Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ π -¹ ² ³ °

You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

**cool_jessica****Member**- Registered: 2012-06-26
- Posts: 15

Hello,

I cannot understand how are you getting these results. Please elaborate.

Thanks

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,251

Hi cool_jessica;

There are not many results here. The problem requires a ton of computational firepower.

The numbers are formed by concantenating primes together. Then a couple of probabilistic prime testers are brought to bear. Since my last one was about 5000 digits long it takes a while to test it for primality. The next number in his series is too large for modern day machines. P(9) is unknown.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 14,886

Hi Stangerzv

Sorry to disappoint you, but...http://oeis.org/A069151. They are already called Smarandache-Wellin numbers.

*Last edited by anonimnystefy (2012-08-13 22:23:21)*

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

Offline

**Stangerzv****Member**- Registered: 2012-01-30
- Posts: 173

It is ok then! This is how mathematics flows! We think about something and other people think too! I have developed many mathematics formulations since I was 12 years old, the first was binomial expansion but of course someone had found it. Then I developed unidigit or digital root in characterizing equation in quest for the Fermat's Last theorem proof and I found out after sometimes that the hindus had using this digital roots for thousands years before. I had formulated sums of power for integers more than 10 years ago without even knowing that 300 years ago someone had found it but I never give up. Few new formulations that I think people had not finding it yet like sums of power for arithmetic progression, alternating sums of power for arithmetic progression, symmetric prime numbers. Symmetric prime is my conjecture and it explains how Mersenne's Prime, Wagstaff's Prime, Fermat's Prime etc could be derived. Maybe people had found it but so far 300 years back none of literatures on sums of power for arithmetic progression did exist otherwise it could be used in the Fermat's Last Theorem long time ago. In few months time I would collaborate with one of the universities back here to find this prime using grid computing. This Primes could be bigger than Mersenne's primes anytime because of the bigger inputs. Hope none had found this type of Primes yet, otherwise I had to look for a way of finding something new:)

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,251

Hi;

P(9) is very large. I think it is over 100000 digits. Networking many computers together has a good chance of getting it. I do not know if it will be found to be the largest prime, perhaps P(10)?

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**cool_jessica****Member**- Registered: 2012-06-26
- Posts: 15

Hello Everybody,

Thanks for helping me out, but I think I will have research a bit more to know about all these calculations.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,251

Hi cool_jessica;

I can go into a bit more detail when you are ready for it. Let me know.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline