![]() |
![]() |
#166 |
Jan 2010
379 Posts |
![]()
I want to thank everyone who answered my questions and helped me.
Big thanks Tomer. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#167 |
Nov 2003
22×5×373 Posts |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#168 |
Aug 2006
2·11·271 Posts |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#169 |
Jan 2010
17B16 Posts |
![]()
what is the tiger challenge?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#170 | |
Aug 2006
2·11·271 Posts |
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#171 |
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England
2·3·13·83 Posts |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#172 |
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA
22·3·641 Posts |
![]()
If you mean "Year of the Tiger Challenge", it's
[Year of the Tiger] Challenge In the traditional Chinese zodiacal calendar, a Year of the Tiger starts on Feb. 14, 2010. (http://www.springsgreetingcards.com/...asp?pid=250913) Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2010-02-04 at 22:06 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#173 |
Jan 2010
37910 Posts |
![]()
Here is another conjecture I tought about:
If Where p is an odd prime number,and A is the set of the odd prime factors of 2p-1. If 2p-1 is a prime number, From here, the conjecture "says" that Which is fermat's little theorem. Last fiddled with by blob100 on 2010-02-06 at 11:56 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#174 | |
Account Deleted
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA
17·251 Posts |
![]() Quote:
This is a result of the known fact that any factor of 2^p-1 is of the form 2kp+1. What? If I get what you're saying, that's equivalent to the trivial equation Take a look at these two "equivalent" statements and tell me if you see anything off. You've gotta see it. What about where you went wrong? Well? If you can't figure it out, highlight this text to see it: You're saying 2^p-2 is equivalent to 2^p-1, which is of course not true. The problem is caused by turning 2^p-2 into 2(2^p-1) instead of 2(2^(p-1)-1). If you correctly transform that, you get an alternate form of Fermat's little theorem, So you're saying that your conjecture is equivalent to Fermat's little theorem, being a subset of it that adds nothing new? Umm...I think it should be pretty clear that the fact there is already known. Last fiddled with by Mini-Geek on 2010-02-06 at 12:21 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#175 |
Jan 2010
379 Posts |
![]()
[quote=Mini-Geek;204717]
This is a result of the known fact that any factor of 2^p-1 is of the form 2kp+1. I didn't know about this fact, so I found it by myself (somehow). Thanks for the help. BTW: I didn't see the part about fermat's little theorem was not correct, i meant what you wrote. Last fiddled with by blob100 on 2010-02-06 at 12:52 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#176 |
Jan 2010
379 Posts |
![]()
I have a new conjecture (it isn't about mersenne numbers),
I conjecture that: between n^2 to n^2+2n there is always a prime number. When n is an odd number. We can show n^2+2n as n(n+2). So, Last fiddled with by blob100 on 2010-02-16 at 15:10 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Some ideas regarding NFS... | paul0 | Factoring | 3 | 2015-03-14 19:55 |
Ideas for the future beyond just-keep-encrunching | Dubslow | NFS@Home | 13 | 2015-02-02 22:25 |
two ideas for NPLB | Mini-Geek | No Prime Left Behind | 16 | 2008-03-01 23:32 |
GROUP IDEAS | TTn | 15k Search | 15 | 2003-09-23 16:28 |
Domain name ideas... | Xyzzy | Lounge | 17 | 2003-03-24 16:20 |