20181212, 17:21  #12 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
59·157 Posts 
That's it, that's it, let it out. You will feel better.
Scream on top of you lungs, like a spoiled child that you are. 
20181212, 17:24  #13 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville
2^{6}·131 Posts 
They are someone who wouldn't chalk up a number of coincidences (meaning two things happen together not necessarily connected in cause) and who has more than 21 times the posts and probably more than that (okay 166 months versus 9, aka about 18.5 times as much) in time spent on this forum obeying the logical rules.
Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 20181212 at 17:27 
20181212, 18:03  #14  
Mar 2018
1000001111_{2} Posts 
GREATHOUSE answer
Quote:
This is far more than the number of multiples expected by chance. This is the answer of GreatHouse… 

20181212, 18:05  #15 
Mar 2018
17·31 Posts 
Coincidences
All coincidences ok...

20181212, 18:13  #16 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville
20300_{8} Posts 

20181212, 18:18  #17 
Mar 2018
17×31 Posts 
mathoverflow

20181212, 18:34  #18 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville
20C0_{16} Posts 

20181212, 18:56  #19 
Mar 2018
527_{10} Posts 
Proof
I think it doesn't take a genius to see that this is far more than the number of multiples expected by chance. Proofing something is completely out of reach for me. I just noticed that the exponents leading to a probable prime are not random at all.

20181212, 19:19  #20  
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville
10000011000000_{2} Posts 
Quote:
Let a=(2n+1,n) be the natural number formed when concatenating 2n+1 and n, both natual numbers together, it follows that a= (2n+1)*10^d + n , where d is the number of decimal digits in n . Regrouping we get (2n*10^d+n)+10^d the first group of which is a multiple of any divisor of n . Therefore, we can conclude that any gcd(n,a) also divides 10^d which only has prime factors 2 and 5. This then implies that if 2 and 5 don't divide into n then they can't divide into the value a either. Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 20181212 at 19:27 

20181212, 19:41  #21  
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
2×3^{2}×257 Posts 
Quote:
You don't even know if Dr Greathouse was being sarcastic when you quote him! You don't know how common these occurences should be, if "random" did describe the processes. How about you try to figure out how often these things would happen if they *were* random? You can't define "not random", because you don't even know what "random" looks like. Discovering arbitrary numerological trivia about numbers of no specific import can be done with any list of numbers; so what? Stop handwaving about "not a coincidence" until you figure out what "coincidence" would look like. Better, read the entire wiki about Poisson probability distribution. There lies the first step toward a grasp of "random", so you might quit your "THIS MEANS SOMETHING!" crap. 

20181212, 22:00  #22 
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
2^{2}×7^{2}×47 Posts 
Well if you spent maybe five minute with your favourite search engine you could find out . I found out where they work, work email address, performance reviews, hobby/side gig, and marital status. And I found info about their salary.
Do your own homework. 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Unique Groupings found in the first 49 mersenne numbers  ONeil  ONeil  27  20181203 01:52 
I think I found proof that no odd perfect numbers exist!  Philly314  Aliquot Sequences  3  20141116 14:58 
Have Found Principle to generate infinitive PRIME NUMBERS  Evgeny Dolgov  Miscellaneous Math  38  20100905 17:45 
Can You See The Patterns..?  wustvn  Puzzles  7  20081120 14:00 
Shortest sequence of numbers not found in M43  Xyzzy  Miscellaneous Math  41  20081108 17:57 