Merse Number #43
 

Hello Guys, I found about the mersenne numbers yesterday and was fascinated about it. However, I did my own analitycal analysis and the 43rd number somehow is not ordinary. I tried to look up whether it has been confirmed but thought I will ask here on the forum. My analysis is "kinda funny" for some of you probably yet it may be useful to find infinite numbers of mersenne numbers. Just for now I don't want to disclose any of the information as I said I just started yesterday out of curiosty and I will keep you posted as it may be just a coincidence, and if so we can came to a question how many of such numbers ( 43) within my analysis exists.

With Regards,

M.

[QUOTE=Unregistered;346174]Hello Guys, I found about the mersenne numbers yesterday and was fascinated about it. However, I did my own analitycal analysis and the 43rd number somehow is not ordinary. I tried to look up whether it has been confirmed but thought I will ask here on the forum. My analysis is "kinda funny" for some of you probably yet it may be useful to find infinite numbers of mersenne numbers. Just for now I don't want to disclose any of the information as I said I just started yesterday out of curiosty and I will keep you posted as it may be just a coincidence, and if so we can came to a question how many of such numbers ( 43) within my analysis exists.

With Regards,

M.[/QUOTE]

Ho w are we supposed to help you if we know nothing about the "non-ordinaryty" of your discover? :smile:

Luigi

Well, I only ask about whether this 43th Mersenne number is officially confirmed as I see on the website that it supposedly found, but a double test has to be made to confirm. If it is confirmed already with multiple tests I may predict a number that will have billion digits ( 250K, reward) because this 43rd is the only number in all those 48 numbers that is unique at least at this point as we have 48 numbers in total. So for now I'm just curious whether it has been confirmed.

Thank you

The number which is currently thought to be the 43rd mersenne prime, M(30402457), was confirmed to be prime years ago. But it is still just faintly possible that there has been another Mersenne prime lower than that which has been missed, in which case it would not be the 43rd. According to the [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_milestones/"]milestones page[/URL], there are at this moment 2318 LL double checks still to be completed on numbers below that number before we can confirm that it is indeed the 43rd Mersenne prime.

The 42nd Mersenne Prime [I]was[/I] confirmed as such last December according to that same page.

[QUOTE=Unregistered;346186]If it is confirmed already with multiple tests I may predict a number that will have billion digits ( 250K, reward)
[/QUOTE]
It is trivial to predict a number that will have 1 billion digits.
Or 97230957209750237 digits, for that matter. The award is for it being provably prime.

[QUOTE=Unregistered;346186]Well, I only ask about whether this 43th Mersenne number is officially confirmed as I see on the website that it supposedly found, but a double test has to be made to confirm. If it is confirmed already with multiple tests I may predict a number that will have billion digits ( 250K, reward) because this 43rd is the only number in all those 48 numbers that is unique at least at this point as we have 48 numbers in total. So for now I'm just curious whether it has been confirmed.

Thank you[/QUOTE]Whenever a new Mersenne prime is discovered, it creates great excitement, especially on this forum!
It is then verified prime in about a week by several people on different platforms (hardware and software).
However, when the Lucas-Lehmer test shows that a number is composite, there is no urgency to double check it. We currently find about 300 of these per day.

D

[QUOTE=Unregistered;346174]Hello Guys, I found about the mersenne numbers yesterday and was fascinated about it. However, I did my own analitycal analysis and the 43rd number somehow is not ordinary. I tried to look up whether it has been confirmed but thought I will ask here on the forum. My analysis is "kinda funny" for some of you probably yet it may be useful to find infinite numbers of mersenne numbers. Just for now I don't want to disclose any of the information as I said I just started yesterday out of curiosty and I will keep you posted as it may be just a coincidence, and if so we can came to a question how many of such numbers ( 43) within my analysis exists.

With Regards,

M.[/QUOTE]

Just what we need. Another crank.

Totally clueless.

Mersenne
 

Okay I admit I'm wrong, why this nervousness? Anyway just look up at the image and see whether it is a strange coincidence. Because as you see in D and E column, the numbers are ALWAYS Even or PRIME, with the exception of 43rd number which equals to 25 which is neither even nor prime. Out of 48 numbers this is the only case right know so to make Mersenne numbers even more challenging my question to you and myself aswell is : Is 43rd Mersenne number is the only prime number that his sum is "pure odd without primes", because 1/3 of all numbers can be thrown out and searching for Mersenne numbers can be faciliated.

