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

Hello

Expand Messages
  • paulmillscv
    Hello, This appears to be a nice group. I have an interest in primes, so I thought I would contribute. What a coincidence, I appear to have the same handle
    Message 1 of 19 , Feb 21, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello,
      This appears to be a nice group. I have an interest in primes, so
      I thought I would contribute. What a coincidence, I appear to have
      the same handle as paulmillscv. C'est la vie! But I have noticed
      one thing, why does D Broadhurst pretend not to understand my
      namesake's contributions? Surely they both have Ph.Ds? Can someone
      remind him that it is quite alright to do the dirty on a fellow
      countryman at home but decidedly not British to do it on an
      International Public List. There is such a thing as British
      Justice. Although I thought that `your honour' handing out 26 life
      sentences the other day was slightly OTT. A couple would have done.
      Basically, lose the instant email graffiti David, think first then
      think.

      The LHS is always an integer, the RHS (Faulhaber formulae) is .. the
      RHS, call it n(a/b) if you want. But for sure it is not an integer
      all the time. That is the contradiction. Therefore the equality is
      false, therefore it has no solution at any time.
      If you wish more light on the proof wrt to the Faulhaber formulae,
      then ask Donald Knuth. Phil, please tell me a good joke. Thank you.


      Regards,
      Paul Mills,
      Kenilworth,
      England.
    • Phil Carmody
      ... Heh, until it let me in :-). ... Robert Harley would be asking where the bits are by now (FoRK reference). ... To be able to parse the syntax in a post,
      Message 2 of 19 , Feb 21, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        On Thu, 21 February 2002, "paulmillscv" wrote:
        > Hello,
        > This appears to be a nice group.

        Heh, until it let me in :-).

        > I have an interest in primes, so
        > I thought I would contribute. What a coincidence, I appear to have
        > the same handle as paulmillscv. C'est la vie!

        Robert Harley would be asking where the bits are by now (FoRK reference).

        > But I have noticed
        > one thing, why does D Broadhurst pretend not to understand my
        > namesake's contributions?

        To be able to parse the syntax in a post, detect that semantically it does not follow the traditional rules of mathematical deduction, and say so in a lucid, if blunt, fashion is _not_ what I'd call "not understanding".

        > Surely they both have Ph.Ds?

        Irrelevant. Anyway, I'd rather have philalethy than philosophy.

        > Can someone
        > remind him that it is quite alright to do the dirty on a fellow
        > countryman at home but decidedly not British to do it on an
        > International Public List. There is such a thing as British
        > Justice. Although I thought that `your honour' handing out 26 life
        > sentences the other day was slightly OTT. A couple would have done.

        Again, where are the bits? (I'm looking for information content, you see.)

        > Basically, lose the instant email graffiti David, think first then
        > think.

        My mote detector needle may have just twitched.

        > The LHS is always an integer, the RHS (Faulhaber formulae) is .. the
        > RHS, call it n(a/b) if you want. But for sure it is not an integer
        > all the time.

        Maybe the more classically educated here will remind me what school of philosophy uses "for sure" as its basic underpinning.

        > That is the contradiction. Therefore the equality is
        > false,

        Hmmm, I've not got past the "for sure" bit yet - what part in which syllogism does it play?

        > therefore it has no solution at any time.

        Woh! It looks like you're saying

        NOT(\forall a \in A f(a)=g(a)) |- \forall a \in A NOT(f(a)=f(b))

        I think you need to take your '|-' operator back to the store where you bought it, and get your money back.

        > If you wish more light on the proof wrt to the Faulhaber formulae,
        > then ask Donald Knuth. Phil, please tell me a good joke. Thank you.

        Oooh, I may not have any letters afer my name (apart from the courtesy 'Esq.'), but I _do_ have a $5.12 cheque from one Donald Knuth, hand signed (with a felt tip pen by the looks of it!).


        Anyway, there was this large negative epsilon...


        Phil


        Don't be fooled, CRC Press are _not_ the good guys.
        They've taken Wolfram's money - _don't_ give them yours.
        http://mathworld.wolfram.com/erics_commentary.html


        Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping!
        http://www.shopping.altavista.com
      • Michael Bell
        Hi, ... It once was - the signal to noise ratio has been decreasing for years though. ... Why are people so hung up on what letters they have after their
        Message 3 of 19 , Feb 21, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi,

          > This appears to be a nice group.

