mersenneforum.org m52 found (I'm Super-Cerberus!)
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2019-07-06, 13:01 #23 Dr Sardonicus     Feb 2017 Nowhere 2·52·71 Posts Perhaps samuel is mipsplepping the calculus method I mentioned here. I have every right to make sport of samuel's avatar, and to at his ordering me not to. Freedom of speech, you know. And if samuel wants to insist his avatar is a photo, I guess he must be, not a demon, but the serpent himself.
 2019-07-06, 13:28 #24 Chuck     May 2011 Orange Park, FL 3×172 Posts Perhaps you could tell us M53 and M54 so we could get a head start on verifying them....
2019-07-06, 13:54   #25
retina
Undefined

"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair

578810 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by samuel of course! i was not able to do any programs that perfectly have 51 known mersenne primes on the equation that is too dificult. but any polynomials f(X) that gives you f(1)=M1,f(2)=M2...........f(51)=M51, of corse common sense tells u f(52)=M52. so if u found such a polynomial (u r probably lying) then of course u found M52?
Check it out.

https://mersenneforum.org/showpost.p...&postcount=213

Generates ALL 51 exponents in order, perfectly.

So do you agree that the output for M52 must be correct?

2019-07-09, 20:31   #26
samuel

"silent magician!!"
Apr 2019
nowheresville califo

101 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by retina Check it out. https://mersenneforum.org/showpost.p...&postcount=213 Generates ALL 51 exponents in order, perfectly. So do you agree that the output for M52 must be correct?
all i see is some random code, where is the formula? stop bluffing

2019-07-09, 20:51   #27
xilman
Bamboozled!

"πΊππ·π·π­"
May 2003
Down not across

2·3·5·337 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by samuel all i see is some random code, where is the formula? stop bluffing
Pay attention you dozy little twit. The code is a program which generates the formula.

2019-07-09, 20:57   #28
Mysticial

Sep 2016

14916 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by xilman Pay attention you dozy little twit. The code is a program which generates the formula.
I'm sorry, but that's too advanced for him to understand. You'll need to dumb it down about 10 grade levels.

 2019-07-09, 23:04 #29 carpetpool     "Sam" Nov 2016 22·79 Posts Hey samuel, I suggest you read this page. It could give you some insight on coming up with a "formula" (maybe).
 2019-07-10, 00:05 #30 kriesel     "TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17" Mar 2017 US midwest 11DC16 Posts circuit Hi, not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I have a conceptual design for a fast and relatively simple circuit that rather accurately predicts whether a prime mersenne exponent produces a mersenne prime. It's a 30-input NOR. For p>0, its output is always low (indicating composite). It's only wrong for 0 and the mersenne primes, known or unknown. That's only about a 1.1 ppm error rate, which is way more accurate than most lab measurements or design calculations. :) Edit: a more efficient design gets rid of the error on zero input and reduces power consumption and cost, and easily scales to higher p. Inputs are opens or may be omitted; output is grounded. Okay, how about some fancy math, say a polynomial, to improve the accuracy to the desired level? Nope; no polynomial can generate only primes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_for_primes
2019-07-10, 00:26   #31
kriesel

"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

22·32·127 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by retina To the OP. I posted a python program in your other prediction thread that generated a degree 50 polynomial. It perfectly predicted all 51 known Mersenne exponents that lead to primes. And guess what, it also predicted the next one in the sequence. So that must mean that it is correct, right?
(That's a good one, retina ;) An exercise for the OP, or for retina, or anyone with a predictor proposal:
Use a randomly selected subset of almost all the known mersenne primes to predict the rest of the set of known mersenne primes. How does your method fare for predictions yielding the excluded few?
Or not-so-randomly; if you had only up to M50 as input, how does it fare in predicting M51 correctly?

If anyone could provide a working predictor, I'd happily amend https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...04&postcount=5
The frequency difference for p mod 8 versus other values is intriguing.
https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...00&postcount=4

Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2019-07-10 at 00:28

2019-07-10, 01:11   #32
samuel

"silent magician!!"
Apr 2019
nowheresville califo

101 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by xilman Pay attention you dozy little twit. The code is a program which generates the formula.
how dare u call me twit, i dont know how to read python
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Mysticial I'm sorry, but that's too advanced for him to understand. You'll need to dumb it down about 10 grade levels.
wtf r u insulting me?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by carpetpool Hey samuel, I suggest you read this page. It could give you some insight on coming up with a "formula" (maybe).
their formula is obviously incorrect mine is accurate now for m1 to m51, so the law of mathematics if the formula gives us m1 to m51 then the 52 term must be m52, that is like the basic of mathematics how u not know

2019-07-10, 01:17   #33
retina
Undefined

"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair

22×1,447 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by samuel all i see is some random code, where is the formula? stop bluffing
Read up about Lagrange interpolation. It is a real thing. It creates a degree n-1 polynomial for n input values. And it allows us to ask for values off the fitted curve.

But maybe the python code is too advanced for you to understand.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Citrix And now for something completely different 1 2017-10-26 09:12 Hatterz Information & Answers 15 2012-09-11 22:28 kuratkull Soap Box 2 2007-12-03 16:50 delta_t Hardware 5 2006-03-08 10:25 crash893 Hardware 16 2005-10-08 13:14

All times are UTC. The time now is 23:44.

Tue Oct 20 23:44:22 UTC 2020 up 40 days, 20:55, 0 users, load averages: 2.03, 2.10, 2.00