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

RE: [PrimeNumbers] Re: 2^p+3

Expand Messages
  • Paul Jobling
    ... Let me correct that to say for reasonably large p . __________________________________________________ Virus checked by MessageLabs Virus Control Centre.
    Message 1 of 22 , May 1 8:08 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      > But they do not seem to. The earliest Mersenne primes are
      > quite small, whereas
      > I am not sure that even one example of a pseudoprime of this
      > form has been found.

      Let me correct that to say "for reasonably large p".

      __________________________________________________
      Virus checked by MessageLabs Virus Control Centre.
    • paulunderwooduk
      ... reached, and ... being done a ... results were ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/primenumbers/message/1023 might contain some results for 2^p+3 Paul U.
      Message 2 of 22 , May 1 8:14 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In primenumbers@y..., "Paul Jobling" <Paul.Jobling@W...> wrote:
        > Hi,
        >
        > I was just wondering what the state of play was with looking for a
        > (pseudo-)prime of the form 2^p+3 - what search limits have been
        reached, and
        > have any PRP's been found? I recall that there was some searching
        being done a
        > couple of years ago (I think), but I do not know what (if any)
        results were
        > found?

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/primenumbers/message/1023

        might contain some results for 2^p+3

        Paul U.
      • Paul Jobling
        Well, the OLEIS (A057736) only has 2, 3, 7, 67. But looking at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/primeform/message/1218 it appears that some searching was going
        Message 3 of 22 , May 1 8:18 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Well, the OLEIS (A057736) only has 2, 3, 7, 67. But looking at
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/primeform/message/1218
          it appears that some searching was going on. So now the question is what
          search limits were reached - Christ; Chris?

          Paul.


          __________________________________________________
          Virus checked by MessageLabs Virus Control Centre.
        • rlberry2002
          Paul, I obviously misunderstood your equation; I read it as (2^p) + 3 where p=2,result 7; p=3, result 11, and so on. I stand by my earlier statements (let s
          Message 4 of 22 , May 1 8:41 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Paul,

            I obviously misunderstood your equation; I read it as (2^p) + 3 where
            p=2,result 7; p=3, result 11, and so on.

            I stand by my earlier statements (let's term it as Robert's
            Conjecture) though: A one variable equation which, (a) does not
            reduce and (b) contains infinitely many 1 Mod 6 and/or 5 Mod 6
            numbers, will contain infinitely many prime numbers.

            I enjoy your comments and perspective...

            Robert

            --- In primenumbers@y..., "Paul Jobling" <Paul.Jobling@W...> wrote:
            > Hi Robert,
            >
            > > Just a couple of observations regarding primes of the form 2^p+3.
            > > First, there should be infinitely many primes of this form. When
            p
            > > is even, the result is a number congruent 1 Mod 6; when p is odd,
            the
            > > result is a number congruent 5 Mod 6.
            >
            > I believe that we are only interested in p prime here.
            >
            > > Since all primes other than 2
            > > or 3 are congruent 1 Mod 6 or 5 Mod 6 and since there are
            infinitely
            > > many primes contained in either of the two congruences, it follows
            > > that there should be infinitely many primes of the form 2^p+3.
            >
            > Careful... that sort of reasoning is wrong - you are saying that
            given an
            > infinite set N, where an infinite number of its member have some
            property A,
            > then any infinite subset M of N must contain an infinite number of
            members
            > with the proper A as well (consider N=the integers; A=prime; M=the
            composite
            > numbers).
            >
            > > I
            > > haven't a clue as to the largest prime to date of this form, but
            > > certainly it should be (or could be, with a little focused
            attention)
            > > very large.
            > >
            > > The prime number form you propose are very similar to Mersenne
            primes
            > > and I would expect prime number results for 2^p+3 to rival those
            of
            > > Mersenne primes in size and distribution too.
            >
            > But they do not seem to. The earliest Mersenne primes are quite
            small, whereas
            > I am not sure that even one example of a pseudoprime of this form
            has been
            > found.
            >
            > Regards,
            >
            > Paul.
            >
            >
            > __________________________________________________
            > Virus checked by MessageLabs Virus Control Centre.
          • paulunderwooduk
            Paul, btw this ABC2 2^($a)-2^($a/2+1)+1 a: from 2 to 3000 produced: 2^3-2^(3/2+1)+1 2^7-2^(7/2+1)+1 2^47-2^(47/2+1)+1 2^73-2^(73/2+1)+1 2^79-2^(79/2+1)+1
            Message 5 of 22 , May 1 9:02 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Paul,

