mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Math

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2014-03-30, 04:00   #1
ATH
Einyen
 
ATH's Avatar
 
Dec 2003
Denmark

317610 Posts
Default New Mersenne Conjecture

The New Mersenne (Prime) Conjecture is basically saying if a prime p is an exponent for both a Mersenne Prime (2p-1) and a Wagstaff prime (2p+1)/3 then p is of the form 2k +/- 1 or 4k +/- 3 where k is some natural number. The conjecture says that if 2 of these conditions is true then so is the third.

I tried submitting some updates a few times to the list here:
http://primes.utm.edu/mersenne/NewMe...onjecture.html
but it seems it is not being updated anymore.

So I made a new list myself: NMC.html

The conjecture corresponds to there being only 1 or 3 "yes" in each horizontal line. If 2 yes occurred the conjecture would be false.
The green lines are where the conjecture holds, and the 2 red lines are still unknown.




Here are the updates I made since the old list:
p=11213, p=216091, p=1398269: Added factors of (2p+1)/3 found on factordb.com

p=65537: Added factor of 2p-1 found on mersenne.org

p=986191, p=4031399, p=13347311, p=13372531: Added the 4 lines for the new Wagstaff primes with factors of 2p-1 from mersenne.org

p=20966011, p=30402457, p=32582657, p=37156667, p=42643801, p=43112609, p=57885161:
Added the 7 latest Mersenne Primes. Found factors of 3 of the Wagstaff numbers with LLR, and factored the rest to 69-70 bits. Ran the Vrba-Reix test with LLR on the remaining 4 Wagstaff numbers proving them composite:
(2^20996011+1)/3 is not prime. Vrba-Reix RES64: BA75673D7BAB002F Time : 566688.538 sec.
(2^30402457+1)/3 is not prime. Vrba-Reix RES64: 9AD14D52DFCCB2A6 Time : 887355.947 sec.
(2^32582657+1)/3 is not prime. Vrba-Reix RES64: 99985D4C1756CE0F Time : 946154.777 sec.
(2^42643801+1)/3 is not prime. Vrba-Reix RES64: 90ACCFA9ADA98C0D Time : 1575885.158 sec.

p=268435459, p=1073741827: Added these 2 lines so the list roughly goes to p=1 billion like primenet v5. Found 1 factor of Wagstaff number with LLR and factored the other to 76 bits without success. Factored the 2 Mersenne numbers to 80 and 82 bits with mfaktc without success.

Last fiddled with by ATH on 2014-03-30 at 04:03
ATH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-03-30, 09:42   #2
Brian-E
 
Brian-E's Avatar
 
"Brian"
Jul 2007
The Netherlands

CC616 Posts
Default

Is the conjecture merely motivated by observation that it works for small p and the probability that two of the conditions (let alone three) are satisfied very quickly becomes vanishingly small? (And hence the conjecture is expected to hold in rather the same way that the conjecture of no Fermat primes beyond F4 is expected.)

Or is it in fact conjectured that there are more occurrences of all three conditions holding beyond the last known case of p=127?

Last fiddled with by Brian-E on 2014-03-30 at 09:43
Brian-E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-03-30, 12:48   #3
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

22×5×373 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian-E View Post
Is the conjecture merely motivated by observation that it works for small p and the probability that two of the conditions (let alone three) are satisfied very quickly becomes vanishingly small?
Yes. Furthermore, John indicated that he was not really serious
when he proposed it.

This "conjecture" is basically a joke.
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-03-30, 14:24   #4
axn
 
axn's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

514910 Posts
Default

I always thought that NMC was inspired by Mersenne's original conjecture list 3, 5, 7, 13, 17, 19, 31, 67, 127 and 257, which indeed picks out primes of the form 2^k+/-1 and 4^k+/-3 (except 61, which, while of the form 4^k-3 and in fact gives a Mersenne prime, was left out by Mersenne). Could be a coincidence though.
axn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-03-30, 21:31   #5
ewmayer
2ω=0
 
ewmayer's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Rep├║blica de California

22×5×11×53 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by axn View Post
I always thought that NMC was inspired by Mersenne's original conjecture list 3, 5, 7, 13, 17, 19, 31, 67, 127 and 257, which indeed picks out primes of the form 2^k+/-1 and 4^k+/-3 (except 61, which, while of the form 4^k-3 and in fact gives a Mersenne prime, was left out by Mersenne). Could be a coincidence though.
One good joke deserves another.
ewmayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-03-31, 01:15   #6
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

20C016 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ewmayer View Post
One good joke deserves another.
Can we test the validity of it in this thread ? There's a pattern in the difference between (2^(2n+1) + 1)/3 and the next Mersenne number. Basically, A080674 with an extra 0 on the front. Could we test the validity of it based on this ? Admittedly, I have a portfolio to complete for school, so I might get around to it myself.
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-03-31, 13:45   #7
CRGreathouse
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Aug 2006

3·1,993 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
This "conjecture" is basically a joke.
Yes. It seems to be an example of a theorem which is true by coincidence. (I would love to be proved wrong here!)

