20090802, 16:21  #1 
2·3·17·59 Posts 
prime distribution near mersenne primes
from which resource can we get prime distrubution near mersenne primes

20090802, 17:09  #2  
Nov 2008
2×3^{3}×43 Posts 
Quote:
What on earth do you mean? Do you mean "are the primes still randomly distributed around Mersenne numbers"? Mersenne primes (and similar primes like Riesel primes) are the only primes we can find at these very high levels, due to the LucasLehmer test and similar algorithms. As far as we know, there is nothing unusual about the distribution of primes around Mersenne primes. Let me ask: do you mean Mersenne primes lower down (eg M521) or ones like M43112609? Last fiddled with by 10metreh on 20090802 at 17:12 

20090802, 18:55  #3 
Aug 2006
5,987 Posts 
Here are some basic statistics from a program I just whipped up. It looks below and above a given Mersenne prime in a range large enough that you'd expect to see about 1000 primes, then counts the primes in those ranges. The expected rage is something like 970 to 1030. Results, in the format [below, above]:
2^61  1: [1049, 967] 2^89  1: [999, 1003] 2^107  1: [975, 976] 2^127  1: [986, 986] 2^521  1: [967, 999] 2^607  1: [985, 999] The expected (Poisson) deviation for a sample this size is sqrt(12000) ≈ 110. The actual deviation was 109. So I'd say that's pretty usual. Last fiddled with by CRGreathouse on 20090802 at 19:00 Reason: ≈ lest some pedant complain 
20090802, 20:15  #4 
Aug 2006
5,987 Posts 
The next two are
2^1279  1: [978, 1054] 2^2203  1: [1056, 1024] 
20090802, 20:53  #5  
"Bob Silverman"
Nov 2003
North of Boston
2^{2}·1,877 Posts 
Quote:
What do you mean by "prime distribution"? The actual distribution of prime numbers is not known. There are some open questions, but there is insufficient evidence to even characterize these questions as conjectures. We do have some Tauberian type theorems. The Prime Number Theorem is one such: The number of primes between 2 and N is asymptotically N/log(N). [a better approximation is LI(N)]. However, their *distribution* over the interval [2,N] is NOT KNOWN. Please do not make the mistake of confusing a counting function (essentially a cumulative distribution function) with a distribution (i.e. density) function. And there is no reason AT ALL to believe that the distribution of primes around Mersenne primes will be any different than the distribution of primes in general. The question itself is "wrong headed". 

20090802, 21:02  #6  
"Bob Silverman"
Nov 2003
North of Boston
1D54_{16} Posts 
Quote:
Monsieur: I would have expected better from you. The original poster asked about the *distribution* of primes. You have discussed the prime counting function. The CDF is not the same as the PDF. The OP asked for the latter. You have replied with the former. Knowing the count of primes in an interval is NOT the same as knowing their distribution. (as you know). 

20090802, 21:59  #7 
Aug 2006
1763_{16} Posts 
I was of course trying to give some sensible interpretation to the original question. I though it was likely that it was prompted by the gambler's fallacy or the inverse gambler's fallacy, that finding one prime made it less (resp., more) likely that its neighbors were prime.
I chose 1000 expected primes as a 'small' interval that was still large enough to analyze. Perhaps if I had chosen a smaller range and considered the exact placements in that range you would have been more satisfied. Of course with a small enough range there are certain patterns based on the value of a Mersenne prime mod small primes. Frankly, I'm accustomed to interpreting questions that are phrased imprecisely loosely. 
20090802, 23:02  #8  
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA
7692_{10} Posts 
Quote:
If CR's initial interpretation is wrong, that can be straightened out through continued interaction with the questioner. Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 20090802 at 23:02 

20090802, 23:22  #9  
"Bob Silverman"
Nov 2003
North of Boston
2^{2}·1,877 Posts 
Quote:
right questions. Part of learning mathematics is learning that words such as 'distribution' have an exact meaning. If I answer a question as asked, but it is not what was meant, it [b]should[b] be an impetus for the OP to learn (or ask) WHY his/her question was wrong. And, IMO, if it is NOT such an impetus then the OP should not have asked in the first place. My assumption, upon reading a mathematical question using the word 'distribution' is to assume that it has its correct meaning. To do otherwise would be an insult to the original poster, because interpreting it otherwise would imply that the OP did not know what he/she was talking about. Since I know nothing about the OP or his background, I prefer to believe that the word 'distribution' was used correctly. Last fiddled with by R.D. Silverman on 20090802 at 23:23 Reason: typo 

20090802, 23:47  #10  
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA
2^{2}·3·641 Posts 
Quote:
Quote:


20090803, 15:41  #11  
"Bob Silverman"
Nov 2003
North of Boston
7508_{10} Posts 
Quote:
frequent response to a question that was poorly posed would be: "Go think about what you just asked. Get back to us when you have reformulated your question more precisely". I has some SUPERB teachers. In forcing students to not only solve problems, but also to think about the questions they asked, they were forcing students to learn about mathematics. Most mathematics is not learned from lecture, but by first learning the basics from lectures, then learning to apply it ON YOUR OWN. One should NEVER ask questions (in any field of study), if one does not understand the definitions of words used in the questions. We learn by DOING, and not by sitting and having answers handed to us. And whether respondents to my posts like it or not, there are some prerequisites for the study of number theory. Being told that one lacks the prerequisites is not (and should not be) an insult, but for some bizarre reason it is often taken as such within this newsgroup. I could have chosen to simply say to the OP "You do not understand what you are asking. Go learn the meaning of the word 'distribution', then get back to us". OR I could also have said "From the lack of clarity in your question, I judge that you lack the pre requisites to understand a meaningful answer. May I suggest that you study some elementary number theory and elementary mathematical statistics and get back to us?" There is no personal judgment in such a response. Yet, I suspect that the OP would have responded with "you are an a**hole". I don't understand why people respond this way, but they do. Telling someone that they lack the background to discuss a technical subject is not a slur on their character. But people take it as such. WHY???? Instead of such a response, I took the time to point out WHY the question was poorly posed. The response from the OP: silence. 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Distribution of Mersenne primes before and after couples of primes found  emily  Math  35  20221221 16:32 
Unexpected biases in the distribution of consecutive primes  axn  Lounge  21  20160605 13:00 
Mersenne Prime Exponent Distribution  PawnProver44  Miscellaneous Math  26  20160318 08:48 
Distribution of Mersenne Factors  tapion64  Miscellaneous Math  21  20140418 21:02 
Distribution of Mersenne prime factors mod 6  alpertron  Math  0  20060623 20:07 