mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Miscellaneous Math

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2013-05-23, 05:20   #1
Unregistered
 

136468 Posts
Exclamation New Method

If I have a new theory on how to look for perfect numbers and mersenne primes, who do i tell?
  Reply With Quote
Old 2013-05-23, 06:49   #2
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

100111100010012 Posts
Default

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.
Uncwilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-05-23, 07:10   #3
Unregistered
 

2·13·277 Posts
Default Trouble

I seem to be having trouble. I couldn't understand why my last post was posted as unregistered. I am currently logged into the mersenne.org page, but when i click on the forum/help, I am no longer logged in. The site wants me to re-login, or i presume, login on top of my current login... which says invalid name/password. I click lost password, type in my email address, (HGRVinternational@gmail.com). displays something like, "you did not enter an email address that is recognizable." I click contact administrator, and then page doesnt load. I click on the address bar and type, "http://www.mersenne.org/" and it goes back to home page still logged in. Or must I manually change my Username at the top of the post page?

And yes I understand I might be completely crazy, I think it all the time. But, I would like to run it past someone with at least an assoicates and see what they think.
  Reply With Quote
Old 2013-05-23, 09:46   #4
Brian Tinsley
 

24·433 Posts
Exclamation 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
  Reply With Quote
Old 2013-05-23, 11:20   #5
wblipp
 
wblipp's Avatar
 
"William"
May 2003
New Haven

23·103 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
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.
wblipp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-05-23, 11:27   #6
wblipp
 
wblipp's Avatar
 
"William"
May 2003
New Haven

94116 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Tinsley View Post
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.
wblipp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-05-23, 16:53   #7
Batalov
 
Batalov's Avatar
 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

59×163 Posts
Default

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.
Batalov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-05-23, 20:41   #8
ATH
Einyen
 
ATH's Avatar
 
Dec 2003
Denmark

C7E16 Posts
Default

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
ATH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-05-23, 21:32   #9
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

26·131 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Tinsley View Post
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.
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-05-24, 00:21   #10
n00b13
 

687110 Posts
Exclamation 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" :-)
  Reply With Quote
Old 2013-05-24, 00:25   #11
Batalov
 
Batalov's Avatar
 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

226218 Posts
Default

You can always register and then you will have access to any subforum.
Batalov is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A stupid factoring method JM Montolio A Miscellaneous Math 11 2018-02-28 11:29
Do you know this method to factorize? Godzilla Miscellaneous Math 28 2017-10-31 18:14
New factorization method henryzz Miscellaneous Math 4 2017-04-13 12:41
B1 and B2 in P-1 method Miszka Math 13 2013-12-27 20:23
Suzuki Method Xyzzy Hobbies 7 2008-04-03 14:47

All times are UTC. The time now is 12:50.


Sat Dec 4 12:50:31 UTC 2021 up 134 days, 7:19, 0 users, load averages: 1.16, 1.22, 1.19

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.