Re: [PrimeNumbers] wrong comment in db?
- On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, yummie_55555 wrote:
> When making an generalized Woodall prime record history i noticed theI get this often; folks sometimes even object that their own primes are
> prime 187·2^47877-1 in Chris' Database.
> 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.
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.