              btw this

              ABC2 2^($a)-2^($a/2+1)+1
              a: from 2 to 3000

              produced:

              2^3-2^(3/2+1)+1
              2^7-2^(7/2+1)+1
              2^47-2^(47/2+1)+1
              2^73-2^(73/2+1)+1
              2^79-2^(79/2+1)+1
              2^113-2^(113/2+1)+1
              2^151-2^(151/2+1)+1
              2^167-2^(167/2+1)+1
              2^239-2^(239/2+1)+1
              2^241-2^(241/2+1)+1
              2^353-2^(353/2+1)+1
              2^367-2^(367/2+1)+1
              2^457-2^(457/2+1)+1
              2^1367-2^(1367/2+1)+1

              Note the first exponents are all prime. Are there anymore of these?

              Paul U.
            • Phil Carmody
              ... [SNIP - see Paul J s reply] ... I wouldn t expect them to have the same distribution. 2^p+1, being a cyclotomic form, has restrictions on what its factors
              Message 6 of 22 , May 1 9:24 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                --- rlberry2002 <rlberry2002@...> wrote:
                > Just a couple of observations regarding primes of the form 2^p+3.

                [SNIP - see Paul J's reply]

                > The prime number form you propose are very similar to Mersenne
                > primes
                > and I would expect prime number results for 2^p+3 to rival those of
                >
                > Mersenne primes in size and distribution too.

                I wouldn't expect them to have the same distribution.
                2^p+1, being a cyclotomic form, has restrictions on what its factors
                can be. 2^p+3 has no such divisibility criterea.

                Phil

                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
                http://health.yahoo.com
              • Chris Caldwell
                ... Such as: 2^364289-2^182145+1 Sure. These are norms of the Gaussian Mersenne primes. Look on the prime list.
                Message 7 of 22 , May 1 9:24 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 04:02 PM 5/1/02 +0000, paulunderwooduk wrote:
                  >2^167-2^(167/2+1)+1
                  >2^239-2^(239/2+1)+1
                  >2^241-2^(241/2+1)+1
                  >2^353-2^(353/2+1)+1
                  >2^367-2^(367/2+1)+1
                  >2^457-2^(457/2+1)+1
                  >2^1367-2^(1367/2+1)+1
                  >
                  >Note the first exponents are all prime. Are there anymore of these?

                  Such as:

                  2^364289-2^182145+1

                  Sure. These are norms of the Gaussian Mersenne primes. Look on the
                  prime list.
                • jbrennen
                  ... No, you got it right :-) ... See Sierpinski numbers for a well-known counterexample: 78557*2^n+1 contains an infinite number of elements which are (5 mod
                  Message 8 of 22 , May 1 9:44 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In primenumbers@y..., "rlberry2002" <rlberry2002@y...> wrote:
                    > Paul,
                    >
                    > I obviously misunderstood your equation; I read it as (2^p) + 3
                    > where p=2,result 7; p=3, result 11, and so on.

                    No, you got it right :-)

                    > I stand by my earlier statements (let's term it as Robert's
                    > Conjecture) though: A one variable equation which, (a) does not
                    > reduce and (b) contains infinitely many 1 Mod 6 and/or 5 Mod 6
                    > numbers, will contain infinitely many prime numbers.

