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

Re: for all mathematicians

Expand Messages
  • djbroadhurst
    ... Indeed it is. Yet we cannot prove that ... is composite. We do know that its smallest prime divisor is larger than the largest known prime:
    Message 1 of 5 , Dec 13, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,
      "maximilian_hasler" <maximilian.hasler@...> wrote:

      > > 2 ^ ( 2 ^ ( 2 ^ 65536 ) ) + 3
      > is divisible by 81307.

      Indeed it is. Yet we cannot prove that

      > 2 ^ ( 2 ^ ( 2 ^ 65536 ) ) + 1

      is composite. We do know that its smallest prime
      divisor is larger than the largest known prime:
      http://primes.utm.edu/glossary/page.php?sort=FermatDivisor

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