With Regards,

M.


PS. here is the link: [url]http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=10e1n42&s=5[/url]

What is the meaning of your columns E? Of course the exponent is not literally equal to 25, rather something based on it is equal to 25. But we can't really comment on it without knowing what it is...

[QUOTE=Unregistered;346241]Okay I admit I'm wrong, why this nervousness? Anyway just look up at the image and see whether it is a strange coincidence. Because as you see in D and E column, the numbers are ALWAYS Even or PRIME, with the exception of 43rd number which equals to 25 which is neither even nor prime. Out of 48 numbers this is the only case right know so to make Mersenne numbers even more challenging my question to you and myself aswell is : Is 43rd Mersenne number is the only prime number that his sum is "pure odd without primes", because 1/3 of all numbers can be thrown out and searching for Mersenne numbers can be faciliated.

With Regards,

M.


PS. here is the link: [url]http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=10e1n42&s=5[/url][/QUOTE]

I see what you're doing in column E: summing the digits of the exponents of these Mersenne numbers. Two major problems I see make your analysis pointless (in my opinion):
[LIST=1][*]Summing the digits like this is pretty much pointless, because there's nothing special about base 10. You'd get a different result with base 2, 12, or 16, for instance.[*]Law of small numbers. A large portion of the odd numbers under 50 are prime (14 out of 24). It's not too surprising to me that out of ~24 such examples, which start out small, that only one is composite. (also, Benford's Law makes the sums a bit smaller than you might think - so the average expected value of each digit is not the average of 0 and 9, but something lower)[/LIST]

It is the exponent the numbers is taken to for instance " 2^30402457" -1" co 25 is equal to the sum of the number " 3+0+4+0+2+4+5+7 = 25.... and this is the only odd number(to this day)that is not prime, unless the number is confirmed to be "30402461" just 4 off from the original number as then we have sum which equals to 29 which is a prime and it would form a conclusion that Mersenne numbers are numbers that their total sum equals to even number or a prime number. The green color represents prime numbers but I guess you know that already so I don't have to explain. Out of 48 numbers, 27 is prime numbers, ending with 41 which is prime as well. In general sense I don't want to make an argument or something but just curious if this could potentially reduce the numbers you guys as GIMPS teamwork do in order to check which numbers are mersenne numbers withing such big span of numbers. From 1 to 100 we have 74 numbers that are Even + Prime, and the rest 26 are pure odd which is rougly 25% that can be thrown out if we can confirm that only totals that are equal to even or prime number are the Mersenne numbers.

With Regards,

M.

[QUOTE=Unregistered;346255]... unless the number is confirmed to be "30402461" just 4 off from the original number ...[/QUOTE]

30402461 = 61 * 498401

One of the first things you should know about Mersenne primes is that for 2^n-1 to be prime, n must be prime. There's been no mistake: 2^30402457-1 is a prime number.

These pages have some info about Mersenne numbers/primes:

[URL]http://primes.utm.edu/mersenne/[/URL]
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_prime[/URL]

Still, why 43rd number is an exception?at least to this point from all the Mersenne Numbers that we know of. Not trying to make people angry at me but just out of curiosity.

:crank:

[QUOTE=Unregistered;346275]Still, why 43rd number is an exception?at least to this point from all the Mersenne Numbers that we know of. Not trying to make people angry at me but just out of curiosity.[/QUOTE]

25 is not prime, put it is a prime power. Can you make your theory fit that?

[QUOTE=Mini-Geek;346272]One of the first things you should know about Mersenne primes is that for 2^n-1 to be prime, n must be prime.[/QUOTE]
Furthermore, n will be divisible by 3 if the sum of the digits is a multiple of 3.
Now how many times would you expect the sum of the digits to be 25, 35,49 or 55?
Is it unlikely that we happen to have found only one instance?