                    See Sierpinski numbers for a well-known counterexample:
                    78557*2^n+1 contains an infinite number of elements which are
                    (5 mod 6), but has no prime numbers for any integer n.

                    Back to the original question... There are easily found concrete
                    examples of the form 2^p+n which do not have an infinite number of
                    prime values (with p prime) despite having an infinite number of
                    (1 mod 6) and (5 mod 6) numbers:

                    N=2^p+12213 (with p prime) has no prime values whatsoever.

                    This is because:

                    If p == 2, N is divisible by 19
                    If p == 3, N is divisible by 11
                    If p == 1 (mod 12), N is divisible by 5
                    If p == 5 (mod 12), N is divisible by 5
                    If p == 7 (mod 12), N is divisible by 7
                    If p == 11 (mod 12), N is divisible by 13

                    Every prime p meets one of the six cases above, so N is never
                    prime when p is prime.
                  • Phil Carmody
                    ... They of course have their own divisibility criterea. But one unrelated to (a^n+b^n) forms. Their criteria are more similar to those behind the fixed k
                    Message 9 of 22 , May 1 9:55 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- Phil Carmody <thefatphil@...> wrote:
                      > > The prime number form you propose are very similar to Mersenne
                      > > primes
                      > > and I would expect prime number results for 2^p+3 to rival those
                      > of
                      > >
                      > > Mersenne primes in size and distribution too.
                      >
                      > I wouldn't expect them to have the same distribution.
                      > 2^p+1, being a cyclotomic form, has restrictions on what its
                      > factors
                      > can be. 2^p+3 has no such divisibility criterea.

                      They of course have their own divisibility criterea. But one
                      unrelated to (a^n+b^n) forms. Their criteria are more similar to
                      those behind the 'fixed k Proth' problems.

                      Phil

                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
                      http://health.yahoo.com
                    • jim_fougeron
                      ... For an infinity of easy to show counter examples, look at this form: k#+p If p is a fixed prime 3, then the expression will be +-1 mod(6), however, the
                      Message 10 of 22 , May 1 10:20 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In primenumbers@y..., "jbrennen" <jack@b...> wrote:
                        >--- In primenumbers@y..., "rlberry2002" <rlberry2002@y...> wrote:
                        >> Paul,
                        >>
                        >> I obviously misunderstood your equation; I read it as (2^p) + 3
                        >> where p=2,result 7; p=3, result 11, and so on.
                        >
                        >No, you got it right :-)
                        >
                        >> I stand by my earlier statements (let's term it as Robert's
                        >> Conjecture) though: A one variable equation which, (a) does not
                        >> reduce and (b) contains infinitely many 1 Mod 6 and/or 5 Mod 6
                        >> numbers, will contain infinitely many prime numbers.
                        >
                        > See Sierpinski numbers for a well-known counterexample:
                        > 78557*2^n+1 contains an infinite number of elements which are
                        > (5 mod 6), but has no prime numbers for any integer n.

                        For an infinity of easy to show counter examples, look at this form:

                        k#+p

                        If p is a "fixed" prime > 3, then the expression will be +-1 mod(6),
                        however, the expression (for a variable k and fixed p) will produce
                        ONLY a finite (if any) amount of primes. Primes can only be generated
                        by the above form while k < p. Once k reaches the size of p, then
                        p will always be a factor of the expression.

                        Take for example k#+13.
                        This is prime for k=3, 5, 7 and NO others, since 2#+13=3*5,
                        11#+13= 23*101 and when k>=13 then k#+13 is always has a factor of 13.
                        However k#+13 == 1mod(6) (except for 2#+13==3mod(6)).

