27o°1°T
 

[QUOTE=davar55;247959]To cmd: by u do u mean me or the variable u?[/QUOTE]

sometimes the "u"to be or not to be "u" ... never
simultaneously

try to rotate the screen 270 °
if "n" then see video on the contrary

bdpq

Sometimes the light dawns slowly, even in finite quanta.

Let me propose a proposition:

If bdpqx = bdpq* and u ne n, what is io* ???

Puzzling, ain't it?

read from right to left or turn [URL="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rvR3ouziO8g/TCqrYcpNe6I/AAAAAAAAAnw/bzE6TQPZXQY/s1600/c_bdpq_1209_fh.PNG"]image[/URL]
and then read horizontally from left to right ...
so maybe get to 24m+7 then if u want to continue to oo

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;247055]No, you don't. You are so lacking in basic mathematical knowledge
that everything you do is essentially just noise.

You haven't tried reason yet. All I see is nonsense.

And you also need to learn to [B]accept[/B] what experts tell you.
I am not the only one with whom you ignorantly argue.

Stop your arrogance.[/QUOTE]

to RDS (Dr. Silverman): sm88 is trying to discover a formula for MPs
or MPEs empirically by making guesses as to what oeis and other series
might intuitively or logically be combined.

to sm88: RDS is far more arrogant than you or I (but not hopeless).

Some excerpts from this thread I think RDS should re-read:

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;247058]On the contrary. There was an Israeli student with the math subforum
whom I very patiently led through many exercizes in high school level
mathematics as well as elementary number theory.

The difference is in [I]attitude[/I], and yours sucks. Big time.

I do admit total disdain for those (such as yourself) who are unwilling
to do any reading and learning. You are willfully ignorant.

The issue is [B]NOT[/B] "less experience" [as you claim], but a
[B]very[/B] stubborn ignorance combined with arrogance.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;247063]So tell us.

If you can not understand what you read, why do you think you have
any hope of having an intelligent discussion about mathematics???

It is sheer arrogance.

We will help you. But you need to

(1) Relate what you have read
(2) Ask specific questions about things you do not understand
(3) Do some exercizes.
(4) Present your solutions.

Stop prattling about things that you do not understand and go LEARN.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=davar55;247415]Dear Dr. Silverman: Please, without referencing your credentials,
as I don't right now mention mine, try to prove you ARE both an
expert in Number Theory (or math) and a human being?

I'm no longer sure about the former because your attitude is
convincing of the opposite of the latter.

Yours truly -

----------------- davar55 (Yale B.S. Math 1976 A.D.)[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;247419]Is he allowed to cite his published work?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=xilman;247427]Likewise, I can attest he's a human being.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;247433]I would be far more impressed if he were a computer. There are ~7 billion human beings alive today but ~0 AIs sophisticated enough to post coherently on forums in the manner R.D. Silverman has.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=jyb;247493]I will concede that he showed far more patience during that episode than he usually does. But you don't have to search very far in that thread to see some fairly egregious examples of impatience. So calling it "exemplary" strikes me as way off. This forum is filled with explanations and responses (including some from you) that make for far better examples of how to be patient and helpful with those seeking information or improvement. For that matter, Bob himself has occasionally shown more patience than he did in that particular case. I just find it amusing that he's holding that one up as a positive example.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=xilman;247494]And yet I often lost my patience during that thread. The difference between Bob and msyelf may be that I didn't post my impatience for everyone to see. At least, not often. I hope.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=davar55;247504]Sinve RDS apparently has davar55 on his ignore list,
while davar55 definitely is not igmoring RDS (Dr. Silverman),
can I just say he's welcome to prove his worth any and
every time he chooses. And I know he's human, I meant
only that his attitude toward others is too arrogantly
intolerant. I've found his contributions important
(Sylow Theorems from group theory of basic algebra, idoneal
numbers of Euler, etc etc etc). but his insulting demeanor
irks some of you and makes him difficult to communicate with.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=davar55;247717]So RDS had something to do
with MPQS = Multiple Polynomial Quadratic Sieve
and
QS = Quadratic Sieve ?

That's cool.

I knew he knew some important things.
So what's the problem?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=davar55;248548]to RDS (Dr. Silverman): sm88 is trying to discover a formula for MPs
or MPEs empirically by making guesses as to what oeis and other series
might intuitively or logically be combined.

to sm88: RDS is far more arrogant than you or I (but not hopeless).[/QUOTE]

The time has come to help our RDS out of his anger and into the light.

