Odd Perfect Numbers
 

Did anyone let you know, in this Twin Prime search,
that the lack of odd perfect numbers and the
infinitude of the twin primes are related,
in particular one might prove the other?

But keep on calculating anyway, the numbers are
totally cool.

I've never heard of such a thing, other than your 'conjecture'. Is there any proven theorem or likely-true (and checked by others who think the work is good; i.e. probably not your conjecture) conjecture that shows or suggests such a link?

[QUOTE=Mini-Geek;248332]I've never heard of such a thing, other than your 'conjecture'. Is there any proven theorem or likely-true (and checked by others who think the work is good; i.e. probably not your conjecture) conjecture that shows or suggests such a link?[/QUOTE]

Do you mean did I personally discover all this
independently and on my own
and that there should be no other such references
anywhere previously in mathematics?

Or did I miss your question?

[QUOTE=davar55;248335]Do you mean did I personally discover all this
independently and on my own
and that there should be no other such references
anywhere previously in mathematics?

Or did I miss your question?[/QUOTE]

Let me rephrase, in Wikipedia-style:

[QUOTE=davar55;248315]...the lack of odd perfect numbers and the
infinitude of the twin primes are related,
in particular one might prove the other?[SUP][B][citation needed][/B][/SUP][/QUOTE]:smile:
Or in other words: Why do you think this is so? Is there a good proof, or an unproven conjecture made by an amateur (be it you or someone else)? Not to sound like RDS, but the chances of an amateur proving what has eluded mathematicians for a long time is slim, at best. Especially when the conjecture hasn't been looked over and thought accurate by those who are experienced and understand such things (mostly mathematicians).

[QUOTE=Mini-Geek;248344]Let me rephrase, in Wikipedia-style:

:smile:
Or in other words: Why do you think this is so? Is there a good proof, or an unproven conjecture made by an amateur (be it you or someone else)? Not to sound like RDS, but the chances of an amateur proving what has eluded mathematicians for a long time is slim, at best. Especially when the conjecture hasn't been looked over and thought accurate by those who are experienced and understand such things (mostly mathematicians).[/QUOTE]

Well, I am a mathematican (Yale BS Math 1976 Distinction in Mathematics).

Am I an amateur?

[QUOTE=davar55;248347]Am I an amateur?[/QUOTE]

By definition, do you do mathematics for a living? If not, yes you are an amateur. But a more important question is if the conjecture is valid. I don't have the mathematical ability to answer that, even if the details of it were posted for scrutiny. Some others do. I'll just ask this: have the details been posted for scrutiny/peer review, either publicly or among any number of people with enough mathematical ability to confirm or reject it as valid or invalid? If so, did it seem valid?

[QUOTE=davar55;248347]Well, I am a mathematican (Yale BS Math 1976 Distinction in Mathematics).

Am I an amateur?[/QUOTE]

In my books a mathematician by education (nowadays) is only a person with a Ph.D. in mathematics. If you work or have worked as a mathematician and/or have contributed something nontrivial to mathematics, I would consider you to be a mathematician.

Making conjectures without strong evidence or claiming things without a proof makes one an amateur. However, my main classification of you based on your recent posting is: spammer.

[QUOTE=Mini-Geek;248349]By definition, do you do mathematics for a living? If not, yes you are an amateur. But a more important question is if the conjecture is valid. I don't have the mathematical ability to answer that, even if the details of it were posted for scrutiny. Some others do. I'll just ask this: have the details been posted for scrutiny/peer review? Have major problems been found?[/QUOTE]

Second question first:

See the thread Wagstaff Conjecture in the Math or Puzzles sub-forum(s).

While you're at it, check out the Elemental Puzzle thread in Puzzles.

Have fun.

First question second: Of course I'm a professional mathematician.

I work cheap .....

[QUOTE=rajula;248350]In my books a mathematician by education (nowadays) is only a person with a Ph.D. in mathematics. If you work or have worked as a mathematician and/or have contributed something nontrivial to mathematics, I would consider you to be a mathematician.

Making conjectures without strong evidence or claiming things without a proof makes one an amateur. However, my main classification of you based on your recent posting is: spammer.[/QUOTE]

I am not in any way, nor have I ever given any such impression,
regardless of your classification.

[QUOTE=Mini-Geek;248349]By definition, do you do mathematics for a living? If not, yes you are an amateur. But a more important question is if the conjecture is valid. I don't have the mathematical ability to answer that, even if the details of it were posted for scrutiny. Some others do. I'll just ask this: have the details been posted for scrutiny/peer review, either publicly or among any number of people with enough mathematical ability to confirm or reject it as valid or invalid? If so, did it seem valid?[/QUOTE]

Yes I do math for a living.

The conjecture is valid so long as it contradicts nothing.

This conjecture (YJ) is based on data from the first 40 known
mersenne prime exponents and the currently known 47 mersenne
prime exponents as discovered by and before gimps.

It is strongly supported by one single case in particular
(MPE23 = 11213 is a mersenne prime exponent)
but the law of small numbers tells me that won't be enough
(I should say may not be enough) to convince everyone yet.

[QUOTE=rajula;248350]In my books a mathematician by education (nowadays) is only a person with a Ph.D. in mathematics. If you work or have worked as a mathematician and/or have contributed something nontrivial to mathematics, I would consider you to be a mathematician.

Making conjectures without strong evidence or claiming things without a proof makes one an amateur. However, my main classification of you based on your recent posting is: spammer.[/QUOTE]

Then before you use the sp.mmer word, check ALL my postings
and their attachments.