User talk:PhiEaglesfan712

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 My Double Mersenne Conjecture (2007) 2 Prime tuplets 3 A list of Twin Primes, Prime Triplets, Prime Quadruplets, Prime Quintuplets, Prime Sextuplets, and Prime Septuplets up to 210 3.1 Twin Primes 3.2 Prime Triplets 3.3 Prime Quadruplets 3.4 Prime Quintuplets 3.5 Prime Sextuplets 3.6 Prime Septuplets 4 Signing 5 Double Fermat number 6 Double Fermat number 7 Édouard Lucas 8 Landon Curt Noll 9 Unsourced Claim on Legendre's Conjecture 10 Palindromic prime 11 Hurricane Katrina 12 Cleo Lemon 13 Vick

[edit] My Double Mersenne Conjecture (2007)

I believe that , or 2^{170141183460469231731687303715884105727} - 1, is prime. At approximately 5.12176 × 10³⁷ decimal digits, it may be centuries before I am either proven correct or incorrect. Also, I believe that this is the fifth, final, and largest Double Mersenne prime. In other words, I believe that is composite for all n > 7, expect for n = 127. PhiEaglesfan712 20:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean is composite for all n > 7, expect for n = 127. PrimeHunter 21:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I meant to say composite for all n > 7, except for n = 127. (I made the change in my conjecture, above.) PhiEaglesfan712 01:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I found another error in my conjecture. I underestimated the number of digits that has by about 1.1 × 10³⁷ digits. has approximately 5.1 × 10³⁷ digits, not approximately 4 × 10³⁷ digits. (I also made this change in my conjecture, above.) PhiEaglesfan712 15:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It just amazes me that even though 2^{170141183460469231731687303715884105727} - 1 has approximately 5.12176 × 10³⁷ decimal digits, taking a log₂ of that number just a couple of times, will make it look very small.

For example:

log₂log₂ (2^{170141183460469231731687303715884105727} - 1) ≈ 127

and

log₂log₂log₂ (2^{170141183460469231731687303715884105727} - 1) ≈ 7

(For verification of this, see the comment I made below!)

PhiEaglesfan712 01:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

2^{170141183460469231731687303715884105727} - 1 can be written simply as 2^{2127 - 1} - 1, which can be simplified even further to 2^{227 - 1 - 1} - 1. PhiEaglesfan712 15:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It would take my computer approximately 3 × 10⁶⁰ years to complete the test for the primality of 2^{170141183460469231731687303715884105727} - 1, on Prime95, which uses the Lucas-Lehmer test for Mersenne numbers. [1] PhiEaglesfan712 19:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prime tuplets

Hi. Nice to see somebody who shares my interest in prime tuplets. The definition and current records are at http://www.ltkz.demon.co.uk/ktuplets.htm. I'm Jens Kruse Andersen and have several of the records. PrimeHunter 23:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The link has gone dead. There are archived versions in the Internet Archive#Wayback Machine at http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ltkz.demon.co.uk/ktuplets.htm, including the page Smallest Prime k-tuplets which may be of interest to you. PrimeHunter 23:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A list of Twin Primes, Prime Triplets, Prime Quadruplets, Prime Quintuplets, Prime Sextuplets, and Prime Septuplets up to 210

Below is a list of what I consider to be twin primes, prime triplets, prime quadruplets, prime quintuplets, prime sextuplets, and prime septuplets up to 210.

[edit] Twin Primes

Primes of the form {p, p + 2}

(3, 5), (5, 7), (11, 13), (17, 19), (29, 31), (41, 43), (59, 61), (71, 73), (101, 103), (107, 109), (137, 139), (149, 151), (179, 181), (191, 193), (197, 199)

[edit] Prime Triplets

Primes of the form {p, p + 2, p + 6}

(5, 7, 11), (11, 13, 17), (17, 19, 23), (41, 43, 47), (101, 103, 107), (107, 109, 113), (191, 193, 197)

Primes of the form {p, p + 4, p + 6}

(7, 11, 13), (13, 17, 19), (37, 41, 43), (67, 71, 73), (97, 101, 103), (103, 107, 109), (193, 197, 199)

[edit] Prime Quadruplets

Primes of the form {p, p + 2, p + 6, p + 8}

(5, 7, 11, 13)^*, (11, 13, 17, 19), (101, 103, 107, 109), (191, 193, 197, 199)

^* Some mathematicians do not consider (5, 7, 11, 13) to be a prime quadruplet because they strictly require a prime quadruplet to be primes of the form {30n + 11, 30n + 13, 30n + 17, 30n + 19}. Prime quadruplets of these form are called prime decades. However, I consider (5, 7, 11, 13) to be a prime quadruplet because it contains to close pairs of twin primes, two overlapping pairs of prime triplets, its primes are of the form {p, p + 2, p + 6, p + 8}, and its primes, respectively, leave residues of (1, 1, 1, 1) (mod 2) and (2, 1, 2, 1) (mod 3). Therefore, (5, 7, 11, 13) meets the requirements for what I consider to be a prime quadruplet.

