mersenneforum.org New Method
 User Name Remember Me? Password
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2013-05-23, 05:20 #1 Unregistered   2×3×7×227 Posts New Method If I have a new theory on how to look for perfect numbers and mersenne primes, who do i tell?
 2013-05-23, 06:49 #2 Uncwilly 6809 > 6502     """"""""""""""""""" Aug 2003 101×103 Posts 10,529 Posts You could explain the rough basics of your plan here. There are enough of the right individuals here to give your plan a first pass. If you want to explain it in detail here, that would be ok as well. Since this is an open and well documented location, no one could see your idea and claim it as their own. Enough of us here would know that you posted here. I would suggest that before you post here, sign up for a used ID. That way it would make it possible to give you proper credit. Be fore warned, your idea is likely not new, or likely won't work.
 2013-05-23, 09:46 #4 Brian Tinsley   24A916 Posts New Method?? My name is Brian Tinsley, of Bowling Green, Kentucky 42104. I am 27 years old. My email address is HGRV international at gmail dot com. [moderated to be less automatic pickup] I am not aware of our current technique of locating mersenne primes and perfect numbers except for running every even number through the formula to see if it works. If that is the case, I might have 2 techniques that should get us to the 1000th perfect number and mersenne prime, hopefully much quicker. I would like to first point out to the community, that I am using a technique that I have been using ever since I was a small boy. A technique that I have never seen an actual technical term for. I have always wanted to call this term "the Ultimate Sum" or "Tinsley's Sum" in honor of my fathers, if i get to name it myself, but for this publication I will use the term "ultimate sum". The ultimate sum can be calculated for any number except 0 and negative numbers, and the value of the ultimate sum, must be 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,or 10. "1" is excluded because it is an empty product, and the peak is "10", because "11" would be "2". (1+1=2). The ultimate sum of a number is calculated by adding the integers contained within the number. For example: If we wanted to find the ultimate sum of Eddington Number, we would add, Code: 1+5+7+4+7+7+2+4+1+3+6+2+7+5+0+0+2+5+7+7+6+0+5+6+5+3+9+6+1+1+8+1+5+5+5+4+6+8+0+4+4+7+1+7+9+1+4+5+2+7+1+1+6+7+0+9+3+6+6+2+3+1+4+2+5+0+7+6+1+8+5+6+3+1+0+3+1+2+9+6 = (if i copied and pasted the right number, our sum should be) 331 3+3+1 = 7 "7" is the ultimate sum of Eddington Number I started to apply this technique to the perfect numbers, then realized that the ultimate sum of every perfect number is "10", except for the first one "6". (2.)2+8=10 (3.)4+9+6=19, 1+9=10 (4.)8+1+2+8=19, 1+9=10 (5.)3+3+5+5+0+3+3+6=28, 2+8=10 (6.)8+5+8+9+8+6+9+0+5+6=64, 6+4=10 (7.)1+3+7+4+3+8+6+9+1+3+2+8=55, 5+5=10 (8.)2+3+0+5+8+4+3+0+0+8+1+3+9+9+5+2+1+2+8=73, 7+3=10 So, there for, not only should we only be looking at the even numbers, but we should only be looking at every 10th number. This next idea, could be pretty far out there. I was unable to verify. Then I started thinking to myself. "Mathematics is about perfect symmetry. Where did this silly little six come from!?..." "Why can't 6 be one of the answers?" Then I started dividing all the perfect numbers by "6", and that is when I saw this: 6 / 6 = A whole number 28 / 6 = 28.6 496 / 6 = 82.6 repeating 8128 / 6 = 1354.6 repeating (There are 6 decimated numbers in 33550336 / 6 = 5591722.6 repeating sequence then a whole number) 8589869056 / 6 = 1431644842.6 repeating 137438691328 / 6 = 22906448554.666668 2305843008139952128 / 6 = A whole number Could this be a pattern? I honestly can not answer that, because I can not find the 9th or 10th perfect number written out anywhere. Any light that could be shed onto my thoughts, is always greatly appreciated. Thank You. Last fiddled with by wblipp on 2013-05-23 at 11:22 Reason: code tags added for pretty formatting
2013-05-23, 11:20   #5
wblipp

"William"
May 2003
New Haven

2,371 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Unregistered I am currently logged into the mersenne.org page, but when i click on the forum/help, I am no longer logged in.
Mersenne.org and MerenneForum.org are separate sites run by different, although friendly, people.

2013-05-23, 11:27   #6
wblipp

"William"
May 2003
New Haven

2,371 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Brian Tinsley Code: 1+5+7+4+7+7+2+4+1+3+6+2+7+5+0+0+2+5+7+7+6+0+5+6+5+3+9+6+1+1+8+1+5+5+5+4+6+8+0+4+4+7+1+7+9+1+4+5+2+7+1+1+6+7+0+9+3+6+6+2+3+1+4+2+5+0+7+6+1+8+5+6+3+1+0+3+1+2+9+6 = (if i copied and pasted the right number, our sum should be) 331 3+3+1 = 7 "7" is the ultimate sum of Eddington Number
This is often called "casting out nines." The end result in the "number modulo nine," which is another way of saying that it is the remainder if you divide the number by 9. Figuring out why that is true is would be an informative exercise. You probably have the tools to figure this out already, now that you know that is what you are looking for. If not, post what you have figured out and we will offer hints.

2013-05-23, 16:53   #7
Batalov

"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

982910 Posts

Brian, be prepared to hear some fairly blunt remarks and take them without emotions.

There are some people who feel as if anyone who added 3+3+1 and started thinking out loud is like a person who doesn't know how to hold a scalpel and goes into an operation room to do brain surgery. We are not all thinking like that.

A few notes (in addition to William's) for you to think some more:
Quote:
 2305843008139952128 / 6 = A whole number
2305843008139952128 / 6 = 384307168023325354.66666666666666666666...
It is not a whole number. In fact there are no perfect numbers larger than 6 that are divisible by 6. There in lies a hint that you don't even have a tool yet to deal with larger numbers; the tool (a calculator?) that you are using is giving you the wrong (rounded) result, that sends you in a completely wrong direction of thinking right away.
Quote:
 Could this be a pattern? I honestly can not answer that, because I can not find the 9th or 10th perfect number written out anywhere.
The 9th PN is 2658455991569831744654692615953842176
The 10th PN is 191561942608236107294793378084303638130997321548169216.
Before you ask, -- no, they don't divide by 6; and yes, their "ultimate sum" will be "10", i.e. after division by 9 they will produce a remainder of 1.

 2013-05-23, 20:41 #8 ATH Einyen     Dec 2003 Denmark 3,313 Posts Remember there have been advances in mathematics for hundreds, even thousands of years by brilliant people. The chance that some new mathematics can be discovered by juggling some numbers around is practically zero (unfortunately). I did the same thing some years back, it is natural until you realize the scope of knowledge that has accumulated. These days new advances in math is proofs hundreds of pages long and so complicated you can't imagine. Only a small number of people in the world can understand them and it takes months or years to even check them to see if they hold up. Last fiddled with by ATH on 2013-05-23 at 20:41
2013-05-23, 21:32   #9
science_man_88

"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

26×131 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Brian Tinsley Any light that could be shed onto my thoughts, is always greatly appreciated. Thank You.
some results you can look at:

all even PN above 6 have remainder 4 when divided by 6.
all even PN above 6 have remainder 1 when divided by 9.
all even PN above 6 have remainder 10 when divided by 18 ( follows from first 2)
all even PN have a last digit 6 or 8.
all even PN are $(2^{p-1})\times(2^p-1)$ where $2^p-1$ is a Mersenne prime.

I like looking for patterns as well but it is usually known already.

 2013-05-24, 00:21 #10 n00b13   2×32×13×29 Posts Metodo Nuevo Numero Dos (New Method) It seems as if we can, no longer, post on the original thread, so we started a new one here. Thank you all so very much for your input... It has definitely shed some light onto certain things. And yes I am quite aware of any ridicule that might come from these expressions. But as scientists we must always leave room for the possibility of anything. One thing I am still a bit hazy on: I haven't seen the "casting out nines" method, mentioned even once, when it comes to perfect numbers. Is there some other pattern that makes this idea obsolete? I am assuming the answer to this is "modular arithmetic"? also, to science man I am assuming PN means perfect number? If all even PN above 6 have remainder 4 when divided by 6. Why do I keep getting a remainder of 6 or 2/3s or something close? PS. I still like the name "ultimate sum" considering the method has nothing to do with nines at all. The Chinese probably love it! Especially, when the ultiamte sum of a number reaches "6" or "8" :-)
 2013-05-24, 00:25 #11 Batalov     "Serge" Mar 2008 Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2 266516 Posts You can always register and then you will have access to any subforum.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post JM Montolio A Miscellaneous Math 11 2018-02-28 11:29 Godzilla Miscellaneous Math 28 2017-10-31 18:14 henryzz Miscellaneous Math 4 2017-04-13 12:41 Miszka Math 13 2013-12-27 20:23 Xyzzy Hobbies 7 2008-04-03 14:47

All times are UTC. The time now is 15:00.

Tue May 24 15:00:45 UTC 2022 up 40 days, 13:02, 0 users, load averages: 1.66, 1.90, 2.13

Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