[QUOTE=Unregistered;346241]Okay I admit I'm wrong, why this nervousness? Anyway just look up at the image and see whether it is a strange coincidence. Because as you see in D and E column, the numbers are ALWAYS Even or PRIME, with the exception of 43rd number which equals to 25 which is neither even nor prime. Out of 48 numbers this is the only case right know so to make Mersenne numbers even more challenging my question to you and myself aswell is : Is 43rd Mersenne number is the only prime number that his sum is "pure odd without primes", because 1/3 of all numbers can be thrown out and searching for Mersenne numbers can be faciliated.

With Regards,

M.


PS. here is the link: [url]http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=10e1n42&s=5[/url][/QUOTE]

As I said. Clueless.

Noone is nervous. We just get tired of people who know nothing
about mathematics who come here babbling mindless numerology while
claiming "analysis". We get too many of them.

Half of the sums are expected to be even. The average digit value is
slightly less than 4.5 (The first digit is not uniformly distributed; Benford's
Rule makes it likely to be small). The largest number has 8 digits, so
for the largest number we expect the sum to be about 36.
We expect few numbers to have a sum that is significantly larger than the
expected mean (by the Central Limit Theorem)

The exponent is always prime. so it is no surprise that the sum of digits for 2,3,5,7 The single digit Mersenne exponents) are prime.

Now ask: How many of the odd numbers less than 36 are
NOT divisible by 3? These numbers are 31, 29, 25, 19, 17, 13, 11, 7, and 5.

Bingo!!! Only 25 is composite! And the smaller Mersenne exponents
will have even smaller sums. Ask yourself which of the known Mersenne
prime exponents are big enough to have a digit sum greater than 25???
(especially when taking into account Benford's Rule!) For the smaller
exponents the sum MUST be prime because all of the other odd numbers
are divisible by 3.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;346295]For the smaller
exponents the sum MUST be prime because all of the other odd numbers
are divisible by 3.[/QUOTE]
Shoddy work Silverman.
The sum is often even and not divisible by 3.

[QUOTE=Unregistered;346255]Out of 48 numbers, 27 is prime numbers, ending with 41 which is prime as well. In general sense I don't want to make an argument or something but just curious if this could potentially reduce the numbers you guys as GIMPS teamwork do in order to check which numbers are mersenne numbers withing such big span of numbers. From 1 to 100 we have 74 numbers that are Even + Prime, and the rest 26 are pure odd which is rougly 25% that can be thrown out if we can confirm that only totals that are equal to even or prime number are the Mersenne numbers.

M.[/QUOTE]

Out of the matter of our universe, if you take away the 4% of known matter, the relationship between dark energy and dark matter is 74% - 26%

Does that mean that dark matter/dark energy are tightly linked to prime numbers? I'm afraid not... :smile:

Luigi

[QUOTE=davieddy;346297]Shoddy work Silverman.
The sum is often even and not divisible by 3.[/QUOTE]But give him high marks for effort. Hardly anyone, myself included, would have taken that much trouble to try to educate someone who is presently clueless but may yet be cured of that condition.

"The exponent is always prime. so it is no surprise that the sum of digits for 2,3,5,7 The single digit Mersenne exponents) are prime. "

I didn't asked about single digits as it is logical that sum will be prime....I'm talking about giving a "mathematical prove" or so " Theorem" as you like to call them to prove or disprove why the 43rd Mersenne numbers prime is adding up to 25. Because Yes, I understand that 25 is the only one mentioned while having 8 digits, yet you still didn't answered my question WHY it is 25. and not 23 for instance if all previous numbers hold that it's even or prime. If so it your theorem, what do you predict will happen as it approaches 9.10...11 and so on digits. You suggest that it is to no suprise that the Mersenne number will add to an even or prime yet we see that they don't have to. My idea here is to easy the task as why go through all the combinations if we can throw out Mersenne prime numbers that for sure are not one of them.

With Regards,

M


PS.I'm not trying to inforce my numerological theory yet working witch such numbers as 2^48th Mersenne numbers is for sure not an easy task, and maybe there is an easier approach to it.

[QUOTE=Unregistered;346275]Still, why 43rd number is an exception?at least to this point from all the Mersenne Numbers that we know of.[/QUOTE]Perhaps what Mini-Geek and R.D.Silverman are basically saying is that when one takes into account that all of the decimal-digit sums so far are relatively small (41 or less), there's a high probability that each is either even or prime.

