PARI's commands

[science_man_88]

That wasn't what I did before,as far as I can tell. but it is useful in my learning.Once again I spoke a bit too soon,

[science_man_88]

lucaslehmer2(p)= s=4;for(x=1,p-2,s=(s^2-2)%(2^p-1));if(x=p-2 && sumdigits(s)==9,print1(p","))

axn what are the possible improvements on this? This leads me to more curiosity than the first one I made. This one can help show all the exponents that have a sumdigits(last term)==9 not just the 2^p-1 is prime ones. If we can predict this one, maybe we can find a pattern in the p that make 2^p-1 prime (I'm guessing based on position in this supersuquence).

[3.14159]

Originally Posted by science_man_88

lucaslehmer2(p)= s=4;for(x=1,p-2,s=(s^2-2)%(2^p-1));if(x=p-2 && sumdigits(s)==9,print1(p","))

axn what are the possible improvements on this? This leads me to more curiosity than the first one I made. This one can help show all the exponents that have a sumdigits(last term)==9 not just the 2^p-1 is prime ones. If we can predict this one, maybe we can find a pattern in the p that make 2^p-1 prime (I'm guessing based on position in this supersuquence).

Good luck with that..

This is too vague to work with.

Perhaps, if you explained this a bit more clearly, I could either help or shoot this "conjecture" to hell, where it likely belongs.

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by 3.14159

Good luck with that..

This is too vague to work with.

Perhaps, if you explained this a bit more clearly, I could either help or shoot this "conjecture" to hell, where it likely belongs.

Put a for loop around it not much to explain!

[3.14159]

Originally Posted by science_man_88

Put a for loop around it not much to explain!

What you posted is too vague. I either need math that explains what you posted, or a clear explanation of whatever it is that you posted, with minimal ambiguity.

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by 3.14159

What you posted is too vague. I either need math that explains what you posted, or a clear explanation of whatever it is that you posted, with minimal ambiguity.

It's a lucas-lehmer test as denoted by the title. The main difference between this and the first one is the fact that the test checks to see if sumdigits(last result)==9.

[3.14159]

Originally Posted by science_man_88

It's a lucas-lehmer test as denoted by the title. The main difference between this and the first one is the fact that the test checks to see if sumdigits(last result)==9.

.. You could just download an implementation of it..

And, why would the latter part (Digits of.. what?, summing to 9), be necessary?

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by 3.14159

.. You could just download an implementation of it..

Why? By following the basic pseudocode on wikipedia I was able to create my own basic Pari script. I'll admit I haven't made the most efficient script but I'm happy with it, Also why do you feel you need to throw me down? To boost yourself up? If so you're sinking like a rock.

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by 3.14159

.. You could just download an implementation of it..

And, why would the latter part (Digits of.. what?, summing to 9), be necessary?

sumdigits(last result)==9, and the fact it's labelled lucaslehmer2(p) didn't make it obvious ? if not I feel very sad for you.

[3.14159]

Originally Posted by science_man_88

Why? By following the basic pseudocode on wikipedia I was able to create my own basic Pari script. I'll admit I haven't made the most efficient script but I'm happy with it, Also why do you feel you need to throw me down? To boost yourself up? If so you're sinking like a rock.

I dunno. A downloaded implementation is normally faster, for any serious searcher.

Throw you down? When? How? By pointing out that you're seeing "patterns", where there are none? There were no putdowns. It was an observation of mine, and nothing else.

A putdown would be something along the lines of, "You're wrong, because you're a damn moron who doesn't have any idea what they're talking about."

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by 3.14159

Perhaps, if you explained this a bit more clearly, I could either help or shoot this "conjecture" to hell, where it likely belongs.

You know nothing of a put down or even an attempt there, can't see one for the life of me.