At 08:48 PM 11/4/2001 -0500, Nathan Russell wrote:
>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!")
Statistically, each exponent resulting in a prime is about twice the
previous one. There is a heuristic argument that supports that being the
case. The last one was 6.9 million something, we're now testing close to
twice that. I think there are only three cases where one exponent is more
than twice as large as the previous one.
+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Jud McCranie |
| |
| Programming Achieved with Structure, Clarity, And Logic |
+---------------------------------------------------------+
_________________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
