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

 2019-06-29, 22:46 #1 samuel   "silent magician!!" Apr 2019 nowheresville califo 101 Posts m52 found (I'm Super-Cerberus!) hello people after much trial and error and hard work. i came up with a bulletproof formula this time for mersenne numbers, it is a formula that generates m23 all the way up to m51 without skipping any numbers nor any extra non prime numbers. this must be it. according to my formula m52 should be 87357233! i can finalyl prove to you people i am not stupid
 2019-06-29, 23:03 #2 Dr Sardonicus     Feb 2017 Nowhere 66108 Posts I suggest you read this post and then post your guess to that thread.
2019-06-29, 23:08   #3
paulunderwood

Sep 2002
Database er0rr

22·23·37 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by samuel hello people after much trial and error and hard work. i came up with a bulletproof formula this time for mersenne numbers, it is a formula that generates m23 all the way up to m51 without skipping any numbers nor any extra non prime numbers. this must be it. according to my formula m52 should be 87357233! i can finalyl prove to you people i am not stupid
Taking pot shots is not going to get you anywhere. Please post your "formula".

 2019-06-29, 23:13 #4 retina Undefined     "The unspeakable one" Jun 2006 My evil lair 166016 Posts Raises an interesting point. Let's assume for a moment that this new prediction is prime. Or it doesn't matter actually, it could be any future crackpot that predicts some exponent; eventually someone might get lucky and actually hit a prime. So someone else does the OP's work for him and tests it showing it is prime. Who gets to be the discoverer?
2019-06-29, 23:18   #5
paulunderwood

Sep 2002
Database er0rr

22×23×37 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by retina Raises an interesting point. Let's assume for a moment that this new prediction is prime. Or it doesn't matter actually, it could be any future crackpot that predicts some exponent; eventually someone might get lucky and actually hit a prime. So someone else does the OP's work for him and tests it showing it is prime. Who gets to be the discoverer?
https://www.mersenne.org/legal/ might have the answer. It says therein

Quote:
 Awardees. "Awardee" is understood to be the Participant, or the group, team, organization or legal entity the Participant represents, and whose computer achieves a research discovery for which an award exists and all Rules in effect at the time of the discovery comply.

2019-06-30, 12:41   #6
Dr Sardonicus

Feb 2017
Nowhere

1101100010002 Posts

Exponent status for p = 87357233 is here. No factors < 276.

It looks like an LL test is supposed to be in progress, but progress is slow.

I suppose it's possible the OP read the information available in the exponent status before posting this guess.

EDIT: BTW, also from Legal (I obliterated the E-mail address):
Quote:
 Discovery Evidence. As proof of discovery, Participant agrees to email to GIMPS at [/email]XXXXXXX@XXX.XXX.XXX[/email] certain data files generated by any software program used to make the discovery, along with their name, post mailing address, phone number, and GIMPS user ID if not anonymous. If proof is not satisfactory, it will be treated as an unclaimed award.

Last fiddled with by Dr Sardonicus on 2019-06-30 at 12:51

 2019-07-04, 22:43 #7 samuel   "silent magician!!" Apr 2019 nowheresville califo 6516 Posts u guys are very rude, one of you changed my thread title without asking, this is like killing my freedom of speech. u guys are trying to silence me this is so totally awful and nasty u should be ashamed of yourself whichever moron that did that mine is definitely correct this time, it is generated by a polynomial of degree 45 that hits every mersenne prime from m23 up to m51 within 0.0001 precision. so m52 must be correct. u guys r laughing now but wont be laughing when u found out 87357233 is actually prime then will cry to me asking for formula. then i am going to ask for apologies from every single one of u before giving it out lol Last fiddled with by petrw1 on 2019-07-04 at 23:46 Reason: Not nice
2019-07-04, 23:50   #8
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502

"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

3×19×151 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by samuel u guys are very rude, one of you changed my thread title without asking, this is like killing my freedom of speech.
Sorry, we won't change it back. How far along the PRP or LL run on your candidate number are you?

Before saying that M52 has been found on this forum, specific criteria that must be met.
It has to have had a clean LL run (or maybe PRP), and it needs a sanity check of the last few thousand iterations being redone.

For you to say that you found it without an LL test, you need to show a mathematical *proof* why your algorithm produces only Meresenne Primes. Also, it must handle all cases including 2, 3, & 7.

2019-07-05, 06:32   #9
lukerichards

"Luke Richards"
Jan 2018
Birmingham, UK

25×32 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Uncwilly For you to say that you found it without an LL test, you need to show a mathematical *proof* why your algorithm produces only Meresenne Primes. Also, it must handle all cases including 2, 3, & 7.
Unless of course you can also provide a solid, robust mathematical justification as to why it only works above a certain size.

2019-07-05, 06:39   #10
2M215856352p1

May 2019

1608 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by samuel u guys are very rude, one of you changed my thread title without asking, this is like killing my freedom of speech. u guys are trying to silence me this is so totally awful and nasty u should be ashamed of yourself whichever moron that did that mine is definitely correct this time, it is generated by a polynomial of degree 45 that hits every mersenne prime from m23 up to m51 within 0.0001 precision. so m52 must be correct. u guys r laughing now but wont be laughing when u found out 87357233 is actually prime then will cry to me asking for formula. then i am going to ask for apologies from every single one of u before giving it out lol
87357233 is definitely prime, but you need to learn about curve overfitting.

2019-07-05, 06:50   #11
lukerichards

"Luke Richards"
Jan 2018
Birmingham, UK

25×32 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by samuel u guys are very rude
Hi samuel.

You'll find, if you dig around some other forums on this site, that I'll be the first to criticise members for being rude and unwelcoming. However, I've struggled to find anything in this thread which is unreasonable.

It would be lovely to think you have found a formula which can generate mersenne prime exponents. However, your last attempt at this was littered with outlandish claims, accusations and hubris.

I think we would have all hoped that you would have taken from the last experiment that the distribution of prime numbers is much more complicated than any algebraic relationship will find. I'm loathed to say "don't bother" but at the very least "go ahead, have fun, but please realise that there is a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that you will actually find what you are looking for and please present your conjectures with an appropriate amount of humility".

I do feel that the comical re-naming of threads is a little rude, when a neutral re-naming could be just as effective, but apart from that, I fear you are witnessing the result of prior burnt bridges.

 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 05:06.

Thu Sep 24 05:06:15 UTC 2020 up 14 days, 2:17, 0 users, load averages: 1.20, 1.09, 1.22