Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Lehmer sequence puzzle

Expand Messages
  • Maximilian Hasler
    ... my experimental table shows other cases: [3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1] [4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1] [2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1] [9 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1] [2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1] [1 2 1 1 1 1
    Message 1 of 33 , May 7 8:02 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      > With Q = 2 and R = 7 we get precisely 3 units, at
      > n = 3, 5, 13.
      >
      > I assume that this is Mike's discovery,
      > but as he is being cagey, I cannot be sure.

      my "experimental" table shows other cases:
      [3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1]
      [4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1]
      [2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1]
      [9 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1]
      [2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1]
      [1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1]
      [1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1]R=7, Q=2
      [1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1]
      [1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1]
      [1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1]R=10, Q=3
      [1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1]
      [1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1]
      [1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1]R=13, Q=4
      [1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1]
      [...] R=22,Q=9 (not of the form R=1+3Q ... ;-)
      ...(?)

      For higher R, this band of 2's spreads larger and larger.
      also some additional "lines" of 2 appear.
      (Not that many 3's...)

      Maximilian
      SEAPS Inc.
    • David Broadhurst
      ... Yes, Mike, that last form is by far the neatest, if one removes the unnecessary lucas , which should be well understood, when one speaks of U or V . 1)
      Message 33 of 33 , May 10 7:13 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Oakes"
        <mikeoakes2@...> wrote [with unfailing courtesy]:

        > lucasU(338,25,11584)-5*lucasU(338,25,11583)
        > I guess Chris would expect the last of these as being the most
        > "canonical"? And I concur, it being also the shortest.

        Yes, Mike, that last form is by far the neatest,
        if one removes the unnecessary "lucas", which should
        be well understood, when one speaks of "U" or "V".

        1) François Édouard Anatole Lucas defined the integer sequence
        U(P,Q,n) = P*U(P,Q,n-1) - Q*U(P,Q,n-2),
        with U(P,Q,0) = 0 and U(P,Q,1) = 1,
        in terms of elementary arithmetic.

        2) I like to imagine that Derrick Norman Lehmer (1867-1938) saw that
        U(P,Q^2,2*k+1) = U(P,Q^2,k+1)^2 - (Q*U(P,Q^2,n))^2
        and told his son: "Go look at the factors for your Ph.D."

        3) Certainly, Derrick Henry Lehmer (1905-1991) did study
        U(P,Q^2,k+1) - Q*U(P,Q^2,k)
        being very well aware of the super-Lucasian extension to powers
        of algebraic numbers of degree 4, in the wider complex plane.

        4) Mike Oakes has found that the Lehmer number
        U(P,Q^2,k+1) - Q*U(P,Q^2,k)
        is probably prime, when P = 338, Q = 5, k = 11583.

        5) David Broadhurst is able to characterize this
        circumstance without using a dirty 4-letter word :-)

        Thank ye, kindly, Sir, for this interesting thread!

        David, pp SSSR
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.