20080220, 22:35  #34 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA
1111000001100_{2} Posts 

20080221, 13:25  #35 
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England
6474_{10} Posts 

20080222, 00:25  #36 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA
2^{2}×3×641 Posts 
You have misinterpreted my Feb. 18 posting; it was neither sycophantic nor sarcastic, but was simply sincere.
I have always respected Dr. Silverman's mathematical prowess. He has numerous published papers in the field of number theory. However, until a year or two ago I frequently criticized Silverman for his apparent impatience or intolerance toward inexperienced or unknowledgable folks who posted sincere but ignorantly or awkwardlyworded questions about math here at mersenneforum.org. He seemed (to me) to regard this forum as an extension of the college classrooms in which he was professor, and to expect that forum posters should satisfy the same requirements as students in one of those college classes. I repeatedly pointed out to Silverman that this public forum had fundamental differences from his classrooms, that it was unreasonable to lambast forum posters for not having the math prerequisites of his classroom students, that his own participation here was completely voluntary on his part rather than part of his job or other assignment, and that he himself often failed to do the same type of preliminary "homework" that he expected the forum questioners to have done. Do your own forum search for posts by "cheesehead" containing the keywords "Silverman", "classroom", or "homework", dated at least a year ago. Examine those that I posted shortly after a Silverman posting in the same thread. [edit:] Okay, because I'm a softie, here's a good thread with several participants besides me commenting on the Dr.'s style: "Decorum in the forum" at http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=3946 Also related is "Proposal: 'Math for beginners' subforum" at http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=3843 Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 20080222 at 00:52 
20080222, 04:57  #37 
"Jason Goatcher"
Mar 2005
5·701 Posts 
Dr. Silverman is a sophomore in the original sense of the word.
Period. 
20080224, 22:06  #38 
Jan 2008
10110_{2} Posts 
Discussion about the square free conjecture
The discussion of the square free conjecture will be split into two parts. The first one will introduce conjecture 1, with a numerical example in attachment.
Conjectures 2 and 3 are restricted to mod(j,3) = 0 and mod(j,4) = 0 respectively, and are only deterministic for j=3 (see thread 20), j=4 (see thread 25) and j=3*4=12 (which is a combination case of conjecture 2 and 3). Conjecture 1 (historically found later) is the general deterministic case for any j, any exponent p prime and any base b prime for the prime divisors of C+ = b^p + 1 Let restricted to base b=2, p prime and M (for the general case see http://Olivier.Latinne.googlepages.com/home), d=2*p*j+1 prime divide M = 2^p1 if and only if there exists integers x, y, m and k, with x and y coprime, m and j coprime, mod(x,b) ≠ 0 and mod(m,p) ≠ 0, such that: for j odd: d= (x^j + 2^m * y^j) / k and mod(d,8)=7 for j even: d= (x^(2*j) + 2^m * y^(2*j) ) / k and mod(d,8)=1 In attachment, I give an example for j=5, for which I have computed all numbers such that: d= (x^5 + 2 * y^5) / k is prime, mod(d,8)=7, d=2*p*5+1 => p=(d1)/10 is prime. (I have choose m=1 and limited 0<x<=2000, 0<y<=2000, 1<=k<=100000) All these numbers d generated by this way (see attachment) are automatically divisors of M=2^p1 
20080225, 13:34  #39 
Feb 2007
2^{4}·3^{3} Posts 
Olivier: could you show how your restrictions could be useful, e.g. to speed up the search for Mersenne primes ?
For example, to "rediscover" the known Mersenne primes ; more precisely: For which primes p, for which mprime would start (with normal parameter setting) an LLtest, could you have foreseen that it is composite ? Or for some primes p which are currently under investigation, could you say "easily" (even if it takes several hours or days) that Mp is not prime ? Or something else of that kind. There is no need to go up to 10^11, only about p=40 000 000. But since you said you have tested the conjecture for all p<10^11, didn't give this to you new results about Mersenne primes beyond what is known? Anyway, you should point out what is NEW in your statement (I mean in the statement of your conjecture) : Just ONE case for which your conjecture says something more in addition to what classical results give (in particular, e.g., the criterion explicitely given by R.D.S. in his first reply, using cubic reciprocity). You always say "it was thought one cannot go beyond..." so you should point out WHERE *you* go beyond! PS (but this is less important): rather than posting tons of numbers in PDF files, I'd suggest to put the code (or algorithm, if you don't use PARI or Maple or so where it should be not much more than 23 lines) used to produce these (this is more meaningful and easier to understand) ; and point out some significant examples and counterexamples. Last fiddled with by m_f_h on 20080225 at 13:56 Reason: tought > thought 
20080225, 17:18  #40  
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England
2×3×13×83 Posts 
Quote:
Meanwhile, you might care to glance at a recent exchange between Minigeek and me (Predict M45 in the lounge) viz a viz Dr Silverman and his sensitive diplomatic posts:) If I had to criticize your posting, I would say you didn't appreciate legpulls, allowed no licence for minor misunderstandings, didn't walk even a mile towards understanding the other person's point of view and expounded on it at intolerable length. David Last fiddled with by davieddy on 20080225 at 17:27 

20080226, 22:49  #41  
Jan 2008
2·11 Posts 
Quote:
But I'm cautious (not like Dr. Silverman, who jumped strait in the bobby trap), because historically there are plenty of new discoveries that we thought there were only interesting for a theoretical point of view and after a more or less long time we find that there are also very useful for a practical point of view. But above all, I think that it is fundamental to fully understand exactly the mathematical process leading to these conjectures, and find precise demonstrations. Then, maybe, it will be very natural and easy to build more powerful tools than we have actually and explore for instance the square free conjecture or the primality of C5=M(M(7)). It will be also important to made a generalization of the three conjectures to unspecified p (and in particularly for Fermat numbers), for composite divisors ... Unfortunately there is almost four weeks that I have made my introduction post and no one has yet found a demonstration (Fivemack has maybe an idea but I don't know if he has made some progress? see thread #12). Quote:
Quote:
All my work is based on the fact that the (non) divisibility of a Cunningham number by a candidate divisor is deterministically linked by the form of this number. Conjecture #1 is deterministic for all values of j. Conjecture #2 and #3 are respectively deterministic for j=3 and j=4. The special case j=12 is also deterministic by a combination of conjecture #2 and #3 Quote:


20080227, 08:52  #42 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA
2^{2}·3·641 Posts 
David,
You pull your way; I'll pull mine  perhaps we can achieve perpetual motion. :) 
20080228, 11:14  #43 
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England
2·3·13·83 Posts 

20080229, 12:47  #44  
Feb 2003
2×59 Posts 
Quote:
In physics, chemistry etc. we try to come up with a theory that covers most of the observable phenomena... theory which is often prooved wrong when our observation techniques improve. See gravity for instance:  Newton came up with a theory based on observation. That theory is false.  Einstein came up with a better theory which stood up quite nicely, but now requires the invention of exotic stuff like "dark matter" and "dark force" to match the observations.  fill in here the next theory Mathematics is never based on observation, if it is it's not mathematics. Yes, you can guess something but until a proof is found, it has no value. 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Use of new Mersenne conjecture ?  bhelmes  Number Theory Discussion Group  0  20170728 20:34 
Help wanted, Mersenne base Cunningham numbers  kosta  Factoring  24  20130321 07:17 
Cunningham Tables at Mersenne Wiki  Raman  Cunningham Tables  32  20120710 22:27 
Mersenne Conjecture  sascha77  Math  15  20100508 00:33 
The New Mersenne Conjecture  Dougy  Math  32  20081026 07:17 