                        Jim.
                      • mikeoakes2@aol.com
                        AFAIK the largest PRP of form 2^n+3 is still the one found by me in July 2001:- 2^122550+3 It is the 19th largest known PRP, according to Henri Lifchitz s
                        Message 11 of 22 , May 1 11:51 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          AFAIK the largest PRP of form 2^n+3 is still the one found by me in July
                          2001:-
                          2^122550+3

                          It is the 19th largest known PRP, according to Henri Lifchitz's database at
                          http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hlifchitz/

                          The sequence for lower values is Sloane's A057732. I had searched up to
                          n=127677, and proved primality for n <=2370 using Titanix, finishing this
                          project on 15 Aug 2001.

                          (See also my post to the primenumbers group dated 8 Jul 2002.)

                          Mike Oakes


                          In a message dated 01/05/02 14:41:02 GMT Daylight Time,
                          Paul.Jobling@... writes:

                          > Hi,
                          >
                          > I was just wondering what the state of play was with looking for a
                          > (pseudo-)prime of the form 2^p+3 - what search limits have been reached,
                          > and
                          > have any PRP's been found? I recall that there was some searching being
                          > done a
                          > couple of years ago (I think), but I do not know what (if any) results were
                          > found?
                          >
                          > Regards,
                          >
                          > Paul.
                          >




                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • rlberry2002
                          Please pardon my ignorance; I am here to learn to grow in my knowledge of number theory. However, I will try to be more careful in responding to posts before
                          Message 12 of 22 , May 1 3:37 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Please pardon my ignorance; I am here to learn to grow in my
                            knowledge of number theory. However, I will try to be more careful
                            in responding to posts before I have fully thought out my response -
                            you could extend me the same courtesy.

                            Your example of N=2^p + 12213 violates one of the two qualifications
                            that I laid down - "the equation cannot be reducible". I typically
                            would use this tenet for an equation like 4n + 1 (which does have
                            infinitely many primes in it)where n is odd. The tenet holds for
                            numbers of the form 2^p + n also, it just is usually harder to find
                            the pattern that this type of equation reduces to. In your example,
                            you provide the pattern which violates my first condition: that is
                            for 2, 3, 1 Mod 12, 5 Mod 12, 7 Mod 12, & 11 Mod 12; there a fixed
                            set of possible outcomes each of which will have fixed factors
                            depending upon which of the outcomes it fall under.

                            For instance, the equation 30Y + 35 = N generates infinitely many 5
                            Mod 6 numbers none of which are prime. This equation is easy since it
                            reduces to 5*(6Y + 7) = N; numbers of the form 2^p + N require a
                            deeper analysis as long as N itself does not have a factor of 2^p.

                            Just a few thoughts

                            Robert

                            --- In primenumbers@y..., "jbrennen" <jack@b...> wrote:
                            > --- In primenumbers@y..., "rlberry2002" <rlberry2002@y...> wrote:
                            > > Paul,
                            > >
                            > > I obviously misunderstood your equation; I read it as (2^p) + 3
                            > > where p=2,result 7; p=3, result 11, and so on.
                            >
                            > No, you got it right :-)
                            >
                            > > I stand by my earlier statements (let's term it as Robert's
                            > > Conjecture) though: A one variable equation which, (a) does not
                            > > reduce and (b) contains infinitely many 1 Mod 6 and/or 5 Mod 6
                            > > numbers, will contain infinitely many prime numbers.
                            >
                            > See Sierpinski numbers for a well-known counterexample:
                            > 78557*2^n+1 contains an infinite number of elements which are
                            > (5 mod 6), but has no prime numbers for any integer n.
                            >
                            > Back to the original question... There are easily found concrete
                            > examples of the form 2^p+n which do not have an infinite number of
                            > prime values (with p prime) despite having an infinite number of
                            > (1 mod 6) and (5 mod 6) numbers:
                            >
                            > N=2^p+12213 (with p prime) has no prime values whatsoever.
                            >
                            > This is because:
                            >
                            > If p == 2, N is divisible by 19
                            > If p == 3, N is divisible by 11
                            > If p == 1 (mod 12), N is divisible by 5
                            > If p == 5 (mod 12), N is divisible by 5
                            > If p == 7 (mod 12), N is divisible by 7
                            > If p == 11 (mod 12), N is divisible by 13
                            >
                            > Every prime p meets one of the six cases above, so N is never
                            > prime when p is prime.
                          • Phil Carmody
                            ... I would trust that such courtesy is demonstrated on the list. (Yeah, flame me off list, you won t be the first... (or the second) ... Strictly, it is
                            Message 13 of 22 , May 1 4:24 PM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- rlberry2002 <rlberry2002@...> wrote:
                              > Please pardon my ignorance; I am here to learn to grow in my
                              > knowledge of number theory. However, I will try to be more careful
                              > in responding to posts before I have fully thought out my response
                              > - you could extend me the same courtesy.

