mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Miscellaneous Math

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2007-03-15, 13:59   #1
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

872610 Posts
Default Do-it-yourself, crank, mersenne prediction thread.

Make yourself a crank.

Propose a method to predict primes (or at least a bunch of likely candidates).

General philospophy (rules): it needs to be somehow mathematic in nature. Using various bases and graphic methods are encouraged. The real small M's can be excluded. If you need to drop one out of the middle to make your "method" work, do so silently, it makes it more fun to slip things by people. Ideally, it is based upon some characteristics of the exponent, or some odd aspect of the digits of the decimal expansion. Don't worry if your method works for only the MP's that you can test by hand. Stated exceptions to the rule are encouraged. Ambigous language and logic problems (the more obscur the better) earn style points. You get the idea.

Have fun.
Uncwilly is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-15, 19:38   #2
Patrick123
 
Patrick123's Avatar
 
Jan 2006
JHB, South Africa

157 Posts
Default

M45 has been predicted!!! 56367431
  • Gcd of the exponent vs Mersenne number of 25 & 35 is 5 so 45 will have the same. 15 would have had it but since M1 is 2 an even number, this upset the balance but luckily the Chaos factor straightened this out before M25 arrived.
  • Exponent mod 6 = 5 - all of the Mersenne prime are either 1 or 5. M1 should be removed from the list, possibly to the extent that 2 should not even be declared prime since its even and interrupts all other logical number patterns relating to prime numbers.
  • There is a lost chapter of Nostradamus' writings that was discovered recently, it contained the following:
    "In the year of the Swine, from the Southern most part of the Dark Continent, shall arise a number that shall take two score and five years to write by hand, the largest indivisible number known to man, discovered by the symbol of the rat."

There is a simple way to predict it. I'm currently trimming the 39 page proof down to 3 lines, so please be patient, it should be ready by 2023.

Regards
Patrick
ps. 'Mersenne' is reflected as a spelling error in the editor???

June 29 You will have your M45 (sooner if I get a faster CPU)!

Last fiddled with by Patrick123 on 2007-03-15 at 20:04
Patrick123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-15, 19:50   #3
MooooMoo
Apprentice Crank
 
MooooMoo's Avatar
 
Mar 2006

11·41 Posts
Default

I have found many NEW, EXCITING mersenne primes using an IMPROVED version of a FOOLPROOF theorem by Master Alex, troels munkner, and Dr. David John Hill, Jr.
This theorem was produced during SEVEN LONG YEARS of careful study, beginning with the time I was a graduate student in MIT. I have labelled it the "Kwok-Alex-Munkner-Hill theorem", and it is IMPORTANT enough to REVOLUTIONIZE cryptography.
I have often posted the EXACT PROOF and PROGRAMS needed to carry out the theorem, but I cannot do so today. This is because the GREEDY NAZI's of the board, EWMAYER, XYZZY, and PRIME95, want to SILENCE my work and claim the EFF prizes for themselves.

All I will say is that it is based on a simple consequence of number theory. It shows that ANY FRACTION will either terminate or repeat infinitely. If the numerator and denominator are PRIME, the result will be a number that repeats only after a very long number of digits. Example: 73/19 goes 3.842105... and THE SEQUENCE only repeats 20 digits later, when 842105... shows up again. However, when the numerator and denominator are COMPOSITE, the number will either terminate or repeat after a very short number of digits. Example: 68/15 goes 4.533333, and the number 3 repeats every time.

Therefore, when a fraction is evaluated, the LONGER it takes for a SEQUENCE in it to REPEAT, the greater the chance of the numerator and denominator being PRIME. This forms the basis of this PROOF, and I challenge ANYONE to find a "FLAW" in this theorem.

Using that, I developed a VERY FAST computer program to divide possible candidates into each other. It went M3000001/M3000000, M3000002/M3000000, and so on until M79300000/M3000000. After that, the denominator was incremented, and it went:
M3000000/M3000001, M3000002/M3000001, and so on until M79300000/M3000001.
I kept on doing this until M79300000/M79299999. After each division, my program checked for the NUMBER OF DIGITS it took until a string of digits started repeating itself. I will not disclose my program for fear that someone will STEAL my program, COPYRIGHT it, and PROFIT from it.

I ran the program for a year, and I found that after M32582657, there will be ONLY TWO prime numbers below M79,300,000, the current limit of the GIMPS software.

Those two numbers are M68394881 and M74560093.

I hope this gets me maximum points on the crank index: http://primes.utm.edu/notes/crackpot.html
MooooMoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-15, 20:09   #4
hhh
 
hhh's Avatar
 
Jun 2005

5648 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MooooMoo View Post
I ran the program for a year, and I found that after M32582657, there will be ONLY TWO prime numbers below M79,300,000, the current limit of the GIMPS software.

