20171223, 09:33  #12  
Dec 2017
2^{4}×3×5 Posts 
Thanks for your response although I still like base 10
Quote:


20171223, 10:17  #13  
Undefined
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair
1101000010110_{2} Posts 
Good.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
How about before you waste more time with excel, instead you explain your rationale behind the choices of base10, and how you expect 1 & 5 to continue to be ahead in the race? Or even simpler, explain why 3 only shows up once? Do you expect it could ever show up again? And why is there no 6? Could that ever show up in the future? 

20171223, 10:56  #14 
"Composite as Heck"
Oct 2017
3×311 Posts 
It can be fun to tool around like this, but you need to understand that you're not going to make any breakthrough discoveries. If you see it as a way to exercise your mind in a mathematical context for fun, maybe even pick some numbers to LL test because of it, that's all good. Just don't obsess too much about it, and don't get disappointed when things don't pan out.
You've made two classic mistakes, a) Treating base10 as important, and b) Ignoring variance in statistics. Even if it were true that mersenne numbers have a tendency to follow the pattern you think they do, there's nothing to show it. I'd categorise this as falling foul of the law of small numbers, but there may be something more fitting. 
20171223, 11:48  #15 
Banned
"Luigi"
Aug 2002
Team Italia
1001011111001_{2} Posts 
If you have a lot of time to consume, please consider studying math insteadd of numerology. Numerology is in the eye of the beholder, he and only he can see patterns that others miss. And being a subjective find, it will never be recognized by math people.

20171223, 12:34  #16 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dartmouth NS
8418_{10} Posts 

20171223, 14:43  #17  
Romulan Interpreter
"name field"
Jun 2011
Thailand
24041_{8} Posts 
Quote:
Quote:
You even didn't understand the "method" you are promoting. Read again the posts. You didn't help and didn't give us any tool, what you just "discovered" is that prime numbers can not be multiples of 3. Not interesting, and not useful at all. Go and read some wikipedia links about modular math and prime numbers before trying to make contributions. 

20171223, 15:06  #18  
Dec 2017
2^{4}·3·5 Posts 
Your right
Quote:


20171223, 16:18  #19 
Feb 2017
Nowhere
1842_{16} Posts 
Up to the limit 74207281 there are 4350601 primes. Of the 4350599 of these primes greater than 3, the residue classes 1, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17 (mod 18) [1, 5, 7, 2, 4, 8, (mod 9), resp.] contain
[725031, 725203, 724858, 725154, 725043, 725310] of them. Now, suppose a set of 4350599 objects is partitioned into six subsets with the aboveindicated numbers of objects. Suppose 48 objects (the number of exponents greater than 3 known to yield Mersenne primes) are selected at random from the set. What is needed is, the "likely" number of elements in each of the six subsets. Alas, it's been too many decades since I took probability and statistics. What is this, a multinomial distribution question? At any rate, it gives a framework within which one might answer the question of how much of an "oddity" the given results may be. "Expected" would be (I think) [8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8]; Actual is [11, 11, 5, 7, 8, 6] Last fiddled with by Dr Sardonicus on 20171223 at 16:22 
20171223, 16:40  #20  
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dartmouth NS
2·3·23·61 Posts 
Quote:
Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 20171223 at 17:02 

20171231, 18:12  #21  
Feb 2017
3×5×11 Posts 
Quote:
Interesting. Off course 3, 6 & 9 won't appear because if the addition of the digits would have 3, 6 or 9 as a sum, they would be divisible by 3. What is very interesting, but still probably not a pattern, is how many times in the list a particular sum of the digits repeats itself! How on earth did you manage to find the sum of the digits of the higher mersenne prime numbers? 

20171231, 18:23  #22 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
19×23^{2} Posts 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Ideal groupings in number fields  carpetpool  Abstract Algebra & Algebraic Number Theory  3  20180113 18:13 
I think I found proof that no odd perfect numbers exist!  Philly314  Aliquot Sequences  3  20141116 14:58 
How to know if you found a mersenne prime.  Sutton Shin  PrimeNet  7  20121002 05:57 
Shortest sequence of numbers not found in M43  Xyzzy  Miscellaneous Math  41  20081108 17:57 
LLT numbers, linkd with Mersenne and Fermat numbers  T.Rex  Math  4  20050507 08:25 