[edit] Prime Quintuplets

Primes of the form {p, p + 2, p + 6, p + 8, p + 12}

(5, 7, 11, 13, 17), (11, 13, 17, 19, 23), (101, 103, 107, 109, 113)

Primes of the form {p, p + 4, p + 6, p + 10, p + 12}

(7, 11, 13, 17, 19), (97, 101, 103, 107, 109)

[edit] Prime Sextuplets

Primes of the form {p, p + 4, p + 6, p + 10, p + 12, p + 16}

(7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23), (97, 101, 103, 107, 109, 113)

[edit] Prime Septuplets

Primes of the form {p, p + 2, p + 6, p + 8, p + 12, p + 14, p + 18}

(5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23)^**

^** Some mathematicians do not consider (5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23) to be a prime septuplet because they strictly require a prime septuplet to be primes of the form {30n + 11, 30n + 13, 30n + 17, 30n + 19, 30n + 23, 30n + 29, 30n + 31}. Prime septuplets of these form are called prime scores. However, I consider (5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23) to be a prime septuplet because it contains to three non-overlapping pairs of twin primes, contains at least three overlapping pairs of prime triplets (it has five), contains at least one prime quadruplet (it has two that overlap), contains at least one prime quintuplet (it has three that overlap), and its primes, respectively, leave residues of (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1) (mod 2), (2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2) (mod 3), and (5, 0, 4, 6, 3, 5, 2) (mod 7). Therefore, (5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23) meets the requirements for what I consider to be a prime septuplet.

Primes of the form {p, p + 2, p + 6, p + 8, p + 12, p + 18, p + 20}

(11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31)

PhiEaglesfan712 20:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signing

I recommend you sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~ which will automatically transform to a signature with name and time (it's also possible to customize the look). PrimeHunter 23:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me be more direct: Please sign your talk page posts with ~~~~. And don't change other peoples talk page comments. PrimeHunter 23:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for teaching me how to sign my talk page posts. I would have never known that if no one told me that. PhiEaglesfan712 18:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Double Fermat number

Did you make up this name? There are no Google hits on any of "Double Fermat number", "Double Fermat numbers", "Double Fermat prime", "Double Fermat primes". See WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:MADEUP. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources and I will suggest deletion of the article if you don't have any. Note that the existing article Double Mersenne number is fine since this is a common sourced term. You are not allowed to imitate existing terms by making up your own. PrimeHunter 00:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I came up with this name because I was fascinated by the behavior of the Fermat primes {5, 17, 65537}. Since there is such thing as a Double Mersenne number, which is the subset of the Mersenne numbers, I believed that there should be something similiar with the Fermat numbers. So, I called them Double Fermat numbers. Although it may not be a common sourced term, all of the information in the article I wrote is correct. I was fascinated by {5, 17, 65537} because they all produce prime triplets of the form {p, p+2, p+6}... I thought this was special because the other Fermat prime, 257, does not even form a twin prime, since 257 + 2 = 259 = 7 * 37. I was surprised to see that no one has yet to come up with a name for this special subset of the Fermat primes. I did see that there were no Google hits on any of "Double Fermat number", "Double Fermat numbers", "Double Fermat prime", and "Double Fermat primes". I was so shocked that no one has ever came up with a name for this special subset of the Fermat primes. Perhaps someday, the primes {5, 17, 65537} could be named after me. However, I am not yet a fully-developed mathematician. Turning 19 on Thursday, July 12, 2007, I am continuing to learn more and more about Mathematics and Computer Science. With each passing day, I am only getting better and better. PhiEaglesfan712 15:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The name falls under WP:MADEUP and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. I haven't seen sources which restrict study of Fermat numbers to your numbers, so the subject of the article does not appear to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability. If the made up names are removed then the only content not already in Fermat number is the observation that some Fermat primes are part of prime triplets. Small prime triplets are not uncommon enough to make this noteworthy for Wikipedia when no reliable source has mentioned it. I don't think the article should be kept or that its content should be merged to Fermat number. If you want to publish new mathematical observations or research then Wikipedia is not the place as Wikipedia:No original research explains. There are forums and other places where it's suitable, or you could make your own website. I have proposed deletion of Double Fermat number. The following section was added with {{PRODWarning}}. PrimeHunter 02:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Double Fermat number

