View Single Post
Old 2005-12-29, 10:15   #9
jasong
 
jasong's Avatar
 
"Jason Goatcher"
Mar 2005

DB316 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by axn1
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?
Hmmmmmmmm, my math education was cut short in the tenth grade, so even if you could prove it false, I probably wouldn't understand it. Unless of course you're claiming you can find an n that makes n*2^509203-1 prime, in which case I would agree that the conjecture is false.

Do you believe you can find an n that causes n*2^509203-1 to be prime?

Last fiddled with by jasong on 2005-12-29 at 10:15
jasong is offline   Reply With Quote