Re: [PrimeNumbers] Primes 17 below a power of ten
- In a message dated 03/05/03 05:45:45 GMT Daylight Time,
> If anyone is attempting to prove numbers of the form 10^n-17, please let meNathan: by "prove" you presumably mean "find probable prime", since there are
only a few thousand values of n that are /provable/ primes with today's best
At the Lifchitz's PRP site
you will observe that Milton Brown has made something of a speciality of the
form 10^n +- k, for smallish k. None of his (hundreds of) entries with n >=
10000 have k=-17, but he might be able to save you a valuable amount of (PFGW
or whatever) search time by divulging for which n ranges he has already
eliminated that value of k.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- --On Saturday, May 03, 2003 3:19 AM -0400 mikeoakes2@... wrote:
> In a message dated 03/05/03 05:45:45 GMT Daylight Time,Yes thank you. I am looking for numbers of "reasonable" size to prove with
> nrussell@... writes:
>> If anyone is attempting to prove numbers of the form 10^n-17, please let
>> me know.
> Nathan: by "prove" you presumably mean "find probable prime", since there
> are only a few thousand values of n that are /provable/ primes with
> today's best technology (PRIMO).
Primo this summer, in order to stay on the top 20 list for the program.
There are two PRP of that form, and I just wanted to make sure nobody was
working on them.
So far we know that 10^n-17 is prime for n=1, 2, 3, 6 (found with PFGW),
n= 30, 40, 86, 128, 264, 639, and 912 (found with Primo and PFGW)
1932 will be known later today, and n=4650 and 5038 I am probably going to
test this summer.
Thanks for pointing me to Milton's work. I doubt he'll be beating me to
any finds since when I knew him he had little interest in actually proving