View Single Post
Old 2005-12-29, 10:01   #8
axn
 
axn's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

133216 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasong
I apologize, that was a typo. (n*2^k-1) and (k*2^n-1)
Aah! In that case, what I said earlier applies. The conjucture can be "trivially" shown to be false. (Of course, to find a prime x*2^509203-1 is not trivial, but it is relatively straightforward).

Is there some conditions for this conjecture, like we should consider only the Riesel k's?
axn is offline   Reply With Quote