mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Miscellaneous Math

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2021-08-19, 14:07   #12
Dobri
 
May 2018

2·97 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jnml View Post
Coincidence? I don't think so /s
Well, the comment ends in /s (which means being sarcastic) so one should take it with a pinch of salt.
Dobri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-08-19, 15:07   #13
Dobri
 
May 2018

C216 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dobri View Post
An attempt to apply the Wynn's Epsilon Method https://mathworld.wolfram.com/WynnsEpsilonMethod.html for convergence acceleration gives 2.813839133... which is greater than 2.813838890...
Assuming that SumEPSILON is close to the unknown SumTOTAL, one could entertain the idea of estimating a wide range for M52 as follows:

π(M52) (1 + π(M52)/π(M53) + π(M52)/π(M54) + ...) / (SumEPSILON - Sum51)

for some π(M52)/π(M53) < 1, π(M52)/π(M54) < 1,...
Dobri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-08-19, 15:50   #14
Dr Sardonicus
 
Dr Sardonicus's Avatar
 
Feb 2017
Nowhere

22·29·43 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by charybdis View Post
I don't think it's even known that there are infinitely many composite 2^p-1 - which makes proving the infinitude of Mersenne primes seem pretty unrealistic.
The things we don't know about 2p - 1, p prime, are legion. We don't know whether infinitely many are prime. [If there are only finitely many Mersenne primes, the sum of the reciprocals of the exponents is a finite sum of rational numbers, hence is rational.) We don't know whether infinitely many are composite. (If 2p - 1 is prime for all but finitely many p, the sum diverges.) Just about everybody and his uncle believes there are infinitely many primes p = 4n+3 for which 8n+ 7 is also prime (though AFAIK nobody knows how to prove it), so "prime for all but finitely many p" seems unlikely. If 2p - 1 is prime for "enough" p (I think a positive proportion is enough but am not certain) the sum diverges.

We don't even know whether 2p - 1 is square-free for infinitely many primes p, though AFAIK not a single prime p is known for which 2p - 1 is divisible by the square of any prime.
Dr Sardonicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-08-20, 08:35   #15
sweety439
 
sweety439's Avatar
 
"99(4^34019)99 palind"
Nov 2016
(P^81993)SZ base 36

24·191 Posts
Default

The sequence 2^n-1 can be generalized to any exponential sequence (a*b^n+c)/gcd(a+c,b-1) (with a>=1 is integer, b>=2 is integer, c is (positive or negative) integer, |c|>=1, gcd(a,c) = 1, gcd(b,c) = 1), if this sequence does not have full numerical covering set (e.g. 78557*2^n+1, (11047*3^n+1)/2, (419*4^n+1)/3, 509203*2^n-1, (334*10^n-1)/9, 14*8^n-1, etc.) or full algebraic covering set (e.g. 1*8^n+1, 8*27^n+1, (1*8^n-1)/7, (1*9^n-1)/8, 4*9^n-1, 2500*16^n+1, etc.) or partial algebraic/partial numerical covering set (e.g. 4*24^n-1, 4*39^n-1, (4*19^n-1)/3, (343*10^n-1)/9, 1369*30^n-1, 2500*55^n+1, etc.), we can find the sum of the reciprocals of the positive integers n such that (a*b^n+c)/gcd(a+c,b-1) is prime.

Conjecture: If sequence (a*b^n+c)/gcd(a+c,b-1) does not have covering set (full numerical covering set, full algebraic covering set, or partial algebraic/partial numerical covering set), then the sum of the reciprocals of the positive integers n such that (a*b^n+c)/gcd(a+c,b-1) is prime is converge (i.e. not infinity) and transcendental number. (of course, this conjecture will imply that there are infinitely many such n)

Last fiddled with by sweety439 on 2021-08-20 at 08:41
sweety439 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-08-20, 12:15   #16
charybdis
 
charybdis's Avatar
 
Apr 2020

7648 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sweety439 View Post
Conjecture: If sequence (a*b^n+c)/gcd(a+c,b-1) does not have covering set (full numerical covering set, full algebraic covering set, or partial algebraic/partial numerical covering set), then the sum of the reciprocals of the positive integers n such that (a*b^n+c)/gcd(a+c,b-1) is prime is converge (i.e. not infinity) and transcendental number. (of course, this conjecture will imply that there are infinitely many such n)
This is almost certainly false. We expect that for any b there are finitely many primes of the form b^n+1, since these can only be prime when n is a power of 2 (generalized Fermat numbers). The same holds for (b^n+1)/2 when b is odd.
charybdis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-08-20, 14:57   #17
RomanM
 