Last fiddled with by CRGreathouse on 2014-03-31 at 13:45
CRGreathouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-03-31, 21:27   #8
Kathegetes
 
Kathegetes's Avatar
 
Jul 2012
Paris, France.

32·11 Posts
Default Hello ewmeyer I do not get here often, but I recall a reason to respect you

Quote:
Originally Posted by ewmayer View Post
One good joke deserves another.
Some think, weight givens, speak without reaching conclusion missing some step. Given; more can be known than is capable of being penetrated by mere mortal logic at some moment. I may have read Mersenne's list may be uncertain in regards to 61 or 67 ie, reading his hand writing. If you please to confirm the following... your friends may be pleased to wager conjectures entrusting all to TIME ; as she alone has proven herself a noble guardian of all entrusted unto her, whether mortal or divine. On the quantity of members of ( S ) less than a given term of G. Let K be a known prime such that 2^K-1 is prime D, such that D(D+1)/2 is some S, sum of her parts. Let G0= triangular radix of 8 = 3.5311... Zero S less than G0. G1=8, G2=36, G3=666, all terms of G follow by triangulation of 8. The members of S show an increase. Present knowledge of proper order of S being incomplete though perhaps correct up to G28. At G30 we delight in desire to know. K.D.S projects merely 53 as a divine statement. All such being feminine intuitive conjectures divined in TIME. When will 5 be proven in any term? Then 6,7,8...should mortals divine no logic in such trivial beauties?
Kathegetes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-03-31, 22:49   #9
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

1D2416 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kathegetes View Post
Some think, weight givens, speak without reaching conclusion missing some step. Given; more can be known than is capable of being penetrated by mere mortal logic at some moment. I may have read Mersenne's list may be uncertain in regards to 61 or 67 ie, reading his hand writing. If you please to confirm the following... your friends may be pleased to wager conjectures entrusting all to TIME ; as she alone has proven herself a noble guardian of all entrusted unto her, whether mortal or divine. On the quantity of members of ( S ) less than a given term of G. Let K be a known prime such that 2^K-1 is prime D, such that D(D+1)/2 is some S, sum of her parts. Let G0= triangular radix of 8 = 3.5311... Zero S less than G0. G1=8, G2=36, G3=666, all terms of G follow by triangulation of 8. The members of S show an increase. Present knowledge of proper order of S being incomplete though perhaps correct up to G28. At G30 we delight in desire to know. K.D.S projects merely 53 as a divine statement. All such being feminine intuitive conjectures divined in TIME. When will 5 be proven in any term? Then 6,7,8...should mortals divine no logic in such trivial beauties?

What kind of drugs are you taking?
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-04-01, 00:46   #10
NBtarheel_33
 
NBtarheel_33's Avatar
 
"Nathan"
Jul 2008
Maryland, USA

5·223 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
What kind of drugs are you taking?
Or perhaps (of the psychotropic variety) *not* taking?
NBtarheel_33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-04-01, 04:19   #11
TheMawn
 
TheMawn's Avatar
 
May 2013
East. Always East.

11×157 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NBtarheel_33 View Post
Or perhaps (of the psychotropic variety) *not* taking?
I must be not taking the same drugs. I couldn't even follow it.
TheMawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Use of new Mersenne conjecture ? bhelmes Number Theory Discussion Group 0 2017-07-28 20:34
Mersenne Conjecture sascha77 Math 15 2010-05-08 00:33
conjecture about mersenne numbers sascha77 Math 2 2010-01-07 08:06
The New Mersenne Conjecture Dougy Math 32 2008-10-26 07:17
New Mersenne and Cunningham conjecture olivier_latinne Math 54 2008-03-12 10:04

All times are UTC. The time now is 15:19.


Sat Oct 23 15:19:07 UTC 2021 up 92 days, 9:48, 0 users, load averages: 3.09, 3.18, 2.77

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.