55;248590]Yes, not yet proved (by me, I don't know about by you).[/QUOTE]

honest you look like your talking to yourself( I do that some days) however I couldn't even find the fly conjecture so i can throw it out a window to see if it will fly.

I have recently got yet another idea that seems to have worked until a double failure occurred at 3217,4253 however I'm not prepared to call it quits yet I've gotten by single failures by going to other exponents I may be able to squeeze by this one ( though it may still be a long winded case of the strong law of small numbers). I got this idea when I was having fun trying to disprove davar55's YJ conjecture ( no offense mean't davar). it involves a number spiral and works similar but not identical to the one in number freak under 41. anyone else care for further details ?

yet another idea:

for all y>1
if(sumdigits(x^y+mersenne1[x]+mersenne2[x])) = Y
then (sumdigits(x^(y+6)+mersenne1[x]+mersenne2[x])) = Y

I've tested it to y=8 already and that's what gave me the formula I now give you. what are the odds it will line up like that randomly for the first 12(#mersenne2 or the x maximum in this case). although all sets Y start with 6 if you say that the other 11 are random then the odds I get are 1 in 11^9

yet another fail it only works because pf x^y and x^(y+6) have the same sumdigits in all cases ?

[QUOTE=science_man_88;249337]I have recently got yet another idea that seems to have worked until a double failure occurred at 3217,4253 however I'm not prepared to call it quits yet I've gotten by single failures by going to other exponents I may be able to squeeze by this one ( though it may still be a long winded case of the strong law of small numbers). I got this idea when I was having fun trying to disprove davar55's YJ conjecture ( no offense mean't davar). it involves a number spiral and works similar but not identical to the one in number freak under 41. anyone else care for further details ?[/QUOTE]

Yes. And if you could include url links to appropriate posts
in one single post, that might be helpful.

[QUOTE=davar55;250610]Yes. And if you could include url links to appropriate posts
in one single post, that might be helpful.[/QUOTE]

mostly it was just I got bored of trying to help so I tried my own thing.

if you make a number spiral starting at 1 and continuing you can see that if you mark off the mersenne exponents that all until the double failure I mentioned line up either by straight line or diagonal. want my number spiral to work off of ? it's already got the formula's needed to make it fill in the numbers by quick copy and paste. the spiral starts in row 80 column CF ?

I've kept going and found the one that lines up with 3217 it's 23209, not sure if I've found one for the other failure(s).

screw using [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=250682#post250682"]files[/URL] I'll just use the formula I found that helps predict where numbers are if you would like to know it involves triangular numbers.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;250686]screw using [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=250682#post250682"]files[/URL] I'll just use the formula I found that helps predict where numbers are if you would like to know it involves triangular numbers.[/QUOTE]

So where's the next Mersenne prime going to be?