mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Blogorrhea > sweety439

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2022-02-04, 23:12   #12
a1call
 
a1call's Avatar
 
"Rashid Naimi"
Oct 2015
Remote to Here/There

2,287 Posts
Default

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i..._12+to+base+10

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=168526123+is+prime

https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...526123&exp_hi=

Last fiddled with by a1call on 2022-02-04 at 23:14
a1call is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-02-04, 23:19   #13
paulunderwood
 
paulunderwood's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr

22×32×7×17 Posts
Default

I see. Convert to base 10 from base 12. Silly me. Got for it Tucker! No one is stopping you. Good luck!

(I initially thought that T. was saying that converting a prime to another base somehow changed its primeness. Sorry).

Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 2022-02-04 at 23:23
paulunderwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-02-05, 00:16   #14
Dobri
 
"Καλός"
May 2018

3·112 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tuckerkao View Post
So I've decided that I want to run a PRP test of 248,532,837 - 1 myself(This exponent is a decimal composite but a dozenal prime with a different interpretation),...
Note that 48,532,837 = 2,281 × 21,277 and two of the factors of (248532837 - 1) are (22281 - 1) and (221277 - 1) where (22281 - 1) is the 17th Mersenne prime M2281 and M21277 has a known factor.
Dobri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-02-05, 00:53   #15
Dobri
 
"Καλός"
May 2018

3·112 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tuckerkao View Post
So I've decided that I want to run a PRP test of 248,532,837 - 1 myself(This exponent is a decimal composite but a dozenal prime with a different interpretation),...
As for 48,532,83712 = 168,526,12310, it is a prime number indeed.
Off-topic: Throughout the Chinese Lunar Year Huangdi (Yellow Emperor) 4720 (2022) of the Water Tiger, lucky numbers allegedly are 1, 3, and 4 as well as numerals that contain them such as 14 and 34. The digit sum of 168,526,123 is 34 and there is no known Mersenne prime having an exponent with said digit sum. :)
Dobri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-02-08, 05:17   #16
sweety439
 
"99(4^34019)99 palind"
Nov 2016
(P^81993)SZ base 36

1101111110012 Posts
Default

Other than single-digit primes (2, 3, 5, 7), can a Mersenne exponent be a palindromic prime?
sweety439 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-02-08, 19:09   #17
kriesel
 
kriesel's Avatar
 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

2·11·311 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sweety439 View Post
Other than single-digit primes (2, 3, 5, 7), can a Mersenne exponent be a palindromic prime?
For Mersenne numbers, there are ~5172 prime palindromic exponents of 9 decimal digits. Many of them have already been factored or otherwise shown composite. All the shorter palindromic exponent Mersennes have already been tested and found composite. There are no known Mersenne primes with exponent > 10 and palindromic exponent. Primality testing passed above 108 a while ago. But the sample size of known Mersenne primes' exponents is small at 51. If the exponent distribution of Mersenne primes is random in some sense, the odds of any of the estimated 6 Mersenne primes remaining to be discovered below 1G exponent having a palindromic exponent are very poor, at ~6 chances, each with odds ~1/4000 of having a palindromic exponent, or roughly 6/4000 overall. p=abcd e dcba would not allow a=2,4,5,6,8, only a=1,3,7,9.
So we already know there are no (base 10) palindromic exponent Mersenne primes between exponents:
11. - 60M & probably to 107M; 200M-300M; 400M-700M; 800M-900M;
leaving 60M likely 107M - 200M, 300M - 400M, 700M - 800M, 900M+.

The odds get worse for 10 or more digit exponents.
https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...46&postcount=5

Changing bases, there are more. Consider base two. 3, 5, 7, 17, 31, 107, 127.

Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2022-02-08 at 19:10
kriesel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-02-08, 19:14   #18
chalsall
If I May
 
chalsall's Avatar
 
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados

2·5,333 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kriesel View Post
The odds get worse for 10 or more digit exponents.
I know it's not easy to do...

But... I keep being told by those I trust that speaking into a vacuum means (by definition) that few actually receive your message.

