View Single Post
Old 2007-06-03, 08:24   #14
paulunderwood's Avatar
Sep 2002
Database er0rr

4,253 Posts

I just don't see why Cullen numbers should behave any differently.
Me neither. I would also assume that the "Nash weights" are independent for the prime "k" as opposed to composite ones. Perhaps someone could test this hypothesis.

Thanks for the clarification about the difference between "expectation" and "chance".

With Pari/GP I get the sum from k=1.5M for the expected number of prime Cullen primes :-
  • to k=5*10^6 as 0.2344
  • to k=5*10^7 as 0.6357
  • to k=5*10^8 as 0.9881

For the last, the maximum candidate is about a 150 million decimal digits

Good luck!

Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 2007-06-03 at 08:34
paulunderwood is online now