20101225, 04:33  #1 
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England
2·3·13·83 Posts 
Wagstaff Conjecture
OK
Not proved. A few subleties Some folk can't get their head round it But is there anything simpler going around to base our assumptions on???? David PS (@Paul sorry about putting "on" at the end of the sentence) 
20101225, 05:03  #2 
May 2004
New York City
4235_{10} Posts 
Why yes. How many time do I have to direct you
to the YJConjecture? (It was discovered and explained independently and is NOT the same.) 
20101225, 10:06  #3 
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England
14512_{8} Posts 

20101225, 18:14  #4 
May 2004
New York City
5·7·11^{2} Posts 
The YJConjecture was first presented in this forum
in a thread anticipating the arrival of M41. It is also referenced in two extant threads. It is also mentioned in the mersennewiki (historically) and in wikipedia (historically). It is also mentioned on yahoo.answers. 
20101225, 20:29  #5 
Aug 2006
1011101011011_{2} Posts 
To save someone the same digging I had to do:
The "YJConjecture" or "YablonJinydu conjecture" is the name that davar55 gives to Eberhart's conjecture, the almostcertainlywrong version of Wagstaff's conjecture. Presumably the "d" in davar55 is the D in "David Yablon". 
20101225, 21:21  #6 
May 2004
New York City
5·7·11^{2} Posts 
Yes, that is my name.
The "almost" in "almost certainly wrong" saves that remark. Just remember that wellknown is not wellproved, and conversely, unknown may be right. 
20101225, 23:22  #7 
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England
2×3×13×83 Posts 
What infuriates me Davar is your claim that log(exponent)
is not distributed randomly. Why not work with the simplest conjecture until it becomes untenable? David After ~2 years of LLtesting, we NOW "expect" the exponent of the next Mprime to be 75M, a longer than usual gap from 43M. Why? Absolutely nothing to do with the run of short gaps since 20M (M40). It's because we have tested up to 50M. Last fiddled with by davieddy on 20101225 at 23:41 
20101226, 00:20  #8  
May 2004
New York City
10213_{8} Posts 
Quote:
randomly. That's an approximation, there's no actual randomness among the integers. Use randomness to make a conjecture at your own risk. Second, if you check the subsequent analysis by jinydu, the YJConjecture is at least partially proven. It may eventually be a lemma. Using a ratio of 3/2 = 1.500 is cleaner, leads to a similar estimate of the next two gaps, and thus may help find M47 and M48 and M49 and ... 

20101226, 00:28  #9 
Aug 2006
3·1,993 Posts 

20101226, 01:15  #10 
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England
194A_{16} Posts 

20101226, 02:49  #11 
Aug 2006
1011101011011_{2} Posts 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Searching for Wagstaff PRP  T.Rex  Wagstaff PRP Search  191  20210630 17:22 
New Wagstaff PRP exponents  ryanp  Wagstaff PRP Search  26  20131018 01:33 
500€ Reward for a proof for the Wagstaff primality test conjecture  Tony Reix  Wagstaff PRP Search  7  20131010 01:23 
Hot tuna!  a p75 and a p79 by Sam Wagstaff!  Batalov  GMPECM  9  20120824 10:26 
30th Wagstaff prime  T.Rex  Math  0  20070904 07:10 