20170409, 04:01  #1 
Jun 2003
1,579 Posts 
Square Riesel numbers < 3896845303873881175159314620808887046066972469809^2

20170409, 21:18  #2 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
4730_{10} Posts 
Are you asking whether we have a list for which n^{2} 1 is prime?

20170409, 22:04  #3  
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville
2^{6}×131 Posts 
Quote:
"Values of n for which n^2 is a Sierpiński number." the equivalent on the Riesel numbers is: "Values of n for which n^2 is a Riesel number." in theory. Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 20170409 at 22:04 

20170409, 22:56  #4  
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
9387_{10} Posts 
Quote:
This is one of the papers linked in OEIS A101036 

20170410, 02:05  #5 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
11172_{8} Posts 
I would not have needed to ask if I'd just looked up the def'n of Sierpinski and Riesel numbers; after all the CRUS work, I'd forgotten that base 2 is default. I was conflating coefficient and base, among other mistakes...

20170410, 04:29  #6 
Romulan Interpreter
Jun 2011
Thailand
2492_{16} Posts 
[thinking]
The part with "under the unproved assumption..." which is mentioned in the OEIS sequence linked by Serge, occurred to me when I was looking at the sequence linked by the OP (where it is not mentioned). I was thinking, "how the hack do they know those are all Sierpinski numbers?". Because if we could prove that, we won't need to do all the CRUS effort we do now, would we? [/thinking] 
20170410, 04:55  #7  
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
2·5·11·43 Posts 
Quote:


20170410, 05:36  #8 
Romulan Interpreter
Jun 2011
Thailand
2·31·151 Posts 
Well... not.
This affirmation assumes that all S' numbers have a small covering set. If we would know that, we don't need to do anything for CRUS. This is what I was saying. But we don't know that, and that is why all the effort for CRUS. We can show a number is S' easily, by showing its covering set assuming it has one which is small enough/finite/whatever. The "small note" was mentioned in the OEIS in the R' side sequence (linked by Serge) but not in the S' side (linked by OP). We know some S' or R' numbers (those with a small covering set), but we don't know if those are ALL (of course, under a limit. I am not talking about infinity here). 
20170410, 10:50  #9  
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville
8384_{10} Posts 
Quote:
for k*2^n1 : k=2 mod 3 n = 1 mod 2 creates a value divisible by 3 k=1 mod 3 n = 0 mod 2 also creates divisibility by 3 k= 0 mod 3 never divisible by 3 for the final number, regardless of n. ... Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 20170410 at 10:51 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Are Mersenne numbers really square?  JM Montolio A  Miscellaneous Math  23  20180308 14:24 
Squarefreeness of Mersenne numbers  Qubit  Math  2  20140502 23:51 
square free Mersenne Numbers?  kurtulmehtap  Math  0  20120917 13:04 
Square numbers and binary representation  ET_  Miscellaneous Math  40  20100606 12:55 
How did they prove that Riesel/Sierpinski numbers.  Unregistered  Homework Help  17  20091008 18:08 