          It once was - the signal to noise ratio has been decreasing for years
          though.

          > Surely they both have Ph.Ds?

          Why are people so hung up on what letters they have after their names?
          Surely it is whether you can make interesting contributions that matters.

          > Basically, lose the instant email graffiti David, think first then
          > think.

          While David is sometimes blunt, he is very rarely wrong, and when he is he
          graciously accepts the correction and moves on. What is becoming
          increasingly annoying on this list is when someone points out a problem in a
          "proof" and all the person who claimed the "proof" does is reiterate what
          they said in the first place, rather than either try to point out why the
          argument used against their proof is incorrect, rework the proof or admit
          they were wrong and couldn't in fact prove it.

          What's even worse is people sometimes appear to realise they can't justify
          their proof and just launch a personal attack on the member of the list that
          pointed out the problem. Please, could we stick to maths?

          On that note, I'd like to announce the discovery of a record quadruplet:

          10271674954.3000#+3461
          10271674954.3000#+3463
          10271674954.3000#+3467
          10271674954.3000#+3469 (1284 digits)

          proved prime by Primo, PRP tested using PFGW, sieved using APSieve. PRP
          testing was done by the following people: Michael Bell, Michael Davison,
          Matt Jack, Ronald Lau, Graeme Leese and Benjamin Lowing.

          Sorry for the above noise,

          Michael.

          P.S. Chris: I don't seem to be able to submit these using the web entry
          form, is it because 3000 isn't prime?
        • Paul Leyland
          ... Ooh, name dropping, eh? Seeing that you raised the topic, let s see if anyone else here wants to admit to having a Knuth check (note spelling, he s
          Message 4 of 19 , Feb 22, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            > Oooh, I may not have any letters afer my name (apart from the
            > courtesy 'Esq.'), but I _do_ have a $5.12 cheque from one
            > Donald Knuth, hand signed (with a felt tip pen by the looks of it!).

            Ooh, name dropping, eh?

            Seeing that you raised the topic, let's see if anyone else here wants to
            admit to having a Knuth check (note spelling, he's American drawing
            checks in US dollars). Mine is for $2.88 so yours trumps mine but
            "never mind the width, feel the quality" is what I say. I deduce you
            sent in two bugs whereas mine was one bug (in an attempted bug
            correction no less) and a suggestion.

            Erdos numbers anyone? I can only manage a 2. There must be some on the
            list with a 1.


            Paul
          • paulmillscv
            Hello Phil, Thank you for increasing the wit quotient in the last few posts. Before anyone posts a negative number they should ask themselves, just exactly
            Message 5 of 19 , Feb 22, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Hello Phil,
              Thank you for increasing the wit quotient in the last few
              posts. Before anyone posts a negative number they should ask
              themselves, just exactly how many people in my neighbourhood, town,
              country,hemisphere know what quadratic reciprocity is? The people on
              this list are generally off the scale when it comes to IQ. So treat
              them as such and they will respond in turn. The method of descent
              is preferable to the method of dissent. Life is poetry, poetry is
              life. Basically, there is plenty of truth, fame, rewards for all
              potential number theorists, I should know because being one of the
              top ten number theorists in the UK I know what it feels like.

              Regards,
              Paul Mills
              Kenilworth,
              England.





