Surely, it is a shame that M. Unregistered cannot post in Misc. Math (where this thread obviously belongs), but it appears that s/he was done talking anyway.

Yeaaa... I am so happy when I see one bigger crank than myself...
You guys jump too fast on the poor OP, just slow down a little bit, we may witness history here: the birth of a new donblazy... This thread best fits in the "disproving the boundedness..." subforum. :smile:

I think the OP realized that if "M43" was actually prime, his "theory" would be torpedoed below the waterline.

[QUOTE=wblipp;346476]
Here is the message they are trying to get across to you - What you have found has no predictive power. It is an unsurprising result for any set of comparably sized numbers, so it says nothing about the likelihood of Mersenne Primes.[/QUOTE]
Hi william,
I would much prefer to discuss this over a pint or two of Broadside in Hampstead.

Spotting an apparent anomaly is what keeps us going.

And if we could rule out composite odd numbers as candidates, this would speed up the search by a factor which approaches 2.

David
x