20051006, 13:00  #1 
Sep 2005
127 Posts 
EFF claim(s)
Please indulge me with this.
I don't necessarily require comment, and I'm not being deliberately confrontational  I just want to put down a marker (I wrote directly to the EFF about this last year, and never received a reply). I want that prize money(s)!!! :) The topic, however contentious, is at least relevant to this forum... http://www.bearnol.pwp.blueyonder.co...h/mmprime.html Thanks, J 
20051006, 13:10  #2 
Oct 2004
23^{2} Posts 
Step 2 of this proof appears to fall down as it assumes there are an infinite number of mersenne primes.
There ARE an infinite supply of mersenne NUMBERS. Most of these are NOT prime. There does not yet exist a proof that the supply of mersenne PRIMES is infinite. They will either need to SHOW this to be true, or rethink the supposed proof. Regards, Peter Last fiddled with by Peter Nelson on 20051006 at 13:12 
20051006, 13:15  #3 
Sep 2005
7F_{16} Posts 
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your response. The link quoted (http://www.bearnol.pwp.blueyonder.co...h/perfect2.htm) [from within the link quoted above originally by me] yields a proof of the Inf. of Mersenne primes (ie it is a lemma on the way to my proof). J 
20051006, 13:52  #4  
Bamboozled!
"πΊππ·π·π"
May 2003
Down not across
2·7^{2}·109 Posts 
Quote:
Code:
There are an infinite number of Mersenne primes (2**p1) and hence (even) perfect numbers. Proof: Suppose Mp = 2**p1 hcf (Mp, n) = 1, for all n<p [by Lemma 1] let p>99999β¦ [Euclid] => Mp prime => there exist an infinite number of prime Mp Paul P.S. Sometimes I wonder why I bother. My only excuse is that I feel that I may be doing others a favour when I draw attention to sloppy reasoning in a purported proof, in the hope that they may pay attention and avoid such themselves. 

20051006, 14:09  #5 
Oct 2004
23^{2} Posts 
Your claim "There are an infinite number of Mersenne primes (2**p1) and hence (even) perfect numbers."
You appear to be presenting something as a proof that there are infinite mersenne primes. I already believe your LEMMA1 "Any divisor of Mp is of the form 2kp+1" And further you seem to use LEMMA2 only to prove this. So now if I try to follow your reasoning, you use LEMMA1 (which I accept) to prove your assertion using the following... "Proof: Suppose Mp = 2**p1 hcf (Mp, n) = 1, for all n<p [by Lemma 1] let p>99999β¦ [Euclid] => Mp prime => there exist an infinite number of prime Mp" Your line "let p>99999...[Euclid]" appears to be a reference to the fact we know and have proof that prime numbers are infinite. You appear to be proving that any mersenne prime is a prime number (which is self evident by definition), rather than that if we keep checking primes (or mersenne numbers) some of them will be mersenne primes. Sorry if I misunderstand, my computing is superior to my maths. But from my reading of it I don't think this is proof that there exist infinite number of prime Mp. Paul, I'm with you. Suggestion: If your thinking isn't yet an actual proof then call it something like "towards a proof" or you will be ridiculed by Dr Silverman ;) P.S. I did like your Java code in the other controversial thread, even if your algorithm wasn't faster. A language like C would probably be understood by a wider audience here though. Last fiddled with by Peter Nelson on 20051006 at 14:18 Reason: Paul beat me to it 
20051006, 15:55  #6 
Jan 2005
Transdniestr
503 Posts 
I could see why you didn't get a reply.

20051006, 16:11  #7 
Sep 2005
127 Posts 
Hi Peter (and to a lesser extent(!) Paul),
(Thanks again for your response) [and also thanks for the positive comment re my Java, which I _do_ like as a language, though I know a little C too] I'll try and keep responding as I see points I still want to argue, just folks let me know if /when I should stop... As regards my linked work. I do genuinely claim (and believe) this is a complete proof [and the exposition is moreorless complete  if you look at other proofs on my site, listed above this one, I give slightly more detailed steps about this particular/similar technique at its first occurrence, which might aid understanding  also I'll expand below...]. However I grant this step you pick up on here is slightly contentious. I've had lengthy and detailed discussions about this proof with Will Edgington last year by email, and he failed to convince me I was wrong (though admittedly I suspect I failed to totally convince him I was right :)  anyway I think we both learnt something from the exchange) ...speaking of which I _do_ (so far in my brief experience) like _this_ forum. I've had the best discussions (of any forum at least) yet re math, here... anyway I'll try not to waffle and dilute the/anyone's experience... You surmise correctly that I use the infinitude of primes [Euclid]. What I'm saying is that since any divisor of Mp, as p>inf, has to be strictly greater than p [actually at least as big as 2kp+1], and since it is impossible to have a number _strictly_ greater than infinity, then there can be no proper divisors of Mp 'at infinity', but instead an infinite string of prime Mp. 
20051006, 16:19  #8 
"Nancy"
Aug 2002
Alexandria
2,467 Posts 
This boggles the mind. I honestly don't know where to begin.
I suppose Bob must be wincing in pain reading these threads... Alex 
20051006, 16:38  #9 
Aug 2003
Snicker, AL
1677_{8} Posts 
I'm wincing and I'm not a mathematician.
The world has a lot of dogs. Because the world has a lot of dogs, they can't possibly be counted. The only representation of an uncountable number is infinity. Therefore the number of dogs in the world is infinite. Hey, its just as good as the logic above! Fusion Last fiddled with by Fusion_power on 20051006 at 16:40 
20051006, 16:39  #10 
Jun 2003
62B_{16} Posts 
Can you prove that the number of dogs in this universe are finite?

20051006, 17:02  #11  
Jun 2005
Near Beetlegeuse
604_{8} Posts 
Quote:
A dog is a mammal. Mammals reproduce by giving birth to live young. Therefore dogs reproduce by giving birth to live young. A dog lives for a finite number of years. It takes a finite period of time for a dog to reproduce in this manner, and therefore a dog can only produce a finite number of puppies in its lifetime. Since at some point in time there was only one pair of dogs on earth, which produced only a finite number of puppies, which in turn produced only a finite number of puppies, which in turn produced only a finite number of puppies, there have only ever been born a finite number of puppies. Because dogs live for a finite number of years, some of these have died. Therefore, there are a finite number of dogs on earth. We do naturally have to accept that βdogβ in this context includes bitches. 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Why would a website claim I've made too many requests when I haven't been back for hours?  jasong  jasong  5  20160602 01:14 
Perhaps the independent LMHs should claim ranges?  chalsall  Lone Mersenne Hunters  21  20101101 17:36 
GIMPS may not claim $100,000  Mindnar  Lounge  28  20080827 16:22 
57M to 58M to 62 (Chickenman continues to claim exponents like a Homesteader)  thechickenman  Lone Mersenne Hunters  2  20060518 23:35 