mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Miscellaneous Math

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-12-25, 04:33   #1
davieddy
 
davieddy's Avatar
 
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England

647410 Posts
Default Wagstaff Conjecture

OK
Not proved.
A few subleties
Some folk can't get their head round it
But is there anything simpler going around to base our assumptions on????

David

PS (@Paul sorry about putting "on" at the end of the sentence)
davieddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-25, 05:03   #2
davar55
 
davar55's Avatar
 
May 2004
New York City

108B16 Posts
Default

Why yes. How many time do I have to direct you
to the YJ-Conjecture?

(It was discovered and explained independently and is NOT the same.)
davar55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-25, 10:06   #3
davieddy
 
davieddy's Avatar
 
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England

2·3·13·83 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davar55 View Post
How many time do I have to direct you
to the YJ-Conjecture?
At least once
davieddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-25, 18:14   #4
davar55
 
davar55's Avatar
 
May 2004
New York City

102138 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davieddy View Post
At least once
The YJ-Conjecture was first presented in this forum
in a thread anticipating the arrival of M41.

It is also referenced in two extant threads.

It is also mentioned in the mersennewiki (historically)
and in wikipedia (historically).

It is also mentioned on yahoo.answers.
davar55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-25, 20:29   #5
CRGreathouse
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Aug 2006

3×1,993 Posts
Default

To save someone the same digging I had to do:

The "YJ-Conjecture" or "Yablon-Jinydu conjecture" is the name that davar55 gives to Eberhart's conjecture, the almost-certainly-wrong version of Wagstaff's conjecture.

Presumably the "d" in davar55 is the D in "David Yablon".
CRGreathouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-25, 21:21   #6
davar55
 
davar55's Avatar
 
May 2004
New York City

5·7·112 Posts
Default

Yes, that is my name.

The "almost" in "almost certainly wrong" saves that remark.

Just remember that well-known is not well-proved,
and conversely, unknown may be right.
davar55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-25, 23:22   #7
davieddy
 
davieddy's Avatar
 
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England

145128 Posts
Default

What infuriates me Davar is your claim that log(exponent)
is not distributed randomly. Why not work with the simplest
conjecture until it becomes untenable?

David

After ~2 years of LLtesting, we NOW "expect" the
exponent of the next Mprime to be 75M, a longer than usual
gap from 43M.

Why?
Absolutely nothing to do with the run of short gaps
since 20M (M40). It's because we have tested up to 50M.

Last fiddled with by davieddy on 2010-12-25 at 23:41
davieddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-26, 00:20   #8
davar55
 
davar55's Avatar
 
May 2004
New York City

5·7·112 Posts
Default

Quote:
What infuriates me Davar is your claim that log(exponent)
is not distributed randomly. Why not work with the simplest
conjecture until it becomes untenable?

After ~2 years of LLtesting, we NOW "expect" the
exponent of the next Mprime to be 75M, a longer than usual
gap from 43M.

Why?
Absolutely nothing to do with the run of short gaps
since 20M (M40). It's because we have tested up to 50M.
Two points: First, neither the primes nor their logs are distributed
randomly. That's an approximation, there's no actual randomness
among the integers. Use randomness to make a conjecture at your
own risk. Second, if you check the subsequent analysis by jinydu,
the YJ-Conjecture is at least partially proven. It may eventually
be a lemma. Using a ratio of 3/2 = 1.500 is cleaner, leads to a
similar estimate of the next two gaps, and thus may help find
M47 and M48 and M49 and ...
davar55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-26, 00:28   #9
CRGreathouse
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Aug 2006

135338 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davar55 View Post
Second, if you check the subsequent analysis by jinydu,
the YJ-Conjecture is at least partially proven.
Care to provide details or a link?
CRGreathouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-26, 01:15   #10
davieddy
 
davieddy's Avatar
 
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England

2·3·13·83 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRGreathouse View Post
Care to provide details or a link?
Look up the mfgoode/davieddy conjectures.

David
davieddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-26, 02:49   #11
CRGreathouse
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Aug 2006

3·1,993 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davieddy View Post
Look up the mfgoode/davieddy conjectures.
So that would be "no".
CRGreathouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Searching for Wagstaff PRP T.Rex Wagstaff PRP Search 191 2021-06-30 17:22
New Wagstaff PRP exponents ryanp Wagstaff PRP Search 26 2013-10-18 01:33
500€ Reward for a proof for the Wagstaff primality test conjecture Tony Reix Wagstaff PRP Search 7 2013-10-10 01:23
Hot tuna! -- a p75 and a p79 by Sam Wagstaff! Batalov GMP-ECM 9 2012-08-24 10:26
30th Wagstaff prime T.Rex Math 0 2007-09-04 07:10

All times are UTC. The time now is 21:03.


Wed Dec 1 21:03:34 UTC 2021 up 131 days, 15:32, 1 user, load averages: 1.75, 1.51, 1.44

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.