                              I would trust that such courtesy is demonstrated on the list.
                              (Yeah, flame me off list, you won't be the first... (or the second)
                              :-) )

                              > Your example of N=2^p + 12213 violates one of the two
                              > qualifications
                              > that I laid down - "the equation cannot be reducible".

                              Strictly, it is irreducible. The letter of the law is obeyed.

                              > I typically
                              > would use this tenet for an equation like 4n + 1 (which does have
                              > infinitely many primes in it)where n is odd. The tenet holds for
                              > numbers of the form 2^p + n also, it just is usually harder to find
                              >
                              > the pattern that this type of equation reduces to. In your
                              > example,
                              > you provide the pattern which violates my first condition: that is
                              >
                              > for 2, 3, 1 Mod 12, 5 Mod 12, 7 Mod 12, & 11 Mod 12; there a fixed
                              > set of possible outcomes each of which will have fixed factors
                              > depending upon which of the outcomes it fall under.

                              Sure, but that's not redicibility. What Jack has highlighted is an
                              intrinsically interesting property about that sequence of numbers.
                              This property will ba shared by an infinite number of other
                              sequences, not just the ...+12213. The property isn't reducibility,
                              and that term was used, it's a very precisely defined term, so Jack
                              and others can't be faulted for taking the term at face falue.
                              Perhaps the term "with no intrinsic predicatble factorisations" or
                              similar could be used to cover such concepts.

                              Such forms are certainly vastly interesting, the Sierpinski/Riesel
                              problems (that Jack mentioned, IIRC) are all about whether there are
                              primes with forms that have no intricsic predictable factorisations.

                              (hmmm, reminder to self or others - is there a link waiting to be
                              added to the yahoogroup regarding the Sierpinski/Riesel problems?)

                              Phil

                              __________________________________________________
                              Do You Yahoo!?
                              Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
                              http://health.yahoo.com
                            • rlberry2002
                              Phil, As always, your comments and insights are welcome. I had to do a little refresher myself on Sierpinski numbers: a positive, odd integer k for which
                              Message 14 of 22 , May 1 5:16 PM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Phil,

                                As always, your comments and insights are welcome. I had to do a
                                little refresher myself on Sierpinski numbers: a positive, odd
                                integer k for which integers of the form k*2^p + 1 are all composite.
                                I would suggest that there is little here which serves as an adequate
                                counter example to the conjecture that I previously made.

                                First, for all k less than 78557, at least 1 prime has been found to
                                be generated by k*2^p + 1 with only 19 exceptions (and I feel it is
                                just that the first prime solution for these 19 k's has not yet been
                                found). It is only conjectured that k=78557 is a Sierpinski number.
                                It is likely that the smallest Sierpinski number (if indeed one does
                                exist) is so large that direct factorization, indirect factorization,
                                etc. will not be feasible. One final point concerning k=78557 will
                                show the difficulty in analyzing these numbers: For k=78557, p=300
                                you get a 95-digit result. In other words, the 300th example for
                                k=78557 is already a number of such magnitude that only 1 number in
                                300 will be prime. Guess what the odds look like for the next 300
                                values of p.

                                Indeed, any series of numbers of the form k*N^p +/- c are very
                                difficult to analysis except with indirect methods.

