mersenneforum.org 541456 and 51456. I checked 20 numbers 2000 times and found 200 patterns!!
 User Name Remember Me? Password
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2018-12-11, 08:28 #1 enzocreti   Mar 2018 10000011112 Posts 541456 and 51456. I checked 20 numbers 2000 times and found 200 patterns!! pg(k)=M(k)||M(k-1) where || denotes concatenation base 10 and M(k) is the k-th Mersenne number. Examples of such numbers are 1023511, 255127, 12763... I found that pg(k) is prime for k=51456 and for k=541456. I wonder if that is only a coincidence (541456-51456=700^2) or there is an hidden structure undermeath these numbers. What is the probability to have by mere chance two probable primes with these two amazing exponents?
2018-12-11, 09:08   #2
axn

Jun 2003

22×52×72 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by enzocreti I wonder if that is only a coincidence
Yes, unfortunately.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by enzocreti What is the probability to have by mere chance two probable primes with these two amazing exponents?
This question is not very meaningful. You haven't specified what property(ies) of this pair of numbers makes them "amazing". Once you specify that in a more mathematically rigorous way, we can attempt to quantify the probability.

As such, what you're doing is looking for after-the-fact coincidences. When you started out with this series, you were only focusing on the lack of 6 (mod 7) primes. Now you're focusing on pairs of "amazing" exponents. But none of these were predicted beforehand. You just looked at the numbers (which gives primes) and tried to find coincidences, and you did. Nothing more.

2018-12-11, 09:14   #3
enzocreti

Mar 2018

10000011112 Posts
IT IS NOT A COINCIDENCE!

Quote:
 Originally Posted by axn Yes, unfortunately. This question is not very meaningful. You haven't specified what property(ies) of this pair of numbers makes them "amazing". Once you specify that in a more mathematically rigorous way, we can attempt to quantify the probability. As such, what you're doing is looking for after-the-fact coincidences. When you started out with this series, you were only focusing on the lack of 6 (mod 7) primes. Now you're focusing on pairs of "amazing" exponents. But none of these were predicted beforehand. You just looked at the numbers (which gives primes) and tried to find coincidences, and you did. Nothing more.

I am sure it is NOT a coincidence!!!

 2018-12-11, 09:18 #4 enzocreti   Mar 2018 17·31 Posts pg(2131) and pg(2131*9=19179) also this is a coincidence: pg(2131) is prime and pg(2131*9) is prime!!!
2018-12-11, 11:04   #5
axn

Jun 2003

10011001001002 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by enzocreti I am sure it is NOT a coincidence!!!
Quote:
 Originally Posted by enzocreti also this is a coincidence: pg(2131) is prime and pg(2131*9) is prime!!!
I understand that you think these are not coincidences. You will keep on trying to find "hidden patterns". I have said all I can. Good luck.

2018-12-11, 16:49   #6
VBCurtis

"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

127A16 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by enzocreti also this is a coincidence: pg(2131) is prime and pg(2131*9) is prime!!!
Yes, you're correct here- this is a coincidence.

You have no idea what you mean what you say "this is not a coincidence," and it makes you look like a fool. You're practicing the prime-number version of throwing darts at a dartboard, and then expressing amazement that you can find some meaning in the score.

Perhaps you have a knack for astrology; those people find meaning in trivial happenings too.

2018-12-11, 17:47   #7
CRGreathouse

Aug 2006

32×5×7×19 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by enzocreti 2,3,4,7,8,12,19,22,36,46,51,67,79,215,359,394,451,1323,2131,3336,3371,6231,19179=9*2131,39699,51456,56238,69660,75894,79798,92020,174968, 176006,181015,285019,331259,360787,366770,...,541456
Quote:
 Originally Posted by enzocreti also this is a coincidence: pg(2131) is prime and pg(2131*9) is prime!!!
I think you might be on to something.

pg(36) is prime, and so is pg(36*1935).
pg(67) is prime, and so is pg(67*93).
pg(67) is prime, and so is pg(67*768).
pg(215) is prime, and so is pg(215*324).
pg(215) is prime, and so is pg(215*428).

I discarded the numbers under 36 (to avoid getting easy small multiples) and 541456 (because it wasn't clear if some numbers were skipped). This is far more than the number of multiples expected by chance.

Does this suggest that multiples of earlier terms are more likely, or just that having small factors are more likely? It's not clear to me.

Last fiddled with by CRGreathouse on 2018-12-11 at 17:57

2018-12-11, 18:18   #8
Batalov

"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

32·7·149 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by enzocreti ... or there is an hidden structure undermeath these numbers?
Of course there is! This is what happens when you take off the tinfoil hat -- the whole world starts bursting at its seams. Put it back on - immediately!

2018-12-11, 18:39   #9
science_man_88

"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

26×131 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by CRGreathouse pg(36) is prime, and so is pg(36*1935). pg(67) is prime, and so is pg(67*93). pg(67) is prime, and so is pg(67*768). pg(215) is prime, and so is pg(215*324). pg(215) is prime, and so is pg(215*428).
are all multiples that work for larger values multiples of 3?

Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 2018-12-11 at 18:48

2018-12-12, 07:09   #10
enzocreti

Mar 2018

17·31 Posts
Primes

Quote:
 Originally Posted by CRGreathouse I think you might be on to something. pg(36) is prime, and so is pg(36*1935). pg(67) is prime, and so is pg(67*93). pg(67) is prime, and so is pg(67*768). pg(215) is prime, and so is pg(215*324). pg(215) is prime, and so is pg(215*428). I discarded the numbers under 36 (to avoid getting easy small multiples) and 541456 (because it wasn't clear if some numbers were skipped). This is far more than the number of multiples expected by chance. Does this suggest that multiples of earlier terms are more likely, or just that having small factors are more likely? It's not clear to me.

I don't know, the only thing I can see is that these numbers are not random at all!

2018-12-12, 17:18   #11
enzocreti

Mar 2018

17×31 Posts
WHO ARE YOU?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by VBCurtis Yes, you're correct here- this is a coincidence. You have no idea what you mean what you say "this is not a coincidence," and it makes you look like a fool. You're practicing the prime-number version of throwing darts at a dartboard, and then expressing amazement that you can find some meaning in the score. Perhaps you have a knack for astrology; those people find meaning in trivial happenings too.
WHO ARE YOU?

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post ONeil ONeil 27 2018-12-03 01:52 Philly314 Aliquot Sequences 3 2014-11-16 14:58 Evgeny Dolgov Miscellaneous Math 38 2010-09-05 17:45 wustvn Puzzles 7 2008-11-20 14:00 Xyzzy Miscellaneous Math 41 2008-11-08 17:57

All times are UTC. The time now is 12:52.

Sun Apr 11 12:52:15 UTC 2021 up 3 days, 7:33, 1 user, load averages: 1.16, 1.30, 1.38