20080927, 09:08  #1 
Feb 2007
France
47 Posts 
new candidates for M...46 and M48
May I inflict to you some new predictions ?
Well. 1) 43112609 is not M46 but M47 2) the genuine M46 is into the bracket 3933686739473371 3) M48 is probably into the bracket 4449454145372809 You'll find all details here : http://home.tele2.fr/lacanmaths/reglesnew1.html *remember that the interval I proposed for M45 was the good one ! 
20080927, 12:29  #2 
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England
2·3·13·83 Posts 
How much luckier do you expect GIMPS to get?
Perlease... 
20080927, 12:54  #3 
Account Deleted
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA
2^{2}·11·97 Posts 
Why are some of the cells in your spreadsheet colored different?
Under Rule 4: What about M23 (2^112131)? With M23 as Mz, ba=1221, while d +/ c +/ 2*e = 5163, 5195, 5337, or 5369 There's no equality, so I guess M11213 isn't in the range to be a candidate for M23, huh? Or M22 (2^99411)? With M22 as Mz, ba=244, while d +/ c +/ 2*e = 172, 176, 164, or 512 There's no equality, so I guess M9941 isn't in the range to be a candidate for M22, huh? Under Rule 3: With M23 as Mz, a +/ b = 1221 or 1323, while c +/ d = 5258 or 5274 There's no equality, so I guess M11213 isn't in the range to be a candidate for M23, huh? If your method doesn't stand up to the earlier Mersenne primes, why would it be correct for the current ones? By the way, how exactly your method is calculated is pretty complicated, but it seems it would be effected by the following observation: The recent primes (since M40 at p=~20M) are far closer together than heuristics projected. If your method suggests the next primes based on how close together the recent ones have been (indirectly, I'm sure, as you'd want to check it with recent primes to see if it fits, but not necessarily go through the time to check that all 44 fit it), it will be very far off for the older primes. 
20080929, 09:35  #4  
Feb 2007
France
47 Posts 
Quote:
Otherwise, it's true that the member "2e", on the rule IVb, is from recent apparition (around M38). I can nothing if there is a "resserrement" of the last values in the sequence. 

20081024, 14:33  #5 
Feb 2007
France
47_{10} Posts 
It’s necessary to be more precise. So, here are the last results obtained with the rule III : M37 a – b = c – d =  1039116 and the interval is 28357393116703 M38 a – b = c + d = 1673278 4694655 +infinite M39 a – b = c – d + 2e = 5484012 1245660514829870 (the value e is under the value d into the column) M40 a + b = c – d + 2e = 7674480 1996124121141397 M41 a + b = c – d = 4985986 1601002525981997 M42 a + b = c + d – 2e = 2005802 2203078126042385 M43 a + b = c + d = 6416890 2900552332381841 (gap AS 56 on the spreadsheet) M44 a + b = c + d = 3325302 3233082533727759 (gap AT57) M45 a + b = c + d = 4689338 3702016337271995 (gap AU58) for M46 now, two possibilities : 1) the most vraisemblable a + b = c + d = 2316704 3933686739473371 (gap AV59) 2) a + b = c – d + 2e = 6831316 4173067743987583 It’s the interval of 43112609, but I do not believe in this result, because the top of the column 46 not matches with the others in this case. Take a look here to see "how to reduce the intervals" : http://home.tele2.fr/lacanmaths/reglesnew1.html Alain 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
A couple of 15e candidates  fivemack  NFS@Home  1  20141130 07:52 
How to calculate FFT lengths of candidates  pepi37  Riesel Prime Search  8  20140417 20:51 
Poly search candidates  schickel  Msieve  32  20131105 19:11 
No available candidates on server  japelprime  Prime Sierpinski Project  2  20111228 07:38 
Adding New Candidates  wblipp  Operation Billion Digits  6  20110410 17:45 