New Mersenne Conjecture

[VBCurtis]

Perhaps a Google Translate from otherwise readable French?

[chris2be8]

Or an April Fool posted from a time zone where it was already 1 April. Don't assume the location is necessarily correct.

The quote from ewmayer strongly suggests it's a joke.

Chris

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by chris2be8

Or an April Fool posted from a time zone where it was already 1 April. Don't assume the location is necessarily correct.

The quote from ewmayer strongly suggests it's a joke.

Chris

Perhaps. However, based upon prior posts from the same poster, I am
not sure. It is on the same intellectual level as some of the OP's prior
posts.

[cheesehead]

This "conjecture" is basically a joke.

I humbly suggest a new mathematical term: conjoketure,

- - - -

Folks,

This may be original! You read it here first!

Neither a Google search nor a Yahoo! search on "conjoketure" returns any result.

Originally Posted by Google

Did you mean:
conjecture

conjointure

conjugateur

conjoncture




No results containing all your search terms were found.
Your search - conjoketure - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:

• Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
• Try different keywords.
• Try more general keywords.

Originally Posted by Yahoo!

We did not find results for: conjoketure. Try the suggestions below or type a new query above.

Did you mean + conjecture

Suggestions:

• Check your spelling.
• Try more general words.
• Try different words that mean the same thing.
• Try asking a question on Yahoo Answers
• For more helpful tips on searching, visit the Yahoo Search Help Center.

OTOH, it's hard to believe that "conjoketure" has never before been pronounced in some hall of academe.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

OTOH, it's hard to believe that "conjoketure" has never before been pronounced in some hall of academe.

You'd expect so if the same sort of joke has been worked out before by serious mathematicians. Is there anything else comparable?

I wonder who chose the name "New Mersenne Conjecture". That strikes me as possibly tongue-in-cheek in itself, sounding rather grand and at the same time possibly digging at the large number of arbitrary, unproven and probably unprovable statements which people have already made before in Number Theory.

[cheesehead]

Perhaps I'll get a citation in a future edition of the OED because I first put it in publicly-accessible written form.

[retina]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

I humbly suggest a new mathematical term: conjoketure

Cool.

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Perhaps I'll get a citation in a future edition of the OED because I first put it in publicly-accessible written form.

Oops, not so humble anymore.

[cheesehead]

Humble fame.

[ProximaCentauri]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Yes. Furthermore, John indicated that he was not really serious
when he proposed it.

This "conjecture" is basically a joke.

Nowadays math is full with conjectures! Missing the proofs!
Euclid would rotate in his grave when he knew what math turned into the last 2000 years.

[sweety439]

Originally Posted by ATH

So I made a new list myself: NMC.html

You can extended the table to include more terms in A122834, now this table includes all known Mersenne exponents (A000043) and all known Wagstaff exponents (A000978), but only include A122834(n) for n<=27, currently both WM61 and WM127 have known prime factors (1328165573307087715777 and 886407410000361345663448535540258622490179142922169401, respectively), although neither MM61 nor MM127 have known prime factor, however, if either MM61 or MM127 is prime, then the New Mersenne Conjecture would be false, you can extended the table to include all numbers in A122834 up to M127

[sweety439]

I suggest:

* Test all Wagstaff numbers with exponent below 15 million (at least prove or disprove that 13347311 and 13372531 are the next two Wagstaff exponents after 4031399), W13347311 and W13372531 are discovered in 2013 (8 years ago!!!), but currently only the Wagstaff numbers with exponent below 10 million are tested.
* Prove the primality of W95369, W83339 has been proven prime in 2014 (7 years ago!!!), and W95369 is just a little larger than it, also recently a much larger number Partition(1289844341) has been proven prime with Primo.
* Test the Mersenne numbers and the Wagstaff numbers with exponent A122834(n) for 29<=n<=34 (for n=28 and n=35, the corresponding Mersenne numbers are double Mersenne numbers MM61 and MM127, and both have no known prime factors, and the corresponding Wagstaff numbers are both factored and hence proven to be composite) (all these numbers are too large to use primality tests such as N-1 primality test, N+1 primality test, Miller-Rabin primality test, Ballie-PSW primality test, we can only use trial division to find a divisor of the numbers to disprove their primality)