                                Regards,

                                Robert

                                --- In primenumbers@y..., Phil Carmody <thefatphil@y...> wrote:
                                > --- rlberry2002 <rlberry2002@y...> wrote:
                                > > Please pardon my ignorance; I am here to learn to grow in my
                                > > knowledge of number theory. However, I will try to be more
                                careful
                                > > in responding to posts before I have fully thought out my response
                                > > - you could extend me the same courtesy.
                                >
                                > I would trust that such courtesy is demonstrated on the list.
                                > (Yeah, flame me off list, you won't be the first... (or the second)
                                > :-) )
                                >
                                > > Your example of N=2^p + 12213 violates one of the two
                                > > qualifications
                                > > that I laid down - "the equation cannot be reducible".
                                >
                                > Strictly, it is irreducible. The letter of the law is obeyed.
                                >
                                > > I typically
                                > > would use this tenet for an equation like 4n + 1 (which does have
                                > > infinitely many primes in it)where n is odd. The tenet holds for
                                > > numbers of the form 2^p + n also, it just is usually harder to
                                find
                                > >
                                > > the pattern that this type of equation reduces to. In your
                                > > example,
                                > > you provide the pattern which violates my first condition: that
                                is
                                > >
                                > > for 2, 3, 1 Mod 12, 5 Mod 12, 7 Mod 12, & 11 Mod 12; there a
                                fixed
                                > > set of possible outcomes each of which will have fixed factors
                                > > depending upon which of the outcomes it fall under.
                                >
                                > Sure, but that's not redicibility. What Jack has highlighted is an
                                > intrinsically interesting property about that sequence of numbers.
                                > This property will ba shared by an infinite number of other
                                > sequences, not just the ...+12213. The property isn't reducibility,
                                > and that term was used, it's a very precisely defined term, so Jack
                                > and others can't be faulted for taking the term at face falue.
                                > Perhaps the term "with no intrinsic predicatble factorisations" or
                                > similar could be used to cover such concepts.
                                >
                                > Such forms are certainly vastly interesting, the Sierpinski/Riesel
                                > problems (that Jack mentioned, IIRC) are all about whether there are
                                > primes with forms that have no intricsic predictable factorisations.
                                >
                                > (hmmm, reminder to self or others - is there a link waiting to be
                                > added to the yahoogroup regarding the Sierpinski/Riesel problems?)
                                >
                                > Phil
                                >
                                > __________________________________________________
                                > Do You Yahoo!?
                                > Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
                                > http://health.yahoo.com
                              • Jack Brennen
                                ... We re glad you did a little research on Sierpinski numbers. However, you must have missed something. It is PROVEN, and can be shown using nothing more
                                Message 15 of 22 , May 1 5:46 PM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  rlberry2002 wrote:
                                  > As always, your comments and insights are welcome. I had to do a
                                  > little refresher myself on Sierpinski numbers: a positive, odd
                                  > integer k for which integers of the form k*2^p + 1 are all composite.
                                  > I would suggest that there is little here which serves as an adequate
                                  > counter example to the conjecture that I previously made.
                                  >
                                  > First, for all k less than 78557, at least 1 prime has been found to
                                  > be generated by k*2^p + 1 with only 19 exceptions (and I feel it is
                                  > just that the first prime solution for these 19 k's has not yet been
                                  > found). It is only conjectured that k=78557 is a Sierpinski number.

                                  We're glad you did a little research on Sierpinski numbers.

                                  However, you must have missed something. It is PROVEN, and can be shown
                                  using nothing more than very simple arithmetic, that k=78557 is
                                  a Sierpinski number. The proof, in condensed form:

                                  If n == 0 (mod 2), 78557*2^n+1 is divisible by 3
                                  If n == 1 (mod 4), 78557*2^n+1 is divisible by 5
                                  If n == 3 (mod 36), 78557*2^n+1 is divisible by 73
                                  If n == 15 (mod 36), 78557*2^n+1 is divisible by 19
                                  If n == 27 (mod 36), 78557*2^n+1 is divisible by 37
                                  If n == 7 (mod 12), 78557*2^n+1 is divisible by 7
                                  If n == 11 (mod 12), 78557*2^n+1 is divisible by 13

                                  Every integer n satisfies one of these seven congruences.

