Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Prime

Expand Messages
  • Joel Hopper <prime@doc-hopper.com>
    I think I found a big un and submitted it to the prime page. I m just curious as to how long it normally takes for submittals to be deemed official ?
    Message 1 of 6 , Jan 14, 2003
      I think I found a "big 'un" and submitted it to the prime page. I'm
      just curious as to how long it normally takes for submittals to be
      deemed "official"?

      Also, while searching my list of sieved possibles, my prp app
      (prp.exe) found one that it said was probably, but proth.exe said
      was not prime. How can I find more information about this "psuedo
      prime" (as a friend in the math business called it)?

      Thanks a lot ahead of time,

      Joel Hopper
      prime@...
      eComopute.org Prime/Factor team member
    • thefatphil <thefatphil@yahoo.co.uk>
      ... They re batched, and it can take several days. ... There s always the section on the Prime Pages http://primepages.org/
      Message 2 of 6 , Jan 15, 2003
        --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "Joel Hopper <prime@d...>" <prime@d...> wrote:
        > I think I found a "big 'un" and submitted it to the prime page. I'm
        > just curious as to how long it normally takes for submittals to be
        > deemed "official"?

        They're batched, and it can take several days.

        > Also, while searching my list of sieved possibles, my prp app
        > (prp.exe) found one that it said was probably, but proth.exe said
        > was not prime. How can I find more information about this "psuedo
        > prime" (as a friend in the math business called it)?

        There's always the section on the Prime Pages http://primepages.org/
        http://primes.utm.edu/glossary/page.php?sort=Pseudoprime

        If you post your pseudoprime here, then we might be able to work out why it's a pseudoprime. They're quite rare, and typically they'll have a special form such as being a product (n+1)(3n+1). To find one that's a proth form (k.2^n+1) would be most unusual.

        Phil
      • Joel Hopper <prime@doc-hopper.com>
        ... Ok. I couldn t see any info on that. Thanks! I can t remember the exact number but my prover code is x51. ... why it s a pseudoprime. They re quite
        Message 3 of 6 , Jan 15, 2003
          --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "thefatphil <thefatphil@y...>"
          <thefatphil@y...> wrote:
          > --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "Joel Hopper <prime@d...>"
          <prime@d...> wrote:
          > > I think I found a "big 'un" and submitted it to the prime page. I'm
          > > just curious as to how long it normally takes for submittals to be
          > > deemed "official"?
          >
          > They're batched, and it can take several days.

          Ok. I couldn't see any info on that. Thanks! I can't remember the
          exact number but my prover code is x51.

          >
          > > Also, while searching my list of sieved possibles, my prp app
          > > (prp.exe) found one that it said was probably, but proth.exe said
          > > was not prime. How can I find more information about this "psuedo
          > > prime" (as a friend in the math business called it)?
          >
          > There's always the section on the Prime Pages http://primepages.org/
          > http://primes.utm.edu/glossary/page.php?sort=Pseudoprime
          >
          > If you post your pseudoprime here, then we might be able to work out
          why it's a pseudoprime. They're quite rare, and typically they'll have
          a special form such as being a product (n+1)(3n+1). To find one that's
          a proth form (k.2^n+1) would be most unusual.
          >
          > Phil


          Cool. The number is: 10971*2^200153+1
          It was "found" by running prp.exe against a list that was filtered by
          newprg (or something like that - I didn't do that part).

          Thanks for the help guys.
        • Joel Hopper <prime@doc-hopper.com>
          Oops. The number I posted yesterday was incorrect. I copied it down wrong. The actual number was 10971 * 2^200155 + 1 and it passed proth.exe s primality
          Message 4 of 6 , Jan 15, 2003
            Oops.

            The number I posted yesterday was incorrect. I copied it down wrong.
            The actual number was 10971 * 2^200155 + 1 and it passed proth.exe's
            primality tests. Next time I'll be more careful. ;-)

            Joel Hopper

            --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "Joel Hopper <prime@d...>"
            <prime@d...> wrote:
            > I think I found a "big 'un" and submitted it to the prime page. I'm
            > just curious as to how long it normally takes for submittals to be
            > deemed "official"?
            >
            > Also, while searching my list of sieved possibles, my prp app
            > (prp.exe) found one that it said was probably, but proth.exe said
            > was not prime. How can I find more information about this "psuedo
            > prime" (as a friend in the math business called it)?
            >
            > Thanks a lot ahead of time,
            >
            > Joel Hopper
            > prime@d...
            > eComopute.org Prime/Factor team member
          • navid_altaf
            Oh dear. Its finally dawned on me I m just stating the obvious by definition. Sorry. I m going to try to stop thinking about prime nos for some time (I can
            Message 5 of 6 , Sep 1, 2003
              Oh dear. Its finally dawned on me I'm just stating the obvious
              by definition. Sorry. I'm going to try to stop thinking about
              prime nos for some time (I can almost hear your collective sigh of
              relief).
            • Mark Underwood
              That s OK Navid, many of us have been there! We get so focused and narrowed in on something that we loose sight of the obvious. Now that I m typing, I must say
              Message 6 of 6 , Sep 1, 2003
                That's OK Navid, many of us have been there! We get so focused and
                narrowed in on something that we loose sight of the obvious.

                Now that I'm typing, I must say that I just love that little picture
                at the Home page of this Yahoo Prime group! It shows two little
                people standing before an awesomely big statue of the number '2'.

                Now, about generating primes. I'm currently investigating a very
                simple function, call it P(p,x,y), which is very good at generating
                primes of all kinds. In fact on cursory examination it seems that if
                one, say, doubles the range of x covered, the number of primes
                produced almost doubles. If one doubles the range of y covered, the
                number of primes produced almost doubles as well. For example for one
                particular (and typical) p, if x ranges from 1 to 10 and y ranges
                from 1 to 70, 83 primes are produced by the function. If the range of
                y is allowed to double, that is from 1 to 140, 161 primes are
                generated. In the first case when y ranges from 1 to 70, the lowest
                prime produced is 379 and the highest is 15196639291. Most of the
                numbers are over 7 digits.

                Is this ordinary, good, or too good to be true?


                Mark



                --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "navid_altaf" <navid.altaf@g...>
                wrote:
                >
                > Oh dear. Its finally dawned on me I'm just stating the obvious
                > by definition. Sorry. I'm going to try to stop thinking about
                > prime nos for some time (I can almost hear your collective sigh of
                > relief).
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.