20110122, 14:26  #1 
May 2004
New York City
2·2,099 Posts 
Odd Perfect Numbers
Did anyone let you know, in this Twin Prime search,
that the lack of odd perfect numbers and the infinitude of the twin primes are related, in particular one might prove the other? But keep on calculating anyway, the numbers are totally cool. 
20110122, 15:05  #2 
Account Deleted
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA
17·251 Posts 
I've never heard of such a thing, other than your 'conjecture'. Is there any proven theorem or likelytrue (and checked by others who think the work is good; i.e. probably not your conjecture) conjecture that shows or suggests such a link?
Last fiddled with by MiniGeek on 20110122 at 15:06 
20110122, 15:08  #3  
May 2004
New York City
2·2,099 Posts 
Quote:
independently and on my own and that there should be no other such references anywhere previously in mathematics? Or did I miss your question? 

20110122, 15:22  #4  
Account Deleted
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA
10253_{8} Posts 
Quote:
Quote:
Or in other words: Why do you think this is so? Is there a good proof, or an unproven conjecture made by an amateur (be it you or someone else)? Not to sound like RDS, but the chances of an amateur proving what has eluded mathematicians for a long time is slim, at best. Especially when the conjecture hasn't been looked over and thought accurate by those who are experienced and understand such things (mostly mathematicians). Last fiddled with by MiniGeek on 20110122 at 15:24 

20110122, 15:27  #5  
May 2004
New York City
2·2,099 Posts 
Quote:
Am I an amateur? 

20110122, 15:30  #6 
Account Deleted
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA
4267_{10} Posts 
By definition, do you do mathematics for a living? If not, yes you are an amateur. But a more important question is if the conjecture is valid. I don't have the mathematical ability to answer that, even if the details of it were posted for scrutiny. Some others do. I'll just ask this: have the details been posted for scrutiny/peer review, either publicly or among any number of people with enough mathematical ability to confirm or reject it as valid or invalid? If so, did it seem valid?
Last fiddled with by MiniGeek on 20110122 at 15:36 
20110122, 15:37  #7  
"Tapio Rajala"
Feb 2010
Finland
315_{10} Posts 
Quote:
Making conjectures without strong evidence or claiming things without a proof makes one an amateur. However, my main classification of you based on your recent posting is: spammer. 

20110122, 15:38  #8  
May 2004
New York City
2×2,099 Posts 
Quote:
See the thread Wagstaff Conjecture in the Math or Puzzles subforum(s). While you're at it, check out the Elemental Puzzle thread in Puzzles. Have fun. First question second: Of course I'm a professional mathematician. I work cheap ..... 

20110122, 15:40  #9  
May 2004
New York City
2×2,099 Posts 
Quote:
regardless of your classification. 

20110122, 21:17  #10  
May 2004
New York City
1000001100110_{2} Posts 
Quote:
The conjecture is valid so long as it contradicts nothing. This conjecture (YJ) is based on data from the first 40 known mersenne prime exponents and the currently known 47 mersenne prime exponents as discovered by and before gimps. It is strongly supported by one single case in particular (MPE23 = 11213 is a mersenne prime exponent) but the law of small numbers tells me that won't be enough (I should say may not be enough) to convince everyone yet. 

20110122, 21:19  #11  
May 2004
New York City
1000001100110_{2} Posts 
Quote:
and their attachments. 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Is this new formula for Perfect Numbers useful?  mahbel  Miscellaneous Math  20  20170301 22:41 
Right Perfect Prime Numbers  Housemouse  Math  34  20160407 16:29 
Odd Perfect Number, when will numbers go beyond ecm?  jasong  Factoring  1  20060514 11:28 
Perfect Numbers  MajUSAFRet  Math  3  20031213 03:55 
Odd Perfect Numbers  ZetaFlux  Math  1  20030528 19:41 