View Single Post
Old 2005-10-04, 08:08   #3
geoff's Avatar
Mar 2003
New Zealand

13×89 Posts

My logic might be letting me down here, but since p=M(n) automatically satisfies the first condition of the NMC when M(n) is a Mersenne prime, finding a factor of (2^M(n)+1)/3, as Citrix suggests, would prove that either the double Mersenne MM(n) is composite or the NMC is false. If we didn't already know that MM(n) was composite wouldn't that be progress?
geoff is offline   Reply With Quote