Those two numbers are M68394881 and M74560093.
The only PROBLEM with your INCONTESTABLE PROOF is the CRAPPY gimps software, one MUST agree.
hhh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-15, 20:15   #5
Patrick123
 
Patrick123's Avatar
 
Jan 2006
JHB, South Africa

157 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MooooMoo View Post
Those two numbers are M68394881 and M74560093.
He! He! Not good enough, I've got Bearnol backing me up!!!
Patrick123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-15, 20:22   #6
Patrick123
 
Patrick123's Avatar
 
Jan 2006
JHB, South Africa

100111012 Posts
Default

If I had to post my proof here, as what it stands, Dr. Silverman's understanding of it will be equivalent to a child in kindergarden vs Mr, Spock from Star-Trek.
Patrick123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-15, 20:29   #7
MooooMoo
Apprentice Crank
 
MooooMoo's Avatar
 
Mar 2006

11·41 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick123 View Post
If I had to post my proof here, as what it stands, Dr. Silverman's understanding of it will be equivalent to a child in kindergarden vs Mr, Spock from Star-Trek.
Don't worry, cochet will have no problem understanding it
MooooMoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-15, 20:55   #8
Patrick123
 
Patrick123's Avatar
 
Jan 2006
JHB, South Africa

157 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MooooMoo View Post
Don't worry, cochet will have no problem understanding it
That's what I'm relying on. I've already PM'd him & sent my proof
Patrick123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-15, 21:31   #9
jasong
 
jasong's Avatar
 
"Jason Goatcher"
Mar 2005

5×701 Posts
Default

First, I must say I got this idea from someone else, I forget who. I wouldn't refer to them as a crank, as the thread was more of a "check this out" sort of thing.

[crank]Since p-1 and p+1 are mysterious methods to most people, including myself, I suggest that the smoother a prime number after it's biggest p-1 or p+1 factor is removed, the more likely that it will be prime. I am working on a simple formula that, while it's not guaranteed to find ALL primes, will greatly facilitate the search, and will allow us to find numbers 2-3 times bigger then with the methods Prime95 is incorporating.

As an example, look at the number 127. We already know that 2^127-1 is prime, but look at the p-1 and p+1 aspect of it. P-1 yields 2*3^2*7, not very interesting. But p+1(128) yields 2^7, which is about a smooth as you can get.[/crank]

If anyone wants to expand on my method, feel free. Please note that if this method is found to have any merit at all, it is because I am a lucky bastard, and not because I have any outstanding skills.
jasong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-15, 21:57   #10
Patrick123
 
Patrick123's Avatar
 
Jan 2006
JHB, South Africa

9D16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasong View Post
If anyone wants to expand on my method, feel free. Please note that if this method is found to have any merit at all, it is because I am a lucky bastard, and not because I have any outstanding skills.
You Lazy Bugger!!!!! You throw some snippets of already deduced information into the pool and hope Great Minds will create a Jason-Troels theorem that will allow you to predict the next 599+ Mersennes!!!! well I'm sorry I think it's totally - as Daffy said... Despicable!!!!!

Patrick123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-15, 22:45   #11
Patrick123
 
Patrick123's Avatar
 
Jan 2006
JHB, South Africa

100111012 Posts
Default

Great News!!!!!

I have now managed to create an algorithm that will allow the Lucas-Lehmer test to be spread across a multitude of computers. This will effectively allow us to prove my M45 number in an extremely short period of time. What I require of you is to provide me with at least 7 non-adiabatic Quantum Computers for three micro-seconds (Please ensure that there is a decent anti-virus program installed, double check it for spy-ware!!!). The Quantum Computers must be at least n^3 qubits in size.

Regards
Patrick
ps. This beats the pants off Shor's algorithm
Patrick123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2045 eclipse/future prediction thread MooMoo2 Lounge 2 2017-08-26 23:39
Standard crank division by zero thread Don Blazys Miscellaneous Math 646 2017-02-06 23:09
Prediction for the next prime paulunderwood 3*2^n-1 Search 7 2008-06-20 10:31
Crank Emoticon Mini-Geek Forum Feedback 21 2007-03-06 19:21
Remove my thread from the Crank Forum amateurII Miscellaneous Math 40 2005-12-21 09:42

All times are UTC. The time now is 21:31.

Fri Oct 23 21:31:23 UTC 2020 up 43 days, 18:42, 0 users, load averages: 1.71, 1.84, 2.23

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.