Talk:Double Mersenne number
WikiProject Mathematics  (Rated Startclass, Lowpriority)  


At approximately what time will all Mersenne exponents below 80,000,000 checked for whether they are prime?? (This is just about how far http://mersenne.org/status.htm goes.) 66.245.19.60 22:02, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 This reference might help: http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/notes/faq/NextMersenne.html. Giftlite 23:56, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Contents
Just a Conjecture but...
I believe that , or 2^{170141183460469231731687303715884105727}  1, is prime. At approximately 5.12176 × 10^{37} digits, it may be centuries before I am 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 20:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
How about n = ???
Changed definition
PhiEaglesfan712 has just changed the definition of double Mersenne number [1] and Mersenne number [2]. I think both should be changed back. I suggest to keep comments together at Talk:Mersenne prime#Mersenne number. PrimeHunter 23:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
CatalanMersenne numbers
I have a source in Slovene that CatalanMersenne numbers are also called "Cantor('s) numbers" (and I've made an article with this name  Cantorjevo število, since I've found this name in source), perhaps mainly because Georg Cantor allegedly conjectured that these kind of numbers are all primes. Does anybody perhaps have similar English source for this? xJaM (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Double Wagstaff Numbers
Let =, =, we know that when n = 2, 3, 5, 7, then is a prime, but when n = 13, 17, 19, 31, it's not, and we know that when n = 2, 3, 5, 7, then is a prime, but when n = 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 31, it's not. I believe that when n>7 (Except of n=43 and n=127), both and are not primes, but is a prime, and and are the largest double Mersenne prime and double Wagstaff prime.(Because 43 is and 127 is )