20180102, 09:59  #23  
Banned
"Luigi"
Aug 2002
Team Italia
1001010010001_{2} Posts 
Quote:
In other words, you should bring the factorization of such exponent from 64 to 85 bitsbefore reasonably try a primality test. Last fiddled with by ET_ on 20180102 at 10:02 

20180102, 10:36  #24 
Dec 2017
2×5^{2} Posts 
Something interesting...
A question that boggled me was the following: If we have the expression 2^p  1, do there exist two adjacent primes p_n and p_(n + 1) such that they will generate a mersenne prime on the condition that p > 19? Well, the I found it very unlikely.... but not as unlikely until I came across three candidates.
p_n = 3121238909 p_(n + 1) = 3121238921 p_(n + 2) = 3121238963 Remarkable. Last fiddled with by George M on 20180102 at 10:37 
20180102, 10:38  #25 
Dec 2017
2·5^{2} Posts 
Oh. Ok then. Thanks for that, so I know in the future :)

20180102, 10:42  #26 
Dec 2017
110010_{2} Posts 
Ignore this, for I was misunderstood, and didn’t realise my previous guesses were indeed quite very large for M51.

20180102, 16:01  #27  
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
2·4,021 Posts 
Quote:
Please take your discussion to another thread and stop polluting this thread with your lack of learning. 

20180103, 06:31  #28  
Dec 2017
50_{10} Posts 
Quote:
If you don’t want to participate in a discussion like that, then ok. But, I personally don’t consider it as a means of pollution. In other words, there are nicer ways to say things in order to get a point across... Last fiddled with by George M on 20180103 at 06:37 

20180103, 07:40  #29  
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
1111101101010_{2} Posts 
Quote:
Lurk more. Post less. Read The Fine Websites (the Forum, the Wiki, PrimeNet, and others that are commonly linked to). Posting a number (the p in 2^{p}1) that is prime shows that you have checked at least a little, so that your number might be a prime. Checking that there are no known factors (and that it does not have 2 matching LL's) shows that your number hasn't been proven composite. If you are trying to guess at a prime, why waste your (and everyone else's) time on a known composite? Also, consider what the likelihood is that the number will get a clean LL result before another number does (that is also prime). Guessing 223,456,781 might be less wise than 332,199,893. I will leave it to you to try to figure out why. By all means learn. But try to learn in threads and subfora that are designed for that. Don't play ball in the parlor. With regards to nicer ways. The first time you posted a guess, I pointed out that it had a known factor and left it as an exercise (work, a project, something for effort to be put toward) for your to figure out about. George M jumped in quickly with 2 more guesses with out learning that lesson, or asking for pointers (which people gave, but it looks like looks like they weren't heeded), just demonstrates that you and he needed a wakeup call. Being a bit more rough can make the learner stop and take stock. Consider that we may get sharp to get to the point more quickly. Last fiddled with by Uncwilly on 20180103 at 08:14 

20180103, 08:09  #30 
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
2·4,021 Posts 
Rule conforming guesses go over in this thread:
http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=22879 Random discussion and long winded posts make it hard to find the guesses. We have seen guesses get lost in discussion before. Also, if posting a guess there, just you plan simple text. Also, make sure any dates posted are clear (various parts of the planet use different date conventions [is 1/9/2019 in January or in September?]). 
20180103, 13:31  #32  
Sep 2003
2578_{10} Posts 
Quote:
And that happened despite what turned out to be an exceptionally targetrich environment, with 12 primes (so far) in the 10M to 100M range. The 100M to 1G range might revert to the mean, and could have as few as 4 primes. And this time around the monetary incentive is only 50% higher, which is nice, but it won't drastically inflate the number of prize seekers compared to last time. In the end, the only legacy of chasing after EFF money was a big sustained spike in the error rate when people overclocked their inadequate hardware, as seen in the graphs posted by patrik. (There were even bigger but much narrower error spikes in the upper half of the 10M range, I think maybe that was the infamous version 17 shift bug?) In any case, my own guess of 282,362,693 assumed a nearworst case ratio between successive Mersenne primes not far from the historical 521/127 = 4.10, and the distant date of March 3, 2025 took into account the fact that resources will be diverted by some people searching a higher range first. Edit: in case anyone is wondering what happened with M37,156,667, apparently it was churned several times and the eventual discoverer only ran his computer for 6 to 8 hours a day to save electricity: Last fiddled with by GP2 on 20180103 at 14:06 

20180103, 14:22  #33  
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
2·4,021 Posts 
Quote:
Last fiddled with by Uncwilly on 20180103 at 14:23 Reason: For want of a ], the quote was lost. 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Stockfish game: "Move 9 poll", not "move 2^74,207,2811 discussion"  MooMoo2  Other Chess Games  1  20161025 18:03 
Stockfish game: "Move 8 poll", not "move 3.14159 discussion"  MooMoo2  Other Chess Games  5  20161022 01:55 
Stockfish game: "Move 5 poll", not "move 0 discussion"  MooMoo2  Other Chess Games  0  20161005 15:50 
Stockfish game: "Move 4 poll", not "move 100 discussion"  MooMoo2  Other Chess Games  0  20160928 19:51 
Stockfish game: "Move 2 poll", not "move 2 discussion"  MooMoo2  Other Chess Games  0  20160919 19:56 