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Double Fermat number, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. PrimeHunter 02:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Since I do not have a reliable source, I agree that the template to Double Fermat number should be removed from Wikipedia.PhiEaglesfan712 18:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to do anything. If you do nothing then an administrator will probably delete it after around 5 days. If you want to request deletion now then you can place {{db-author}} at the top of the article. PrimeHunter 21:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Édouard Lucas

Do you have a reliable source for the claim in [2] and [3] about Lucas starting in 1856? I have seen reliable sources that support the versions you changed. PrimeHunter 00:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You have not given a source but just added the claim to another article [4]. Please respect Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Content must have a reliable source. PrimeHunter 22:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I see you have added http://primes.utm.edu/curios/page.php?number_id=135 as source. I think Prime Curios has limited reliability. Everybody can suggest a curio text and editing appears limited. I have personally corrected many false claims by mailing the editor. The curio submitter "Cuenta" has only submitted this one curio.[5] And the curio says "is said to have spent 19 years checking by hand", indicating that the submitter (or possibly editor) is not sure about the claim. 19 years of checking sounds implausible to me, and I have seen more reliable sources saying he proved the prime in the 1870's. He was only 14 in 1856. PrimeHunter 22:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I was actually the submitter to that curio. In fact, here was the original version of the curio I sent:

This is the prime largest prime number to be calculated by hand.

Now, here's how the editor edited my curio:

The Mersenne prime which Edouard Lucas of Paris (1842-1891) is said to have spent 19 years checking by hand. The largest prime to be calculated in this manner.

I was not the one who made the claim that Lucas "is said to have spent 19 years checking by hand". In fact, at the time I submitted the curio, I never heard the name Edouard Lucas. But after the editor added the information on my curio, I did some research on Edouard Lucas.

However, I believe that it is too early to judge my reliability based on the fact that I have only sent one curio, considering the fact that I just turned 19 on July 12. PhiEaglesfan712 02:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Landon Curt Noll

You have added 1961 as birth year of Landon Curt Noll in [6] and [7]. Do you have a source? His site at http://isthe.com/chongo/pictures.html has a link to his fathers site at http://www.paulnoll.com/, and http://www.paulnoll.com/Oregon/Sons/Noll-Landon-birthdays.html says 8 times that Landon Curt Noll was born in 1960. http://home.comcast.net/~igpl/NWS.html also says 1960. PrimeHunter 21:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked at those sources earlier this morning. However, when I went to type in the birth year of Noll, I apparantly made a typing error. Not noticing the mistake, I added him to the list of 1961 births, instead of 1960. I only realized the mistake when I logged off. I will go ahead, and correct the error. Thank you for pointing out the error. PhiEaglesfan712 23:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced Claim on Legendre's Conjecture

I have replied at User talk:PrimeHunter#Unsourced Claim on Legendre's Conjecture to keep discussion together. By the way, wikilinks are case sensitive so you must write Legendre's conjecture and Brocard's conjecture with lower case c. PrimeHunter 21:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Palindromic prime

They can have a composite number of digits. See for example http://www.worldofnumbers.com/palprim1.htm. Maybe you were thinking of repunit primes which can only have a prime number of digits. PrimeHunter 22:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane Katrina

Your recent contribution(s) to Wikipedia are very much appreciated. However, you did not provide references or sources for your information. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. If sources are left unreferenced, it may count as original research, which is not allowed. Can you provide in the article specific references to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content in the article? You can use a citation method listed at How to cite sources. Thanks! Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleo Lemon

The debut section is for when they first played. He was on the Chargers in 2003. He first played an NFL regular season game in 2006.►Chris Nelson 20:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This comment above was one that was accidentally left by Chrisjnelson on your user page. I'm moving it to your talk page. Ksy92003(talk) 22:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vick

Hey there, I put back in the protect tag - the article has been under heavy editing since the recent "situation" came out - I'm pretty sure that it will continue to get "hammered". There is an Article improvement nomination for the article and some active discussions on the Talk:Michael Vick page - i'd love to get your input. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  20:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)