Jun 2021

31 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus View Post
It seems "obvious" that the Mersenne prime exponents (primes p such that 2p - 1 is prime) are sufficiently rare that the sum of their reciprocals converges. However, I am not aware of any proof of this.
Much better this way, this series converges absolutely) sum = sum + (-1)^n/Mexponent[[n]]

Last fiddled with by RomanM on 2021-08-20 at 15:38 Reason: Insert number, -0.2697096036
RomanM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-08-20, 16:31   #18
Dobri
 
May 2018

2×97 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RomanM View Post
Much better this way, this series converges absolutely) sum = sum + (-1)^n/Mexponent[[n]]
Perhaps the multiplier (-1)^(n-1) could be used instead for the sum of the alternating sequence to be positive, 0.2697096036...

Also, the sum of the alternating sequence of the reciprocals of the number of primes π(p) less than or equal to the known Mersenne prime exponents tends to converge to 0.6628596647...
Dobri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-08-20, 21:54   #19
a1call
 
a1call's Avatar
 
"Rashid Naimi"
Oct 2015
Remote to Here/There

215110 Posts
Default

I have no way of proving any of the following, so I state them as virtual (as opposed to literal) wagers:

* There are infinite Mersenne primes
* The sum of the reciprocals of Mersenne-Prime-Exponents does not converge

My reasoning for positing The 2nd statement is that for the known Mersenne-Primes the tendency is for the next exponent of each exponent to be less than double.

This would make it less convergent than the infinite series:

(1/2)^1 + (1/2)^2 + (1/2)^3 + .....

Just my 2 cents.
a1call is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-08-20, 22:11   #20
charybdis
 
charybdis's Avatar
 
Apr 2020

22·53 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by a1call View Post
My reasoning for positing The 2nd statement is that for the known Mersenne-Primes the tendency is for the next exponent of each exponent to be less than double.

This would make it less convergent than the infinite series:

(1/2)^1 + (1/2)^2 + (1/2)^3 + .....
What about the sequence 1.1, 1.1^2, 1.1^3, ...? Every term is much less than double the previous term, but the geometric series (1/1.1) + (1/1.1)^2 + (1/1.1)^3 + ... still converges. This is basic high-school stuff.

Or what about square numbers? The ratio between successive squares tends to 1, but the sum of the reciprocals converges.

Last fiddled with by charybdis on 2021-08-20 at 22:12
charybdis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-08-20, 22:45   #21
a1call
 
a1call's Avatar
 
"Rashid Naimi"
Oct 2015
Remote to Here/There

32×239 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by charybdis View Post
What about the sequence 1.1, 1.1^2, 1.1^3, ...? Every term is much less than double the previous term, but the geometric series (1/1.1) + (1/1.1)^2 + (1/1.1)^3 + ... still converges. This is basic high-school stuff.

Or what about square numbers? The ratio between successive squares tends to 1, but the sum of the reciprocals converges.
sum_(n=1)^∞ 1.1^n diverges to ∞

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?...%5En+converges
a1call is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-08-20, 22:47   #22
charybdis
 
charybdis's Avatar
 
Apr 2020

22·53 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by a1call View Post
sum_(n=1)^∞ 1.1^n diverges to ∞
Well yes, obviously it does. But if you read my post properly you'll see that I was talking about the sum of the reciprocals of that sequence.
charybdis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
More twin primes below Mersenne exponents than above Mersenne exponents. drkirkby Miscellaneous Math 39 2021-08-24 21:08
Another interesting pattern of Mersenne exponents: they are prime!!!!1111 ProximaCentauri Miscellaneous Math 22 2014-12-05 13:07
Mersenne(prime exponents) factorization science_man_88 Miscellaneous Math 3 2010-10-13 14:32
Sum of reciprocals of prime k-tuplets mart_r Math 10 2009-04-05 07:29
ECM on Mersenne numbers with prime exponents biwema Math 5 2004-04-21 04:44

All times are UTC. The time now is 23:32.


Thu Oct 21 23:32:09 UTC 2021 up 90 days, 18:01, 1 user, load averages: 1.44, 1.19, 1.17

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.