mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Miscellaneous Math

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2011-01-22, 14:26   #1
davar55
 
davar55's Avatar
 
May 2004
New York City

419810 Posts
Default 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.
davar55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-22, 15:05   #2
Mini-Geek
Account Deleted
 
Mini-Geek's Avatar
 
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA

426710 Posts
Default

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?

Last fiddled with by Mini-Geek on 2011-01-22 at 15:06
Mini-Geek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-22, 15:08   #3
davar55
 
davar55's Avatar
 
May 2004
New York City

419810 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mini-Geek View Post
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?
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?
davar55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-22, 15:22   #4
Mini-Geek
Account Deleted
 
Mini-Geek's Avatar
 
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA

17·251 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davar55 View Post
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?
Let me rephrase, in Wikipedia-style:

Quote:
Originally Posted by davar55 View Post
...the lack of odd perfect numbers and the
infinitude of the twin primes are related,
in particular one might prove the other?[B][citation needed][/B]

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).

Last fiddled with by Mini-Geek on 2011-01-22 at 15:24
Mini-Geek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-22, 15:27   #5
davar55
 
davar55's Avatar
 
May 2004
New York City

2·2,099 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mini-Geek View Post
Let me rephrase, in Wikipedia-style:


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

Am I an amateur?
davar55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-22, 15:30   #6
Mini-Geek
Account Deleted
 
Mini-Geek's Avatar
 
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA

17·251 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davar55 View Post
Am I an amateur?
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?

Last fiddled with by Mini-Geek on 2011-01-22 at 15:36
Mini-Geek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-22, 15:37   #7
rajula
 
rajula's Avatar
 
"Tapio Rajala"
Feb 2010
Finland

32×5×7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davar55 View Post
Well, I am a mathematican (Yale BS Math 1976 Distinction in Mathematics).

Am I an amateur?
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.
rajula is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-22, 15:38   #8
davar55
 
davar55's Avatar
 
May 2004
New York City

419810 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mini-Geek View Post
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?
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 .....
davar55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-22, 15:40   #9
davar55
 
davar55's Avatar
 
May 2004
New York City

2·2,099 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rajula View Post
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.
I am not in any way, nor have I ever given any such impression,
regardless of your classification.
davar55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-22, 21:17   #10
davar55
 
davar55's Avatar
 
May 2004
New York City

2×2,099 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mini-Geek View Post
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?
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.
davar55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-22, 21:19   #11
davar55
 
davar55's Avatar
 
May 2004
New York City

106616 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rajula View Post
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.
Then before you use the sp.mmer word, check ALL my postings
and their attachments.
davar55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is this new formula for Perfect Numbers useful? mahbel Miscellaneous Math 20 2017-03-01 22:41
Right Perfect Prime Numbers Housemouse Math 34 2016-04-07 16:29
Odd Perfect Number, when will numbers go beyond ecm? jasong Factoring 1 2006-05-14 11:28
Perfect Numbers MajUSAFRet Math 3 2003-12-13 03:55
Odd Perfect Numbers Zeta-Flux Math 1 2003-05-28 19:41

All times are UTC. The time now is 05:11.

Sun Nov 29 05:11:10 UTC 2020 up 80 days, 2:22, 3 users, load averages: 2.35, 2.12, 1.79

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.