              --- In primenumbers@y..., Phil Carmody <fatphil@a...> wrote:
              > On Thu, 21 February 2002, "paulmillscv" wrote:
              > > Hello,
              > > This appears to be a nice group.
              >
              > Heh, until it let me in :-).
              >
              > > I have an interest in primes, so
              > > I thought I would contribute. What a coincidence, I appear to
              have
              > > the same handle as paulmillscv. C'est la vie!
              >
              > Robert Harley would be asking where the bits are by now (FoRK
              reference).
              >
              > > But I have noticed
              > > one thing, why does D Broadhurst pretend not to understand my
              > > namesake's contributions?
              >
              > To be able to parse the syntax in a post, detect that semantically
              it does not follow the traditional rules of mathematical deduction,
              and say so in a lucid, if blunt, fashion is _not_ what I'd call "not
              understanding".
              >
              > > Surely they both have Ph.Ds?
              >
              > Irrelevant. Anyway, I'd rather have philalethy than philosophy.
              >
              > > Can someone
              > > remind him that it is quite alright to do the dirty on a fellow
              > > countryman at home but decidedly not British to do it on an
              > > International Public List. There is such a thing as British
              > > Justice. Although I thought that `your honour' handing out 26
              life
              > > sentences the other day was slightly OTT. A couple would have
              done.
              >
              > Again, where are the bits? (I'm looking for information content,
              you see.)
              >
              > > Basically, lose the instant email graffiti David, think first
              then
              > > think.
              >
              > My mote detector needle may have just twitched.
              >
              > > The LHS is always an integer, the RHS (Faulhaber formulae) is ..
              the
              > > RHS, call it n(a/b) if you want. But for sure it is not an
              integer
              > > all the time.
              >
              > Maybe the more classically educated here will remind me what school
              of philosophy uses "for sure" as its basic underpinning.
              >
              > > That is the contradiction. Therefore the equality is
              > > false,
              >
              > Hmmm, I've not got past the "for sure" bit yet - what part in which
              syllogism does it play?
              >
              > > therefore it has no solution at any time.
              >
              > Woh! It looks like you're saying
              >
              > NOT(\forall a \in A f(a)=g(a)) |- \forall a \in A NOT(f(a)=f(b))
              >
              > I think you need to take your '|-' operator back to the store where
              you bought it, and get your money back.
              >
              > > If you wish more light on the proof wrt to the Faulhaber
              formulae,
              > > then ask Donald Knuth. Phil, please tell me a good joke. Thank
              you.
              >
              > Oooh, I may not have any letters afer my name (apart from the
              courtesy 'Esq.'), but I _do_ have a $5.12 cheque from one Donald
              Knuth, hand signed (with a felt tip pen by the looks of it!).
              >
              >
              > Anyway, there was this large negative epsilon...
              >
              >
              > Phil
              >
              >
              > Don't be fooled, CRC Press are _not_ the good guys.
              > They've taken Wolfram's money - _don't_ give them yours.
              > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/erics_commentary.html
              >
              >
              > Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping!
              > http://www.shopping.altavista.com
            • Phil Carmody
              ... [...] ... Ooooh, nice. rho=210, rho^4=2G. Not a bad find at all. Prefiltering would take that down to a 20M search space? Hmmm, I know precisely how long
              Message 6 of 19 , Feb 22, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                On Thu, 21 February 2002, "Michael Bell" wrote:
                > Surely it is whether you can make interesting contributions that matters.

                [...]

                > On that note, I'd like to announce the discovery of a record quadruplet:
                >
                > 10271674954.3000#+3461
                > 10271674954.3000#+3463
                > 10271674954.3000#+3467
                > 10271674954.3000#+3469 (1284 digits)

                Ooooh, nice. rho=210, rho^4=2G. Not a bad find at all.
                Prefiltering would take that down to a 20M search space?
                Hmmm, I know precisely how long that kind of search space takes to complete, he says tapping his fingers...

                > proved prime by Primo, PRP tested using PFGW, sieved using APSieve. PRP
                > testing was done by the following people: Michael Bell, Michael Davison,
                > Matt Jack, Ronald Lau, Graeme Leese and Benjamin Lowing.
                >
                > Sorry for the above noise,

                Snips are wonderful things.

                > P.S. Chris: I don't seem to be able to submit these using the web entry
                > form, is it because 3000 isn't prime?

                I may have been the cause of that! I went off and found what I thought was a record which looked like it was a reasonable margin larger than a previous one, but all I'd done is rediscover the record I was trying to beat, as all of margin of safety I'd given myself in the primorial had been composite. Not noticing this, I submitted, and Chris spotted the duplication manually, and I felt foolish. It's quite possible that primorials now are enforced as being of primes only. I'd certainly back that decision, if only to stop people as dim as me from tripping up where I did.

                Phil

                Don't be fooled, CRC Press are _not_ the good guys.
                They've taken Wolfram's money - _don't_ give them yours.
                http://mathworld.wolfram.com/erics_commentary.html


                Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping!
                http://www.shopping.altavista.com
              • Jud McCranie
                ... Did you two cash your checks? I kept mine, My wife thinks that I will be in a very small minority of check recipients who didn t cash the check, I think
                Message 7 of 19 , Feb 22, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 01:27 AM 2/22/2002 -0800, Paul Leyland wrote:

                  >Seeing that you raised the topic, let's see if anyone else here wants to
                  >admit to having a Knuth check

                  Did you two cash your checks? I kept mine, My wife thinks that I will be
                  in a very small minority of check recipients who didn't cash the check, I
                  think that most people will keep the check.


