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

Re: Lucas super-pseudoprime puzzle

Expand Messages
  • mikeoakes2
    ... You did very much what I did. I nearly fell off the chair when I averaged everything out and saw 0.57... :-) ... Not very. Would you buy an appeal to
    Message 1 of 33 , May 27, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "djbroadhurst" <d.broadhurst@...> wrote:
      >
      > I tried 1/n^c:
      >
      > v=[1237.1, 328.7, 105.4, 28.01, 6.22 , 1.510, 0.439, 0.0939];
      > print(vector(8,k,-log(v[k]/10^6)/(k+4)/log(10)));
      >
      > [0.5815, 0.5805, 0.5682, 0.5691, 0.5785, 0.5821, 0.5780, 0.5856]
      >
      > and then A/n^c, using the first datum to remove A:
      >
      > print(vector(7,k,-log(v[k+1]/v[1])/k/log(10)));
      >
      > [0.5756, 0.5348, 0.5484, 0.5747, 0.5827, 0.5750, 0.5885]
      >
      > In both cases c =~ Euler looks rather convincing,
      > given the statistics. Well spotted, Sir!

      You did very much what I did.
      I nearly fell off the chair when I averaged everything out and saw 0.57... :-)

      > How strongly are you committed to A = 1, for the average,
      > given the variability of the overall factor with a?

      Not very.
      Would you buy an appeal to Occam's razor, mon vieux?

      Mike
    • mikeoakes2
      ... You did very much what I did. I nearly fell off the chair when I averaged everything out and saw 0.57... :-) ... Not very. Would you buy an appeal to
      Message 33 of 33 , May 27, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "djbroadhurst" <d.broadhurst@...> wrote:
        >
        > I tried 1/n^c:
        >
        > v=[1237.1, 328.7, 105.4, 28.01, 6.22 , 1.510, 0.439, 0.0939];
        > print(vector(8,k,-log(v[k]/10^6)/(k+4)/log(10)));
        >
        > [0.5815, 0.5805, 0.5682, 0.5691, 0.5785, 0.5821, 0.5780, 0.5856]
        >
        > and then A/n^c, using the first datum to remove A:
        >
        > print(vector(7,k,-log(v[k+1]/v[1])/k/log(10)));
        >
        > [0.5756, 0.5348, 0.5484, 0.5747, 0.5827, 0.5750, 0.5885]
        >
        > In both cases c =~ Euler looks rather convincing,
        > given the statistics. Well spotted, Sir!

        You did very much what I did.
        I nearly fell off the chair when I averaged everything out and saw 0.57... :-)

        > How strongly are you committed to A = 1, for the average,
        > given the variability of the overall factor with a?

        Not very.
        Would you buy an appeal to Occam's razor, mon vieux?

        Mike
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.