                                  The unproven conjecture is that k=78557 is the
                                  *smallest* Sierpinski number.
                                • Gary Chaffey
                                  Does the idea of 2^p+3 extend to 2^p-3? I have found that 2^233-3 is PRP now p is of the form 60k-7. Is this just a coincedence or is there some sort of
                                  Message 16 of 22 , May 3 2:01 AM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Does the idea of 2^p+3 extend to 2^p-3? I have found
                                    that 2^233-3 is PRP now p is of the form 60k-7. Is
                                    this just a coincedence or is there some sort of
                                    pattern.
                                    I haven't checked
                                    2^233= a mod 233
                                    2^(2^233)= 2^n mod a
                                    Like Norman did for 2^p+3 with p=7 and 67
                                    Gary

                                    __________________________________________________
                                    Do You Yahoo!?
                                    Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
                                    http://health.yahoo.com
                                  • Phil Carmody
                                    ... This can be checked as follows. If 5 | 2^x-3 then 2^x==3 (5) then x==3 (4) If 7 | 2^x-3 then 2^x==3 (7) no solution If 11 | 2^x-3 then 2^x==3 (11) then
                                    Message 17 of 22 , May 3 2:20 AM
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- Gary Chaffey <garychaffey@...> wrote:
                                      > Does the idea of 2^p+3 extend to 2^p-3? I have found
                                      > that 2^233-3 is PRP now p is of the form 60k-7. Is
                                      > this just a coincedence or is there some sort of
                                      > pattern.

                                      This can be checked as follows.

                                      If 5 | 2^x-3 then 2^x==3 (5) then x==3 (4)
                                      If 7 | 2^x-3 then 2^x==3 (7) no solution
                                      If 11 | 2^x-3 then 2^x==3 (11) then x==8 (10)
                                      If 13 | 2^x-3 then 2^x==3 (13) then x==4 (12)
                                      ...

                                      These remove
                                      3,7,11,15,19,23,27,31,35,39,43,47,51,55,59 (mod 60)
                                      8 18 28 38 48 58 (mod 60)
                                      4 16 28 40 52 (mod 60)
                                      ...

                                      There are other primes that add to this mod 60 period, obviously.

                                      Not every residue is removed, which leads me to suspect that 53 isn't
                                      the only residue primes will be found along.

                                      Phil

                                      =====
                                      --
                                      "One cannot delete the Web browser from KDE without
                                      losing the ability to manage files on the user's own
                                      hard disk." - Prof. Stuart E Madnick, MIT.
                                      So called "expert" witness for Microsoft. 2002/04/02

                                      __________________________________________________
                                      Do You Yahoo!?
                                      Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
                                      http://health.yahoo.com
                                    • djbroadhurst
                                      A little reminder: if you find a PRP of the form 2^n-3 or 2^n+3 (for any n, not just a prime) you may have prospects of a BLS (which failing a KP) proof by
                                      Message 18 of 22 , May 3 8:53 AM
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        A little reminder: if you find a PRP of the form
                                        2^n-3 or 2^n+3 (for any n, not just a prime) you may
                                        have prospects of a BLS (which failing a KP) proof
                                        by looking at work on factorization of Phi(2,k),
                                        since, in *either* case, *both* N-1 and N+1 are
                                        algebraically factorizable into these intensively
                                        studied base-2 cyclotomic numbers:
                                        http://www.cerias.purdue.edu/homes/ssw/cun/index.html
                                        Apologies to those for whom this is blindingly obvious.
                                        David Broadhurst
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.