                  +---------------------------------------------------------+
                  | Jud McCranie |
                  | |
                  | Programming Achieved with Structure, Clarity, And Logic |
                  +---------------------------------------------------------+



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Paul Leyland
                  ... to ... will ... check, ... Mine is framed and on my study wall at home. Next to framed repros of my RSA-129 and RSA-140 checks. Still need to get the
                  Message 8 of 19 , Feb 22, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > From: Jud McCranie [mailto:jud.mccranie@...]

                    > At 01:27 AM 2/22/2002 -0800, Paul Leyland wrote:

                    >> Seeing that you raised the topic, let's see if anyone else here wants
                    to
                    >> admit to having a Knuth check

                    > Did you two cash your checks? I kept mine, My wife thinks that I
                    will
                    > be in a very small minority of check recipients who didn't cash the
                    check,
                    > I think that most people will keep the check.

                    Mine is framed and on my study wall at home. Next to framed repros of
                    my RSA-129 and RSA-140 checks. Still need to get the RSA-155 check
                    done.

                    I'd heard that hardly anyone has ever cashed a Knuth check.

                    A check for $2.88 is actually quite worthless over here in the UK. A
                    bank charges far more than that to process it.

                    Paul
                  • Phil Carmody
                    ... Some people just don t understand what gives things value . Monetary aspects are relatively minor in that regard. I nearly jetisoned a #200 camera at
                    Message 9 of 19 , Feb 22, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Fri, 22 February 2002, "Paul Leyland" wrote:
                      > > Did you two cash your checks? I kept mine, My wife thinks that I
                      > will
                      > > be in a very small minority of check recipients who didn't cash the
                      > check,

                      Some people just don't understand what gives things 'value'. Monetary aspects are relatively minor in that regard.
                      I nearly jetisoned a #200 camera at while a the front of a Moody/Marsden/Ashton/Paice/Moore charity gig once, in order to catch one of Ian Paice's flying drumsticks! I was only a teenager at the time though. However, even today my Bathroom is 'papered' with set-lists of people like Wishbone Ash, and basically any gig where it's possible to climb up on stage!

                      > > I think that most people will keep the check.
                      >
                      > Mine is framed and on my study wall at home. Next to framed repros of
                      > my RSA-129 and RSA-140 checks. Still need to get the RSA-155 check
                      > done.
                      >
                      > I'd heard that hardly anyone has ever cashed a Knuth check.

                      Not I, certainly. In fact I will go further - mine's not framed yet, but when I do frame it I will also include the handwritten notes on the printout of the e-mail I sent him. That's how sad I am! Sad, but happy :-)

                      > A check for $2.88 is actually quite worthless over here in the UK. A
                      > bank charges far more than that to process it.

                      Here too. We're charged ~E20. I found this out after cashing a $13.80 check, and ending up _out of pocket_.

                      Phil - waaaaaay off topic, sorry.

                      It is against US Department of Agriculture regulations to
                      advertise or sell as "Prime Rib" any cut of meat containing a
                      non-prime number of ribs.



                      Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping!
                      http://www.shopping.altavista.com
                    • Jud McCranie
                      ... I had mine out ($3.84), but it is faint, and I thought that the light may be making it fade, so I put it in an envelope in the filing cabinet to keep it
                      Message 10 of 19 , Feb 22, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 08:31 AM 2/22/2002 -0800, Paul Leyland wrote:

                        >Mine is framed and on my study wall at home.

                        I had mine out ($3.84), but it is faint, and I thought that the light may
                        be making it fade, so I put it in an envelope in the filing cabinet to keep
                        it out of the light.


                        >I'd heard that hardly anyone has ever cashed a Knuth check.

                        That's what I thought. Now if I get a $1,000 check from Erdos .....


                        +---------------------------------------------------------+
                        | Jud McCranie |
                        | |
                        | Programming Achieved with Structure, Clarity, And Logic |
                        +---------------------------------------------------------+
                      • Jud McCranie
                        ... when I do frame it I will also include the handwritten notes on the printout of the e-mail I sent him. Might better keep it out of sunlight. I d sent two
                        Message 11 of 19 , Feb 22, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          At 09:09 AM 2/22/2002 -0800, Phil Carmody wrote:

                          > Not I, certainly. In fact I will go further - mine's not framed yet, but
                          when I do frame it I will also include the handwritten notes on the
                          printout of the e-mail I sent him.

