Re: my work on numbers
From: Phil Carmody (thefatphil_demunged_at_yahoo.co.uk)
Date: 06/02/04
- Next message: Phil Carmody: "Re: proof of the Riemann hypothesis ?"
- Previous message: Herman Jurjus: "Re: The Meaning of Abstract"
- In reply to: The Last Danish Pastry: "Re: my work on numbers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 02 Jun 2004 10:55:27 +0300
"The Last Danish Pastry" <TheLastDanishPastry@yahoo.com> writes:
> "abhishek bansal" <akbl83@yahoo.co.in> wrote in message
> news:200406011851.i51Ip5M07106@proapp.mathforum.org...
>
> > Dear Mam/Sir
> >
> > PLz. Read my e-mail .Thanks.I would be grateful to you for wasting time on
> me.
> >
> > I am Abhishek Bansal (Dob: 6 Feb,1983).
> >
> > Here I am submitting my work on numbers as jpeg images which I have got
> scanned:
> > http://mathforum.org/web.comments/abhishek.html
> >
> > Although my work could be very simple,making me a matter of laugh. But
> that doesn't matter to me,as I am Contented. This would be my last
> contribution. As I had been a victim of unfortunates and many many other
> things.
> >
> > If you consider me as a talent and think it can be benficial to you Or
> getting wasted I can offer myself and can come to america or australia .But
> I need 100% scholarship for that , if you consider me for that.
> >
> > Else if you know someone in delhi.
> >
> > Please Note here I nowhere is saying iam brilliant. What I said I am a
> thinker, had made sincere attempt.
> >
> > Please comment on my work .I would check my e-mail on june,2 (ISTmorning
> ,from cyber cafe) after that any of your reply will probably of less use or
> no use.
>
> With reference to (6):
>
> 4^(4^3)+1 = 59649589127497217*5704689200685129054721
The OP can search for "Generalised Fermat Numbers" (or 'generalized')
for more information.
Number 3 is also false, as it's possbile to construct "covering sets"
of prime factors such that for every a, N+/-2^a has a small factor.
This is intimately related to "Reisel Numbers" and "Sierpinski Numbers".
e.g.:
if N+2^1 is divisible by 3, then N+2^3, N+2^5, N+2^7,... N+2^(2x+1)
are all divisible by 3.
Similarly, if N+2^2 is divisible by 5, then N+2^6, N+2^10 ... N+2^(4x+2)
are all divisible by 3.
It's possible to place several other small factors, which are factors of
2^x-1 for small x, such as 3, 5, 241, so that every power of 2 is covered.
Google for the terms in quotes, and googlegroups (on sci.math) for
``3 5 241'', for more info. (For the latter, you can't go wrong with
the Kurt Foster and Douglas Zare posts.)
Phil
-- 1st bug in MS win2k source code found after 20 minutes: scanline.cpp 2nd and 3rd bug found after 10 more minutes: gethost.c Both non-exploitable. (The 2nd/3rd ones might be, depending on the CRTL)
- Next message: Phil Carmody: "Re: proof of the Riemann hypothesis ?"
- Previous message: Herman Jurjus: "Re: The Meaning of Abstract"
- In reply to: The Last Danish Pastry: "Re: my work on numbers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