Consider the 40 numbers from 2 to 41. (1 isn't eligible because 2[sup]1[/sup]-1 isn't considered prime.) Half of them are even. That leaves only 20 odd possibilities.

Mersenne primes must have a prime exponent. Any exponent whose digit-sum is a multiple of 3 must be composite (except for 3 itself). So, from the remaining 20 odd numbers, that knocks out 9, 15, 21, 27, 33 and 39.

Left as the only fourteen odd possibilities are: 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 25, 29, 31, 35, 37 and 41. They're all prime except 25 and 35.

So, there are only two non-even, non-prime numbers less than 42 that can be digit-sums of Mersenne prime exponents ... and, as you've seen, we already have one of them occurring among the 49 exponents known so far.

I expect that, probabilistically, it's not very strange that in 49 "tries" of the 34 possible digit-sums less than 42, we've (a) not seen the particular case of 35 yet, and (b) have seen the particular case of 25.

My combinatorial skill is rusty, so I'll let someone else compute the probabilities in 49 tries of (a) having missed "35", and (b) seeing "25", taking into account that the smallest exponents could not have digit-sums as large as 25 or 35. (Note that we have seen the smaller of those two.)

[QUOTE=Unregistered;346275]Still, why 43rd number is an exception?at least to this point from all the Mersenne Numbers that we know of. Not trying to make people angry at me but just out of curiosity.[/QUOTE]

I'm guessing it come down to this the odds of a prime < 59 million has digit sum 25 is roughly 1 in 425 if you allow it to be any number it's roughly 1 in 37 there are 34 Mersenne prime exponents above the minimum exponent that has digital sum of 25 ( 799 by the way) so its not far off from a random occurrence at least if you look at this part of the math.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;346313]I'm guessing it come down to this the odds of a prime < 59 million has digit sum 25 is roughly 1 in 425 if you allow it to be any number it's roughly 1 in 37 there are 34 Mersenne prime exponents above the minimum exponent that has digital sum of 25 ( 799 by the way) so its not far off from a random occurrence at least if you look at this part of the math.[/QUOTE]

sorry I realized now that the mistake is I divided by 59 million so that's when over all the numbers. okay maybe I messed more up:

[CODE]? a=0;forstep(x=799,59000000,9,if(sum(y=1,#eval(Vec(Str(x))),eval(Vec(Str(x)))[y])==25,a=a+1));a
%1 = 1606628
? a=0;forstep(x=799,59000000,9,if(isprime(x) && sum(y=1,#eval(Vec(Str(x))),eval(Vec(Str(x)))[y])==25,a=a+1));a
%2 = 139060
? %1/59000000.
%3 = 0.02723098305084745762711864407
? %2/59000000.
%4 = 0.002356949152542372881355932203
? %1/59000000
%5 = 401657/14750000
? 1/%3
%6 = 36.72287548828975967056468579
? 1/%4
%7 = 424.2772903782539910829857615[/CODE]

is my math if anyone wants to check.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;346305]Left as the only fourteen odd possibilities are: 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 25, 29, 31, 35, 37 and 41. They're all prime except 25 and 35.

So, there are only two non-even, non-prime numbers less than 42 that can be digit-sums of Mersenne prime exponents ... and, as you've seen, we already have one of them occurring among the 49 exponents known so far.

I expect that, probabilistically, it's not very strange that in 49 "tries" of the 34 possible digit-sums less than 42, we've (a) not seen the particular case of 35 yet, and (b) have seen the particular case of 25.[/QUOTE]

Well, as a first approximation let's say that "odd" or "even" have equal probability, and that an odd is 25 or 35 with probability 1/14 each. The expected number of 25s and 35s is 1/2 * 1/14 * 2 * 49 = 3.5. But this ignores the fact that most are too small to generate large sums like 25 and 35.

So let's go through the known Mersenne exponents and choose a number chosen randomly such that (1) both have the same number of digits (2) and the same first digit, and (3) the new number is not divisible by 2, 3, or 5. Then we'll see what the chances are that we get a 25 or a 35. Note that (2) essentially takes care of Benford and (3) takes care of digit sums which are multiples of 3.

We'll start with 13, since for smaller exponents the method does nothing. For 13 there are 4 possibilities: 11, 13, 17, and 19. So this contributes 0 to 25 and 0 to 35. The first number with a positive contribution is 1279 which generates 25 in 6 of the 268 cases (2.2%).

There are 44 exponents to consider. In total, the expected number of 25s in this model is 1.96 and the expected number of 35s is 1.37. A Poisson distribution would say that would be only slightly surprising (alpha = 0.14) to see no 25s but not particularly surprising (alpha = 0.25) to see no 35s.

Cracked it!
 

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;346325]Well, as a first approximation let's say that "odd" or "even" have equal probability, and that an odd is 25 or 35 with probability 1/14 each. The expected number of 25s and 35s is 1/2 * 1/14 * 2 * 49 = 3.5. But this ignores the fact that most are too small to generate large sums like 25 and 35.

So let's go through the known Mersenne exponents and choose a number chosen randomly such that (1) both have the same number of digits (2) and the same first digit, and (3) the new number is not divisible by 2, 3, or 5. Then we'll see what the chances are that we get a 25 or a 35. Note that (2) essentially takes care of Benford and (3) takes care of digit sums which are multiples of 3.

We'll start with 13, since for smaller exponents the method does nothing. For 13 there are 4 possibilities: 11, 13, 17, and 19. So this contributes 0 to 25 and 0 to 35. The first number with a positive contribution is 1279 which generates 25 in 6 of the 268 cases (2.2%).

There are 44 exponents to consider. In total, the expected number of 25s in this model is 1.96 and the expected number of 35s is 1.37. A Poisson distribution would say that would be only slightly surprising (alpha = 0.14) to see no 25s but not particularly surprising (alpha = 0.25) to see no 35s.[/QUOTE]
Sounds like we are on the same track.

Take a number N, 100 or larger say, not divisible by 3.
If we expect 6 Mprimes with exponents between x and 10x (as we do),
show that we expect 2 Mprimes to have N as the sum of the digits of their exponents.

David

[QUOTE=xilman;346299]But give him high marks for effort. Hardly anyone, myself included, would have taken that much trouble to try to educate someone who is presently clueless but may yet be cured of that condition.[/QUOTE]I'll give him an extramark for spelling his name correctly.
In the midst of his verbiage, I might of missed some inference that he was talking about odd sums of digits.
But I never was that enthusiastic about marking that kind of answer, and even less so now.

:davieddy:

[QUOTE=BudgieJane;346292]25 is not prime, put it is a prime power. Can you make your theory fit that?[/QUOTE]

With enough data you can make any assumptions, and with large amount of data I'm pretty sure I can predict the number quite faster than going one by one as you guys do. Going as far as the probability go, you still don't give a realistic approach when 35(sum of Mersenne prime) will appear, as you only give probabilities rather than a realistic view. As one said as we take smaller (decrease in size) of Mersenne prime numbers we MUST expect the sum to be even or prime. However you don't extrapolate your analysis and tell what WILL HAPPEN as we INCREASE Mersenne numbers, not what happens as we decrease.

To the all " experts" with all the knowledge that you possess ( LL test and etc) it still takes quite a long time to discover new Mersenne primes?

PS. Please Moderator and Admin to close this thread. Thank you.

With Regards,

M.

[QUOTE=Unregistered;346389]With enough data you can make any assumptions, and with large amount of data I'm pretty sure I can predict the number quite faster than going one by one as you guys do.[/QUOTE]

If you believe this, you have entirely missed the points that have been made. You may not realize that the quality of the response you have received is substantially higher than most internet sites - several of the responses you have received have been from real mathematicians - people who really make their living doing mathematics and have publications in the field to back it up. While I'm not a believer in "credentials must make it right," I'm also not a believer in dismissing real experts just because I don't like their opinions.

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. Here is a simple exercise to test this out. I haven't yet run this experiment - so it's an honest chance for you to prove me wrong.

Take all the Mersenne Exponents, and find the Next Prime after them. You can easily do this using[URL="http://www.alpertron.com.ar/ECM.HTM"] Dario Alpern's Java Applet[/URL] with N(x). The resulting set of numbers should be a lot like the Mersenne exponents - similar size and prime. Now apply your analysis to THIS set of numbers - I'm betting you will find the same "amazing" result. You can easily try this a few more times, stepping a bit further - N(N(N(x))) is the third prime beyond the Mersenne Exponent.