                          Might better keep it out of sunlight. I'd sent two paper letters, and I
                          got the check (and my letters with handwritten notes) in the mail about 11
                          years later. I counted that I'd moved 5 times in the intervening period,
                          so he tracked me down somehow.


                          +---------------------------------------------------------+
                          | Jud McCranie |
                          | |
                          | Programming Achieved with Structure, Clarity, And Logic |
                          +---------------------------------------------------------+
                        • Jon Perry
                          ... Perhaps the real DB does, but his alter-ego simply fails to. Jon Perry perry@globalnet.co.uk http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~perry
                          Message 12 of 19 , Feb 22, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > But I have noticed
                            > one thing, why does D Broadhurst pretend not to understand my
                            > namesake's contributions?

                            Perhaps the real DB does, but his alter-ego simply fails to.

                            Jon Perry
                            perry@...
                            http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~perry
                            http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~perry/maths
                            BrainBench MVP for HTML and JavaScript
                            http://www.brainbench.com
                          • Mark Hammond
                            I just joined the list a couple of days ago. So I just wanted to say hello to everyone. My name is Mark Hammond, I live in Tucson, Az. I don t know if I ll
                            Message 13 of 19 , Sep 8, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I just joined the list a couple of days ago. So I just wanted to say hello to
                              everyone.

                              My name is Mark Hammond, I live in Tucson, Az.

                              I don't know if I'll have much to add to the discussions, though my background
                              is in math, but I'll try.

                              It looks like the list has interesting topics that will give me a chance to
                              exercise my mental muscles.

                              I found out about it, because I've long been interested in the Perfect Cuboid
                              problem, and while doing a search on it the other day, I saw to my amazement,
                              that someone (Jon Perry) claimed to have a proof that it couldn't be done. It
                              also nearly gave me a heart attack, because I've been organizing an internet
                              search for it.

                              After looking over the proof and re-reading it several times, I spotted the
                              errors in it. So it's still an open question.

                              The search turned up a post to this list about the proof...which led to my
                              decision to join...to make a long story short.

                              It might be off-topic, but as I mentioned I'm organizing a computer search for
                              it and if anyone would like to help out, email me off-list for details.

                              Thanks.
                            • Paul Jobling
                              ... Perhaps this should be added to the prime mailing list FAQ ;-) __________________________________________________ Virus checked by MessageLabs Virus
                              Message 14 of 19 , Sep 9, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                > From: Mark Hammond [mailto:markch1@...]
                                > the Perfect Cuboid problem, and while doing a search on
                                > it the other day, I saw to my amazement,
                                > that someone (Jon Perry) claimed to have a proof that it
                                > couldn't be done...
                                >
                                > After looking over the proof and re-reading it several times,
                                > I spotted the errors in it.


                                Perhaps this should be added to the prime mailing list FAQ ;-)

                                __________________________________________________
                                Virus checked by MessageLabs Virus Control Centre.
                              • Jacques Tramu
                                There are a lot of consecutive lines without any primes, or primes*primes. For example : 3000000000000000000000000000028 3000000000000000000000000000029
                                Message 15 of 19 , Aug 8, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  There are a lot of consecutive lines without any primes, or primes*primes.
                                  For example :

                                  3000000000000000000000000000028 3000000000000000000000000000029
                                  3000000000000000000000000000030
                                  3000000000000000000000000000031 3000000000000000000000000000032
                                  3000000000000000000000000000033
                                  3000000000000000000000000000034 3000000000000000000000000000035
                                  3000000000000000000000000000036
                                  3000000000000000000000000000037 3000000000000000000000000000038
                                  3000000000000000000000000000039
                                  3000000000000000000000000000040 3000000000000000000000000000041
                                  3000000000000000000000000000042
                                  3000000000000000000000000000043 3000000000000000000000000000044
                                  3000000000000000000000000000045
                                  3000000000000000000000000000046 3000000000000000000000000000047
                                  3000000000000000000000000000048
                                  3000000000000000000000000000049 3000000000000000000000000000050
                                  3000000000000000000000000000051
                                  3000000000000000000000000000052 3000000000000000000000000000053
                                  3000000000000000000000000000054
                                  3000000000000000000000000000055 3000000000000000000000000000056
                                  3000000000000000000000000000057
                                  3000000000000000000000000000058 3000000000000000000000000000059
                                  3000000000000000000000000000060



