- Apr 7, 2009--- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Oakes" <mikeoakes2@...> wrote:

>

Very cool. To notch it up on the coolness factor one could express

> My own record (and favourite PRP of all, being so "Mersenne-like") is

> 3^336353-2^336353

> at 160482 digits.

>

the prime exponent 336353 as

3*(2^(2^3+3^2) - 3^(3^2) + 3^(2*3)) - 1

:)

On a not too related note, here's something that may be of interest.

Consider primes generated by 2^m + 3^n and 2^n + 3^m , with m < n.

I've looked at n from 1 to 1000, and there is always at least

one m < n such that 2^m + 3^n OR 2^n + 3^m is prime. But it comes

close to failing on many occasions. (Why am I always attracted to

this kind of exploration?)

Here are the outcomes which came close to failing, where there were

3 or fewer m that resulted in a prime.

Format: (n, number of m less than n such that 2^m+3^n or 2^n+3^m is prime)

(1,1) (2,2) (3,2) (4,3) (5,3) (6,3) (9,3) (11,3) (25,2)

(33,3) (34,3) (54,1) (69,2) (70,3) (97,3) (103,3) (115,3)

(117,2) (118,3) (120,3) (121,3) (122,2) (129,1) (131,2)

(135,1) (139,3) (150,3) (157,2) (161,3) (166,3) (170,1)

(175,1) (185,1) (190,3) (194,3) (200,2) (201,2) (206,3)

(211,3) (213,3) (218,3) (236,2) (240,2) (242,3) (266,3)

(274,1) (280,1) (285,3) (293,3) (294,3) (321,2) (322,3)

(324,3) (335,1) (338,3) (348,2) (351,3) (376,2) (383,3)

(397,3) (398,3) (405,3) (407,2) (415,2) (420,3) (422,3)

(435,3) (445,2) (455,2) (459,2) (460,1) (473,3) (489,1)

(493,3) (506,2) (507,3) (543,2) (547,1) (549,2) (555,3)

(562,2) (565,3) (566,3) (567,2) (570,2) (572,3) (580,2)

(586,3) (591,2) (603,3) (609,2) (611,1) (614,1) (627,3)

(641,3) (651,3) (685,2) (700,3) (711,3) (717,1) (721,3)

(729,1) (736,3) (745,3) (746,1) (747,3) (751,3) (770,3)

(775,3) (798,2) (811,3) (813,1) (819,1) (821,1) (826,1)

(830,3) (835,3) (845,3) (851,1) (859,3) (869,3) (879,3)

(884,3) (887,2) (899,3) (901,3) (911,3) (913,2) (943,2)

(951,3) (958,3) (966,1) (970,3)

The rate of close calls seem to decrease, but slowly. But what

surprised me initially was this: I expected that composite n would be

more represented than they are for close calls.

For instance let n have a factor of 3. Immediately one third of the

m's less than n are disqualified from generating a prime, because if

m contains a factor of 3 then both 2^n+3^m and 2^m+3^n will contain

a factor of 2^3+3^3 = 35.

But as it is, of the 133 n's listed above, only 45 have a factor of

3. About what one would expect if having a factor of 3 made no

difference. What about n with factors of 5? 33 of the 133 n's have a

factor of 5, so the composite effect might be having some effect

there, not sure.

Mark - << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>