[QUOTE=davar55;248548]to RDS (Dr. Silverman): sm88 is trying to discover a formula for MPs
or MPEs empirically by making guesses as to what oeis and other series
might intuitively or logically be combined.

to sm88: RDS is far more arrogant than you or I (but not hopeless).[/QUOTE]

he's not arrogant he obviously sees that number theory explains or dismisses what I state, this thread is simply to ask when 24m+7 is prime, if you look:

24m+7 = 6n+1 where n = 4x+1 if you look closer you can see, that for example(s) 24(0)+7 = 7, 24(1)+7 = 31, 24(5)+7 = 120+7 = 127, ... if you continues you see each m that makes a odd Mersenne number is 4x+1 where x is the previous m. If you look you'll see that [url]http://oeis.org/A002450[/url] is this sequence of m values. so by eliminating from this sequence using things like the mod 7 suggestion we can check this sequence. Note that knowing when 6n+1 could be prime helps because that imparts the properties for 24m+7 as well as say 96y+31 because they can be transmuted if you will through this sequence and hence we might be able to use a finite subsequence by changing up to the next one in this series of equations it's easily computable by taking the number into a sequence like this what values they'd take on under 6n+1 and hence tell how many odd exponents to go up to figure the exponent.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;248567]he's not arrogant he obviously sees that number theory explains or dismisses what I state, this thread is simply to ask when 24m+7 is prime, if you look:

24m+7 = 6n+1 where n = 4x+1 if you look closer you can see, that for example(s) 24(0)+7 = 7, 24(1)+7 = 31, 24(5)+7 = 120+7 = 127, ... if you continues you see each m that makes a odd Mersenne number is 4x+1 where x is the previous m. If you look you'll see that [URL]http://oeis.org/A002450[/URL] is this sequence of m values. so by eliminating from this sequence using things like the mod 7 suggestion we can check this sequence. Note that knowing when 6n+1 could be prime helps because that imparts the properties for 24m+7 as well as say 96y+31 because they can be transmuted if you will through this sequence and hence we might be able to use a finite subsequence by changing up to the next one in this series of equations it's easily computable by taking the number into a sequence like this what values they'd take on under 6n+1 and hence tell how many odd exponents to go up to figure the exponent.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough re: the math. And re: RDS.

But I didn't say he was arrogant, just moreso than you or I.

[QUOTE=davar55;248589]Fair enough re: the math. And re: RDS.

But I didn't say he was arrogant, just moreso than you or I.[/QUOTE]

Anyways davar55 knowing what you know, what do you think is the easiest way to go about this ?

[QUOTE=science_man_88;248706]Anyways davar55 knowing what you know, what do you think is the easiest way to go about this ?[/QUOTE]

Knowing what you know now, rewrite the OP as your next post,
and redirect this thread back to math.

[QUOTE=davar55;248811]Knowing what you know now, rewrite the OP as your next post,
and redirect this thread back to math.[/QUOTE]

okay I guess since you want me to. I first asked about for what m works such that [TEX] A = {A000040} \cap {A135659(m)}[/TEX] the reason I'm interested about the properties of m for this intersection is because as I've stated a few times I saw that if you let [TEX]B = 24\times {A002450}+7[/TEX] [TEX]B = {A083420(n)}[/TEX] for [TEX]{n}\gt 1[/TEX]. So if you prove the properties of the m needed to create set A you can eliminate members of A002450 and hence members of A083420 I know the ones that point to odd composite exponents can be eliminated already but I'm trying to use this to eliminate prime exponents. also these work for all sequences with equations of the form 6*4^n + A000225(2n+1) so I see ways we can use a non infinite subset of A002450 (I'd suggest the lowest values possible).

[QUOTE=science_man_88;248820]I first asked about for what m works such that [TEX] A = {A000040} \cap {A135659(m)}[/TEX][/QUOTE]

What does "works" mean here?

What is A000040 ∩ A135659(m)? This is the intersection of a set and a number. Did you mean A000040 ∩ A135659 = A107006, primes of the form 24n + 7?

[QUOTE=science_man_88;248820]I saw that if you let [TEX]B = 24\times {A002450}+7[/TEX] [TEX]B = {A083420(n)}[/TEX] for [TEX]{n}\gt 1[/TEX].[/QUOTE]

You're saying that 24*A002450(n) + 7 = A083420(n+1), that is, 24 * (4^n - 1)/3 + 7 = 2 * 4^(n+1) - 1. Right?

[QUOTE=science_man_88;248820]So if you prove the properties of the m needed to create set A you can eliminate members of A002450 and hence members of A083420[/QUOTE]

Translation: If you can find an n such that A002450(n) = m such that 24m + 7 is prime, you know that A083420(n+1) is prime. Right?

[QUOTE=science_man_88;248820]I know the ones that point to odd composite exponents can be eliminated already but I'm trying to use this to eliminate prime exponents. also these work for all sequences with equations of the form 6*4^n + A000225(2n+1) so I see ways we can use a non infinite subset of A002450 (I'd suggest the lowest values possible).[/QUOTE]

I trust from reading many of your earlier posts that by "eliminate" you mean find k such that 2^k - 1 is composite. Or do you mean some other exponential sequence, or something else altogether?