20140330, 04:00  #1 
Einyen
Dec 2003
Denmark
19×181 Posts 
New Mersenne Conjecture
The New Mersenne (Prime) Conjecture is basically saying if a prime p is an exponent for both a Mersenne Prime (2^{p}1) and a Wagstaff prime (2^{p}+1)/3 then p is of the form 2^{k} +/ 1 or 4^{k} +/ 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 (2^{p}+1)/3 found on factordb.com p=65537: Added factor of 2^{p}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 2^{p}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 6970 bits. Ran the VrbaReix test with LLR on the remaining 4 Wagstaff numbers proving them composite: (2^20996011+1)/3 is not prime. VrbaReix RES64: BA75673D7BAB002F Time : 566688.538 sec. (2^30402457+1)/3 is not prime. VrbaReix RES64: 9AD14D52DFCCB2A6 Time : 887355.947 sec. (2^32582657+1)/3 is not prime. VrbaReix RES64: 99985D4C1756CE0F Time : 946154.777 sec. (2^42643801+1)/3 is not prime. VrbaReix 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 20140330 at 04:03 
20140330, 09:42  #2 
"Brian"
Jul 2007
The Netherlands
2·11·149 Posts 
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 F_{4} 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 BrianE on 20140330 at 09:43 
20140330, 12:48  #3  
"Bob Silverman"
Nov 2003
North of Boston
2^{2}·1,877 Posts 
Quote:
when he proposed it. This "conjecture" is basically a joke. 

20140330, 14:24  #4 
Jun 2003
2×2,719 Posts 
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^k3 and in fact gives a Mersenne prime, was left out by Mersenne). Could be a coincidence though.

20140330, 21:31  #5  
∂^{2}ω=0
Sep 2002
República de California
5·2,351 Posts 
Quote:


20140331, 01:15  #6 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dartmouth NS
10000011100010_{2} Posts 
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.

20140331, 13:45  #7 
Aug 2006
5,987 Posts 
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 20140331 at 13:45 
20140331, 21:27  #8 
Jul 2012
Paris, France.
3^{2}·11 Posts 
Hello ewmeyer I do not get here often, but I recall a reason to respect you
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^K1 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?

20140331, 22:49  #9  
"Bob Silverman"
Nov 2003
North of Boston
2^{2}×1,877 Posts 
Quote:
What kind of drugs are you taking? 

20140401, 00:46  #10 
"Nathan"
Jul 2008
Maryland, USA
5·223 Posts 

20140401, 04:19  #11 
May 2013
East. Always East.
11·157 Posts 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Use of new Mersenne conjecture ?  bhelmes  Number Theory Discussion Group  0  20170728 20:34 
Mersenne Conjecture  sascha77  Math  15  20100508 00:33 
conjecture about mersenne numbers  sascha77  Math  2  20100107 08:06 
The New Mersenne Conjecture  Dougy  Math  32  20081026 07:17 
New Mersenne and Cunningham conjecture  olivier_latinne  Math  54  20080312 10:04 