On Sun, 04 Nov 2001 20:09:20 -0500, Jud McCranie
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>At 01:43 AM 11/5/2001 +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
>
>>Speaking of which -- shouldn't we be (statistically) really close to finding
>>a new prime soon?
>
>Yes, statistically. You'd "expect" the next one to be before 14,000,000
>and I've got assignments in the 13,000,000 range. However, all exponents
>have been checked once only to a little past 8,000,000.
Of course, this whole argument makes (as far as I can see) heavy use
of the gamblers' fallacy, aka the fallacy of maturation of
probabilities ("Hey, I lost the last 50 games - what are the odds
against me losing 51 5-man games in a row? I'm certain to win!")
Nathan
_________________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
