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

wrong comment in db?

Expand Messages
  • yummie_55555
    When making an generalized Woodall prime record history i noticed the prime 187·2^47877-1 in Chris Database. (http://primes.utm.edu/primes/page.php?id=13129)
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      When making an generalized Woodall prime record history i noticed the
      prime 187·2^47877-1 in Chris' Database.
      (http://primes.utm.edu/primes/page.php?id=13129)

      Either i am totally studip and i overlook something or that prime is
      actually not a generalized woodall, though it has that comment. I
      can't find out the base for it: 187·2^47877-1 = 23936*4^23935-1 is
      pretty near, but no gw too.

      The interessting is: That number was the largest prime marked gen
      Woodall for one week from 27.March 2000 to 3.April 2000.

      So, i am i right and that was not justified.

      Thomas Wolter
    • Chris Caldwell
      ... I get this often; folks sometimes even object that their own primes are not generalized Woodalls. I ll add a note to the top-20 page and maybe the
      Message 2 of 2 , Jun 2, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, yummie_55555 wrote:
        > When making an generalized Woodall prime record history i noticed the
        > prime 187·2^47877-1 in Chris' Database.
        > (http://primes.utm.edu/primes/page.php?id=13129)
        >
        > Either i am totally studip and i overlook something or that prime is
        > actually not a generalized woodall, though it has that comment. I
        > can't find out the base for it: 187·2^47877-1 = 23936*4^23935-1 is
        > pretty near, but no gw too.

        I get this often; folks sometimes even object that their own primes are
        not generalized Woodalls. I'll add a note to the top-20 page and maybe
        the glossary to help folks identify these.

        In the example above the key is to note 187*2^5 divides 47877-5 (quotient
        8), so the number could be written:

        (187*2^5) * (2^8) ^ (187*2^5) - 1

        I think you also created a false dichotomy above--you are not totally
        stupid for missing this, I know I can't spot many of them without a
        program! So that is why my system is automated as best I can make it.


        Chris
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.