mersenneforum.org (Not a) Formula for prime with 10^8 and 10^9 digits
 User Name Remember Me? Password
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2021-09-19, 08:55 #1 jense 2185   Sep 2021 3 Posts (Not a) Formula for prime with 10^8 and 10^9 digits X=3(9^Y) +1 (10^X -1) ÷ 4.5 + ((10^X ) ×7)+5 While Y=108 or While Y=109 Result is prime with 100,000,000 digits or 1,000,000,000 digits ?
 2021-09-19, 15:05 #2 Dobri   "Καλός" May 2018 17×19 Posts Is Y = 107 out of the spotlight?
 2021-09-19, 15:55 #3 Dobri   "Καλός" May 2018 17·19 Posts For Y = 1, n = 72,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,227 is a prime. For Y = 2, n = 72,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222, 222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222, 222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222, 222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,227 = 251 × 5,426,180,741 × ... is composite. For Y = 3, n = 72,222,...,222,227 = 1,322,011 × ... is composite. ... Last fiddled with by Dobri on 2021-09-19 at 16:01
 2021-09-19, 17:02 #4 jense 2185   Sep 2021 3 Posts X=7(9^Y)+1 ?
 2021-09-19, 17:19 #5 Dobri   "Καλός" May 2018 17·19 Posts For Y = 1 and X=7(9^Y)+1, n = 72,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,222,227 is a prime. For Y = 2 and X=7(9^Y)+1, n = 72,222,...,222,227 = 12,391 × 173,429 × 9,639,563 × 53,804,376,883 × 72,037,926,256,979 × ... is composite. For Y = 3 and X=7(9^Y)+1, n = 72,222,...,222,227 = 1,352,773 × ... is composite. ... Last fiddled with by Dobri on 2021-09-19 at 17:24
2021-09-19, 18:05   #6
VBCurtis

"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

3·1,777 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by jense 2185 X=7(9^Y)+1 ?
How is it that you think you are smart enough to come up with a formula that turns out primes very often, but aren't smart enough to actually check if the (majority of) outputs are prime?

 2021-09-19, 20:48 #7 jense 2185   Sep 2021 3 Posts Never claimed to be smart, but I hoped to be lucky. Also I don't have the hardware to factor the large numbers currently. Thanks
 2021-09-20, 08:12 #8 kruoli     "Oliver" Sep 2017 Porta Westfalica, DE 3×73 Posts Everything what Dobri computed can be done on a Android phone from 2012. Yes, I tested it. So I assume you have the hardware, but you need to look up how to do these computations. Hint: Google Alpertron ECM.
2021-09-20, 09:05   #9
retina
Undefined

"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair

22×1,627 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by jense 2185 ... I hoped to be lucky.
If a prime formula was really just that simple then there is a very strong possibility that it would have been discovered 400 years ago.

Today you could write a simple BASIC program to generate millions of formulae and hope to get "lucky" that one of them "works". I recommend you try it to see how easy it is to generate formulae. But I don't recommend you try posting all of them here and hoping others will verify/disprove all those formulae. That would be your job, to show it works, not our job to debunk endless lists of random formulae.

Last fiddled with by retina on 2021-09-20 at 09:05

2021-09-20, 13:27   #10
Dr Sardonicus

Feb 2017
Nowhere

16C716 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by jense 2185 Never claimed to be smart, but I hoped to be lucky. Also I don't have the hardware to factor the large numbers currently.
Instead of just hoping to "be lucky," it would be a good idea to at least try to check your formulas for divisibility by small primes. Your formula is

N = 2*(10^X - 1)/9 + 7*10^X + 5

This formula can be expressed more compactly as follows:

N = (65*10^X + 43)/9

1) Given a prime p, p = 2, 3, 5, 7, etc are there any values of X for which p divides N?

2) If so, characterize such X (this will be a congruence class)

3) Are there any such X of a particular form, say X = 3^(2*Y + 1) + 1?

It is easy to see "by formula" that p = 2, 5, 13, and 43 can never divide N. I supply the following table for when p divides N:

p = 2: impossible "by formula"
p = 3: X == 0 (mod 3)
p = 5: impossible "by formula"
p = 7: X == 1 (mod 6)
p = 11: X == 1 (mod 2)
p = 13: impossible "by formula"
p = 17: X == 11 (mod 16)

Up to p = 17, there are no Y for which 3^(2*Y + 1) + 1 can satisfy the congruence condition for X.

I am giving you the following homework assignment:

A) If you don't know how to do (2), learn how.

B) If you don't know how to do (3), learn how.

C) Find the smallest prime p which can divide N = (65*10^X + 43)/9 if X = 3^(2*Y + 1) + 1, and the congruence condition on Y for which this p divides N.

The kind of checking indicated above only involves modulo arithmetic to very small moduli.

 Thread Tools

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post MathDoggy Miscellaneous Math 13 2019-03-03 17:11 Godzilla Miscellaneous Math 10 2018-09-27 02:23 meeztamike Miscellaneous Math 11 2010-07-18 04:13 cipher Math 15 2009-06-08 05:19 tjmag Miscellaneous Math 6 2003-12-11 20:21

All times are UTC. The time now is 11:57.

Fri Jul 1 11:57:37 UTC 2022 up 78 days, 9:58, 2 users, load averages: 1.27, 1.96, 1.87

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