Possibly prime

[Orgasmic Troll]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Sing along with me now:

My credibility is now less than zero,
Yes, I'm a Misc.-Maths forum hero...

DJ Ernst, gimme a beat!

Uhh!

the mish mash of misc.-maths' missed paths criss-crossed
like wrist watches sold on the street, you hold no credibility
that doesn't make you incredible, just lacking stability
but you pack a lackluster ability to mimic senility
We'll just pretend that you tend to post like it's a prank
but at the end of the day we all know what to say,
"He's just another mother****ing crank"

[ewmayer]

Yo, TravisT, what up, my brother?

Ha ha, "Cranksta Rap."

[BlisteringSheep]

"Cranks apart"

Oops, wrong thread...

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by BlisteringSheep

"Cranks apart"

Oops, wrong thread...

I don't think is anything which could possibly be seen as "wrong" in this particular thread, given the baseline here.

[Orgasmic Troll]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Yo, TravisT, what up, my brother?

Ha ha, "Cranksta Rap."

nice

[Spherical Cow]

Originally Posted by Prime95

M35577307 has had one LL test - not prime. You are welcome to do an early double-check.

At the risk of being "on topic", I'll do the double-check of this starting Friday, and perhaps allow this prime to rest in peace.

Norm

[xilman]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Yo, TravisT, what up, my brother?

Ha ha, "Cranksta Rap."

The "ranksta" is silent, of course.

This has been a public service announcement.


Paul

[m_f_h]

Hell, I've been missing a great deal of progress in this discussion !

First, and foremost (since the "possible prime" is still unconfirmed) :

Originally Posted by T.Rex

Sure. In Grenoble, we have the "Chartreuse", made with plants. Green one is the best. Done by monks living in the Chartreuse mountain. Quite strange and very strong !
T.

I '''strongly''' +1 the green Chartreuse. Nothing compares to that.

AS (2^1368358*26)/(2^1368358*26)=1 so 1368358*26 represents the multiples of 2^26 .

I don't understand the proposition P = "1368358*26 represents the multiples of 2^26"
so I cannot evaluate the truth of your statement (which is of the form " TRUE => P "
and as such equivalent to P)

As far as transferring the 1 it gets 2^p in its form.
I have made the assumption 2^p sufficiently defined.
An exact solution of the 2^26 part or not might be be possible,but the time consumption would prohibit demonstration of this method till much later.
Meanwhile the correlation of 1 , has some merit to look at.
There is some parallel, as suggested earlier , to calculus of variations.
There is no doubt in my mind, that a factorial difference can be transformed to a linear variable, and for only two primes at a time
compared .

as to the above, I dont understand anything, and I doubt anyone can.

I have drawings making matters easier to perceive, but not in a condition to transmit across the computer.

too bad, since "ein Bild spricht mehr als tausend Worte." (but there seem to exist counter-examples when applied to mathematical proofs...)

Ideally , an exact match on the spot is preferable, but I'm not willing to state that this type CANNOT work.

well in number theory, exact matches are indeed preferred and the negation of "this cannot work" unfortunately is not "this works".

Finding , not a|1|, difference , but on the nose 'o', would be great.Once I had some idea by observation where to start,
exchanging p and p' terms to get to 35577307 took about 2hrs.
Rhetorically , how many combinations of those numbers are there?How long does a chess game last, among humans?

on the average, much shorter than an LL test in the 35M region.
and, once again, this whole mersenne stuff is about the +/- 1 being there - in this sense, a +/-1 difference is not close to zero, but exactly at the opposite end
(2^N has N+1 factors, while 2^N-1 or 2^N+1 MAY not have any factor)

[David John Hill Jr]

At the moment , by x-1, I have a conjunction, the only thing I am looking at
is to what?
(x=35577307)
as (2^(2^p-1)-2)! is what I am looking at.A pseudo would be elimated or confirmed.As eliminated,x is prime.

For similar cases , look at both 521 and 607,(listed Mersennes) however the narrowing is in the reverse direction for one.

[m_f_h]

Originally Posted by David John Hill Jr

(x=35577307)
(...) x is prime.

true.

As to the rest, I must be the one for whom narrowing is in the reverse direction...

[grandpascorpion]

Originally Posted by David John Hill Jr

At the moment , by x-1, I have a conjunction ...

Conjunction Junction, what's your function?