I propose that you actually do this three times and report back. The experts here strongly expect you to find the same results for all three sets, and therefor that your discovery has no predictive value. If you find something different, then you have found a reason for the experts to reconsider you discovery.

[QUOTE=Unregistered;346389]With enough data you can make any assumptions, and with large amount of data I'm pretty sure I can predict the number quite faster than going one by one as you guys do.[/QUOTE]So? I can predict the winner of the next horse race at Kentucky Downs.

Merely predicting some outcome means nothing unless it has a rational basis and has been demonstrated to be correct. You haven't presented the latter two. We have.

[quote]Going as far as the probability go, you still don't give a realistic approach when 35(sum of Mersenne prime) will appear, as you only give probabilities rather than a realistic view.[/quote]That just demonstrates your ignorance. Probabilities _are_ realistic.

[quote]As one said as we take smaller (decrease in size) of Mersenne prime numbers we MUST expect the sum to be even or prime.[/quote]... or the product of primes greater than three -- referring to the digit sums of the exponents, that is.

[quote]However you don't extrapolate your analysis and tell what WILL HAPPEN as we INCREASE Mersenne numbers,[/quote]Yes, we did! You weren't paying attention!

[U]As the exponents increase their digit sums will continue to be even or prime or the product of primes greater than three.[/U]

Once you actually understand what we've explained, you'll see why the "even or prime or the product of primes greater than three" rule will continue to be true for larger and larger exponents' digit sums.

- - -

There's a more compact way to say "even or prime or the product of primes greater than three". Once you understand, you'll figure that out, too.

[QUOTE]:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
With enough data you can make any assumptions, and with large amount of data I'm pretty sure I can predict the number quite faster than going one by one as you guys do.
[/QUOTE]

Where did you get your math degree? How many papers have you published?
Where do you get the arrogance to say that you can perform mathematics that noone
else (including math PhD's and people with 30 years of studying this subject)
can?


[QUOTE]
Going as far as the probability go, you still don't give a realistic approach when 35(sum of Mersenne prime) will appear, as you only give probabilities rather than a realistic view. As one said as we take smaller (decrease in size) of Mersenne prime numbers we MUST expect the sum to be even or prime. However you don't extrapolate your analysis and tell what WILL HAPPEN as we INCREASE Mersenne numbers, not what happens as we decrease.
[/QUOTE]

Firstly, there does not exist a proof that arbitarily large Mersenne primes exist.
There are strong heuristics that suggest they do, but no proof.

Secondly, it is trivial to see what happens as the Mersenne primes get arbitrarily large.
The probability that their digit sum is prime goes to 0 as M_p --> oo.
Showing how fast the probability goes to 0 as a function of p is a simple
exercize for any first year student in probability and statistics.

This is *trivial*


[QUOTE]
To the all " experts" with all the knowledge that you possess ( LL test and etc) it still takes quite a long time to discover new Mersenne primes?
[/QUOTE]

Now, you are just being an asshole; deprecating those who have much more knowledge
and intelligence and experience than you do.

<plonk>

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;346479]Where did you get your math degree? How many papers have you published?
Where do you get the arrogance to say that you can perform mathematics that noone
else (including math PhD's and people with 30 years of studying this subject)
can?




Firstly, there does not exist a proof that arbitarily large Mersenne primes exist.
There are strong heuristics that suggest they do, but no proof.

Secondly, it is trivial to see what happens as the Mersenne primes get arbitrarily large.
The probability that their digit sum is prime goes to 0 as M_p --> oo.
Showing how fast the probability goes to 0 as a function of p is a simple
exercize for any first year student in probability and statistics.

This is *trivial*




Now, you are just being an asshole; deprecating those who have much more knowledge
and intelligence and experience than you do.

<plonk>[/QUOTE]

Let me add: the OP is a classic instance of Dunning & Kruger in action.

WoW, you think it take a long time to discover new Mersenne prime?
Really? we found 13 of them in less than 20 years, and 35 since the beginning of the computer era.
I think that's can be called quick. Sure it's long since you have to wait for the next one. but, remember, compared to the history of mathematic, 60 years is nothing.
Or , if you can prove *us* wrong, please do. Nothing will make mathematician more joyous than disproved long-term-believed true theory.

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