                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: "Jensen Lee" <jensenlee@...>
                                  .
                                  >
                                  > I discovered a pattern in primes which i'm not sure if anyone has
                                  > seen before, but it involves primes and prime*primes. It goes like
                                  > this.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > 55 56 57 55 is p*p 5*11
                                  > 52 53 54 53 is prime
                                  > 49 50 51 49 is p*p 7*7 <-- 51 is also p*p
                                  > 46 47 45 47 is prime
                                  > 43 44 45 43 is prime
                                  > 40 41 42 41 is prime
                                  > 37 38 39 37 is prime
                                  > 34 35 36 35 is p*p 7*5 <-- 34 is also p*p
                                  > 31 32 33 31 is prime
                                  > 28 29 30 29 is prime
                                  > 25 26 27 25 is p*p 5*5
                                  > 22 23 24 23 is prime
                                  > 19 20 21 19 is prime
                                  > 16 17 18 17 is prime
                                  > 13 14 15 13 is prime
                                  > 10 11 12 11 is prime
                                  > 7 8 9 7 is prime
                                  > 4 5 6 5 is prime
                                  > 1 2 3 2 and 3 are prime, 1 is p*p
                                  >
                                  > .....
                                • Jens Kruse Andersen
                                  ... Welcome to the group. ... You choose to skip all numbers divisible by 2 and 3. The zigzag pattern is exactly all other numbers. The smallest such number
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Aug 9, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Jensen Lee wrote:

                                    > I'm new to this group

                                    Welcome to the group.

                                    > I discovered a pattern in primes which i'm not sure if anyone has
                                    > seen before, but it involves primes and prime*primes. It goes like
                                    > this.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > 55 56 57 55 is p*p 5*11
                                    > 52 53 54 53 is prime
                                    > 49 50 51 49 is p*p 7*7
                                    > 46 47 45 47 is prime
                                    > 43 44 45 43 is prime
                                    > 40 41 42 41 is prime
                                    > 37 38 39 37 is prime
                                    > 34 35 36 35 is p*p 7*5
                                    > 31 32 33 31 is prime
                                    > 28 29 30 29 is prime
                                    > 25 26 27 25 is p*p 5*5
                                    > 22 23 24 23 is prime
                                    > 19 20 21 19 is prime
                                    > 16 17 18 17 is prime
                                    > 13 14 15 13 is prime
                                    > 10 11 12 11 is prime
                                    > 7 8 9 7 is prime
                                    > 4 5 6 5 is prime
                                    > 1 2 3 2 and 3 are prime, 1 is p*p
                                    >
                                    > if you highlight the prime and prime*prime numbers in the first and
                                    > second columns you can get a simple zigzag pattern. For some reason
                                    > this doesn't include 2 and 3 as these are special case numbers.

                                    You choose to skip all numbers divisible by 2 and 3. The zigzag pattern is
                                    exactly all other numbers. The smallest such number which is not a prime or
                                    prime*prime (called semiprime) is clearly 5*5*5 = 125. Eventually almost all
                                    numbers will have at least 3 prime factors - and at least n for any fixed n.

                                    > if z is a p*p, then I have a few maths bits i came up with
                                    >
                                    > z = 6x +- 1

                                    Nothing to do with semiprimes.
                                    2 divides 6x, 6x+2, 6x+4. 3 divides 6x+3. Then all numbers not divisible by 2
                                    or 3 is on the form 6x +-1.

                                    > z = y + i*sqrt(y) (i = 0,2,4,6,8,...)

                                    Nothing to do with semiprimes.
                                    If y divides odd z then there is even i with:
                                    z = y*(1+i) = y + i*y = y + i*sqrt(y^2).

                                    > z = p1*p2

                                    That was your assumption.

                                    > I found that under 1000 there are 168 prime*prime
                                    > and 169 primes. This seems to be some sort of balancing point.

                                    There are 168 primes under 1000. 169 if you include 1, but 1 is usually not
                                    considered prime by definition.
                                    I don't know which numbers you counted to reach 168 prime*prime. There are 299
                                    semiprimes below 1000. 204 of them are odd. 138 are both odd and not divisible
                                    by 3.
                                    Numbers with many factors start out rare. For all natural m,n with m<n, there
                                    should be a balance point f(m,n) (or a set of points relatively close
                                    together) where numbers with n factors become more common.

