Re: [PrimeNumbers] Re: a^b+b^a is PRP!
> Bouk de wrote:I have no prior Titanix experience, but I think it's time for me
> >You might want to try that yourself. You'd
> >be surprised at the speed at which Titanix
> >can prove primes with less than 2000 digits.
> >There are a few larger than that that will
> >take a little more time.
> Yes, I know: 2057-digit prime took less than 4 days on
> Duron-700 with Titanix 2.0.4b, so on Athlon-1200 all these
> prp's can be proven in 2 weeks or so...
> But my computer has AMD K6-233 processor... :-(
> So I think it will be better if someone with faster machine
> prove them prime. Of course, he will be a 100% prover.
to give it a try...
Andrey, I am willing to use my Athlon-800 for a few days
to try to prove them. Select a few large ones, so that I
will be busy for a week or so. You yourself (or someone
else?) can perhaps take the smaller ones.
Just send me them off-list. I don't know if you have any time
for coordinating this search, but the list doesn't look overly
long, so perhaps you'd be able to distribute things
Christ van Willegen
- Christ van Willegen wrote:
> Select a few large ones, so that IPhil the mod might sleep easier on his bus
> will be busy for a week or so.
if combined efforts resulted in 5 ECPP primes
with more than 1905 digits. Then the illegal
part of Chris Caldwell's database will disappear.
Indeed, folk out there might already have 2k+ digits
Tx proofs that they have forgotten to post. If so,
just submit the prime with the comment ECPP.
- I wrote:
> Indeed, folk out there might already have 2k+ digitsI forgot to add: if you do not have a code with Titanix
> Tx proofs that they have forgotten to post. If so,
> just submit the prime with the comment ECPP.
in it, ask Chris Caldwell for a c? code, so Marcel
get recognized. (c is the first first letter of Titanix :-)
- On Sat, 02 June 2001, d.broadhurst@... wrote:
> Christ van Willegen wrote:Mod? _Mod_? Never has a rocker been so offended!
> > Select a few large ones, so that I
> > will be busy for a week or so.
> Phil the mod might sleep easier on his bus
(Yeah, yeah, I know what you meant.)
Anyway, I was just curious - I noticed that 3 of the entries in the a^b+b^a list had a=b+1. Are there any witty decompositions of N-1 which could provide a BLS proof to this case?
A was able to find the factor b by hand, but are there any others?
Dues to mystical magical exploding computers I am without Mathematica presently, and unable to do symbolic mathematics!
(Anyone know of a free symbolic maths tool?)
I threw the 80/81 number at ECM, and split >33% of it, but that could be pure coincidence!
Hmmm, back to work :-(
Mathematics should not have to involve martyrdom;
Support Eric Weisstein, see http://mathworld.wolfram.com
Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping!
> This is a complete list of prp's of the form a^b+b^a, whereList deleted.
> Does anybody want to prove some of them prime via Titanix?I posted to this very forum exactly the same list on Thursday 22nd
February under the Subject: "Primes and strong pseudoprimes of the form
x^y+y^x". I can repost if wished, but assume that readers know how to
examine the list archives. That post also included the pair (1015,384).
Somewhere, still not found but probably on a backup tape, the list
continues to about 1500 or so.
Many of the primes were proved by me years ago, and I had two in the
prime record tables until they were re-catalogued as uninteresting.
I'd be interested in seeing some of them proved prime --- the ones I
never got around to completing!
- Phil Carmody wrote:
> I noticed that 3 of the entries in theHmm... a^(a-1)+(a-1)^a doesn't look circle cutting
> a^b+b^a list had a=b+1.
(cyclotomic) from here. I think cyclotomy is always
a^n-b^n (and if you want the full Monty, set
a=(1+sqrt(5))/2 and b=(1-sqrt(5))/2)
and divide by a-b=sqrt(5) to get a well known integer)
Christ wan Willegen wrote:
>I have no prior Titanix experience, but I think it's timefor me
>to give it a try...Well, I may prove the numbers which have <=1000 digits.
>Andrey, I am willing to use my Athlon-800 for a few days
>to try to prove them. Select a few large ones, so that I
>will be busy for a week or so. You yourself (or someone
>else?) can perhaps take the smaller ones.
Paul Leyland wrote:
>Many of the primes were proved by me years ago, and I hadtwo in the
>prime record tables until they were re-catalogued asuninteresting.
Paul, please send us a list of primes you have proven, and
we'll prove all remaining ones.
I will prove less than 1000 digit numbers, Christ wan
Willegen, for example, will prove numbers with 1001..2000
digits, and someone third (maybe Paul Leyland) will prove
numbers with >2000 digits.
Note that 1000-digit prime 289^406+406^289 was proven by
Paul, and then independently by me as the smallest titanic
prime of such a kind. The primes 342^343+343^342,
111^322+322^111, 122^333+333^122, 8^69+69^8 was also proven
by me nearly 5 months ago; 365^444+444^365 was proven by me
and Marcel Martin (he found a step with record polynomial
degree of 100) nearly 3 months ago.
Waiting for comments.
лХТУЩ БОЗМЙКУЛПЗП СЪЩЛБ ОБ нБМШФЕ! дМС ДЕФЕК, РПДТПУФЛПЧ Й ЧЪТПУМЩИ.
уТЕДЙЪЕНОПНПТШЕ. пУФТПЧ ЛТЕУФПОПУГЕЧ. лТХЗПН ВЙТАЪПЧБС, ЙУЛТСЭБСУС
ОБ УПМОГЕ ЧПДБ...
бЗЕОФУФЧП демйху-феттб, ФЕМ (017) 226-56-73, 220-86-71
OK, I'll prove all remaining prps with less than 1200
13-14 ЙАОС Ч ЛМХВЕ тЕБЛФПТ РТПКДЈФ тЕУРХВМЙЛБОУЛЙК ЖЕУФЙЧБМШ
ИХДПЦЕУФЧЕООПК ФБФХЙТПЧЛЙ "SNAKE-TATTOO 2001" У ХЮБУФЙЕН
УБМПОПЧ нЙОУЛБ Й вЕМБТХУЙ. уРТБЧЛЙ РП ФЕМ. 232-82-51