Some may see your lips move (read: see your language), but few can lip-read (read: read and parce).
chalsall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-02-08, 20:36   #19
Dr Sardonicus
 
Dr Sardonicus's Avatar
 
Feb 2017
Nowhere

25×11×17 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kriesel View Post
<snip>
The odds get worse for 10 or more digit exponents.
<snip>
If k > 1, the odds of a palindromic number with 2*k digits being prime are zero. (This is true in any integer base b > 1; the reason is that such numbers are automatically divisible by b + 1, with cofactor automatically greater than 1 if k > 1.)

For positive integer k, the number of 2*k + 1 digit palindromic numbers to base ten is 9*10k (9 possible non-zero digits for the first and last digit, ten possible middle digits, and an arbitrary block of k-1 digits in between).

Of these, 4*10k are relatively prime to 10. Apart from that, I have no idea of the likelihood of a palindromic number of 2*k + 1 decimal digits being prime. Under the "assumption of ignorance" that the likelihood is the same as a random odd number prime to 10, something on the order of 1/(2*k*log(10)) of them would be prime. But the total number of palindromic numbers is tiny compared to the number of primes if k is large.

The number of primes with 2*k + 1 decimal digits is roughly 9*102k/((2k)*log(10)), so the odds of a 2k+ 1 digit prime being palindromic are less than 8*k*log(10)/9 in 10k. Under the "assumption of ignorance" the odds would be something like 4/9 in 10k (unless I botched the calculation, of course)
Dr Sardonicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-03-21, 18:39   #20
sweety439
 
"99(4^34019)99 palind"
Nov 2016
(P^81993)SZ base 36

67718 Posts
Default

R49081 is now proven prime, see post https://mersenneforum.org/showpost.p...9&postcount=35
sweety439 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-03-22, 11:33   #21
sweety439
 
"99(4^34019)99 palind"
Nov 2016
(P^81993)SZ base 36

72·73 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus View Post
The University of Illinois used to have a post mark commemorating its achievement finding the latest Mersenne prime, proving that

211213 - 1 IS PRIME

Imagine the possibilities of putting

R49081 IS PRIME

on something
2^11213-1 can be easily proven prime because its N+1 can be trivially 100% factored:

Pocklington N-1 primality test --> Proth primality test --> Pépin primality test for Fermat numbers

Morrison N+1 primality test --> Lucas–Lehmer–Riesel primality test --> Lucas–Lehmer primality test for Mersenne numbers

However, for R49081, neither N-1 nor N+1 can be trivially >= 33.3333% factored, thus ECPP primality test (such PRIMO) is needed to use, thus they are very different.

See top definitely primes and top probable primes, for the top definitely primes, (usually) one of N-1 and N+1 is trivially 100% factored, while for top probable primes, none of them can be >= 33.3333% factored.

Last fiddled with by sweety439 on 2022-03-22 at 11:35
sweety439 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-03-22, 15:05   #22
rudy235
 
rudy235's Avatar
 
Jun 2015
Vallejo, CA/.

3×13×29 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sweety439 View Post
2^11213-1 can be easily proven prime because its N+1 can be trivially 100% factored:
211213-1 would _not_ use BLS or CHG for N-1 as in this case LL is quicker. On the other hand R1031 was proven by a procedure similar to BLS Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge

See https://www.ams.org/journals/mcom/19...-0856714-3.pdf
rudy235 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Off topic kriesel kriesel 6 2021-01-16 16:31
Off topic - board games on the web robert44444uk Lounge 3 2019-03-05 08:51
Side Topic: 'It's Not a Toom-ah' R.D. Silverman Math 68 2015-11-15 04:21
Topic of Peepholes Friendship :) coffee1054 Lounge 7 2012-02-17 03:38
AMD vs. Intel topic Pjetro Hardware 11 2002-11-04 21:00

All times are UTC. The time now is 11:47.


Fri Sep 30 11:47:54 UTC 2022 up 43 days, 9:16, 0 users, load averages: 1.33, 1.23, 1.19

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