Wagstaff Conjecture

davieddy · 2010-12-25, 04:33

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)

davar55 · 2010-12-25, 05:03

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.)

davieddy · 2010-12-25, 10:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by davar55

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

At least once

davar55 · 2010-12-25, 18:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by davieddy

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.

CRGreathouse · 2010-12-25, 20:29

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".

davar55 · 2010-12-25, 21:21

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.

davieddy · 2010-12-25, 23:22

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.

davar55 · 2010-12-26, 00:20

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 ...

CRGreathouse · 2010-12-26, 00:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by davar55

Second, if you check the subsequent analysis by jinydu,
the YJ-Conjecture is at least partially proven.

Care to provide details or a link?

davieddy · 2010-12-26, 01:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

Care to provide details or a link?

Look up the mfgoode/davieddy conjectures.

David

CRGreathouse · 2010-12-26, 02:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by davieddy

Look up the mfgoode/davieddy conjectures.

So that would be "no".

2010-12-25, 04:33	#1
davieddy "Lucan" Dec 2006 England 2·3·13·83 Posts	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)

2010-12-25, 23:22	#7
davieddy "Lucan" Dec 2006 England 2×3×13×83 Posts	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

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

2010-12-25, 05:03	#2
davar55 May 2004 New York City 5·7·11² Posts	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.)

2010-12-25, 20:29	#5
CRGreathouse Aug 2006 5,987 Posts	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".

2010-12-25, 21:21	#6
davar55 May 2004 New York City 108B₁₆ Posts	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.