FW: [PrimeNumbers] Prime Question
- After checking Reisel's page I found 26459 & 164987 which are the only other
prime ns under 191600.
> -----Original Message-----[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> From: Harvey, Steven
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 2:15 PM
> To: 'paulmillscv@...'
> Subject: RE: [PrimeNumbers] Prime Question
> I have 3*2^7559-1 is prime & 7559 is prime.
> sharvey@... stevenharvey@...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: paulmillscv@... [SMTP:paulmillscv@...]
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 11:33 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: [PrimeNumbers] Prime Question
> Hi to all,
> By popular request, a new Yahoo Groups number. This one could be
> It is 3*2^n -1 n is prime. Note a certain similarity to the
> one and only 2^n -1 (Mersenne). Note also the 3,2,1. So here are
> the first 3Mn numbers of note.
> (To start the first one for any n is 3*2^18 +- 1 A twin pair!)
> Then the first 3Mn is 3*2^43 -1 then n=103 and the record stands
> at n=827
> Yes, 3*2^827 -1 is prime.
> Let's give a big hand to Proth and NewPGen courtesy of Gallot and
> Jobling. (I knew it had to be easier to find titans) If you can't
> beat them join them. So here are my first 2 titans
> 3*2^4204 -1 (1267 digits) and 3*2^5134 - 1. (1546 digits)
> Not an ounce of theory so far!
> Also, can we stand back and appreciate just what Proth and NewPGen
> have accomplished? In a few seconds (OK, 10 seconds) Proth/NewPGen
> have found a 3Mn (n = 827) which is not a million miles away from
> Mn . It took all of us until 1952 (Robinson) to find 2^607 - 1. I
> mean, this is PROGRESS! I think I can wait another 10 years and
> type in 2^10^9 - 1 to find (is PRIME!?) in just a few seconds. I
> can't wait!
> OK, so here is the puzzle of the moment. Can anyone improve on
> n=827 n must be prime. I haven't checked the range n= 5000 - 10000
> so go for it!
> Paul Mills
> Unsubscribe by an email to: email@example.com
> The Prime Pages : http://www.primepages.org