                                    > Is this an old method coz I can't seem to find this in books.

                                    Sorry, but it is mostly simple observations not interesting enough to put in
                                    books. However, all numbers not divisible by 2 or 3 being on the form 6x +- 1
                                    is often mentioned. Many amateur mathematicians think they are the first to
                                    discover this or a simple variant of it.

                                    --
                                    Jens Kruse Andersen
                                  • Puff
                                    Hello, I do not know college level math (yet), but that does not stop me from studying and learning really cool things about primes. I am able to use
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Jan 28, 2013
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Hello,

                                      I do not know college level math (yet), but that does not stop me from studying and learning really cool things about primes. I am able to use paper,pen, and archimedian tesselated graph paper, to make diagrams dealing with primes.

                                      I do not use GIMPS. I try to find primes on my own. My highest prime I have found and tested positive, is 4027 digits.
                                      I hope to break that personal record, once a possible prime I am testing finishes.
                                      It is a 2p-1 Mersenne type prime. P being a prime that is 6 digits and starts with 9. I am sure it is well known here, the world record Mersenne prime, p is 6 digits and starts with 4.
                                      I am guessing, if my number is positive, it would be about 26 million digits.

                                      I tested my number with Mathematica 9 primality testing. It ran the number for 20 days before my computer crashed. That was using a platter HDD. Now I am running 3 OCZ Vertex 2 SSDs in raid 0, for extra speed,and upgraded from Windows 7 32 bit to 64 bit.

                                      I have been rerunning the test for 3 days now on my main PC, but have also been running it on my laptop since January 19th, in case of another crash.
                                      I have recently found the primality theorum, (2p+1)/3.
                                      I started that on Mathematica 9 last night and tonight it is still running.

                                      I work on primes with all of my spare time, apart from work. My 2 room-mates think I am nuts, but I am having fun and found I really enjoy math.
                                      I joined this group hoping to meet like minded people, and maybe get advice. I do not yet know how to use Mathematica's abilities.

                                      I have made a graph by hand, that shows values of p-squared, with symetrical high sine waves, and mirrored asymetrical low sine waves in between.I can explain that more, if anyone is interested.


                                      Thanks,
                                      Dwayne
                                    • Maximilian Hasler
                                      You might find interesting stuff to read on mersenneforum.org (not limited to Mersenne primes), which is a forum easier to navigate through than this group (I
                                      Message 18 of 19 , Jan 28, 2013
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        You might find interesting stuff to read on mersenneforum.org
                                        (not limited to Mersenne primes),
                                        which is a forum easier to navigate through than this group (I think).

                                        Also, a better place for informal discussions,
                                        getting help from friendly users,
                                        and a little more on the "fun" side.

                                        Maximilian



                                        >
                                        > I work on primes with all of my spare time, apart from work. My 2
                                        > room-mates think I am nuts, but I am having fun and found I really enjoy
                                        > math.
                                        > I joined this group hoping to meet like minded people, and maybe get
                                        > advice. I do not yet know how to use Mathematica's abilities.
                                        > (...)
                                        > Thanks,
                                        > Dwayne
                                        >


                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Paul Leyland
                                        ... Indeed. Be aware, though, that the forum owner and supermods (I m one) have a rather idiosyncratic sense of humour and that some of the forum behaviour
                                        Message 19 of 19 , Jan 29, 2013
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          On Mon, 2013-01-28 at 22:36 -0400, Maximilian Hasler wrote:
                                          >
                                          > You might find interesting stuff to read on mersenneforum.org
                                          > (not limited to Mersenne primes),
                                          > which is a forum easier to navigate through than this group (I think).
                                          >
                                          > Also, a better place for informal discussions,
                                          > getting help from friendly users,
                                          > and a little more on the "fun" side.
                                          >
                                          > Maximilian

                                          Indeed. Be aware, though, that the forum owner and supermods (I'm one)
                                          have a rather idiosyncratic sense of humour and that some of the forum
                                          behaviour isn't always what you might have expected. That said, it is a
                                          very friendly and helpful site, by and large. I've learned a lot there
                                          and have taught a lot there too.

                                          Neither is it limited to primes, mersenne or otherwise. As well as the
                                          obvious factorization threads, there are also discussions about science,
                                          technology, mathematics, politics, finance, health and several versions
                                          of general purpose silliness.

                                          OK, ad-break over. We now return you to your scheduled programming.

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