Slashdot Mirror


42nd Mersenne Prime Confirmed

Jazzer_Techie writes "The possible Mersenne Prime discovered last week has now been confirmed. This prime has 7,816,230 digits, which makes it not only the largest Mersenne Prime, but also the largest prime of any kind ever discovered. For those who don't want to take time to read the article, the prime is 2^25,964,951 - 1."

296 comments

  1. 2^25,964,951 - 1 by Joey+Patterson · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can anyone post those digits in case the site gets /.'ed?

    1. Re:2^25,964,951 - 1 by mrspecialhead · · Score: 5, Funny

      Here's an Exclusive Binary Preview!

      11111111111111111111111111111111
      11111111111111111111111111111111
      11111111111111111111111111111111...

      --Your free demo has expired. For access to the rest of this content, please subscribe!--

    2. Re:2^25,964,951 - 1 by Eric+Smith · · Score: 5, Funny

      My web site has the full expansion in binary. It's over 25 megabytes, so please don't download it unless you really need it.

    3. Re:2^25,964,951 - 1 by yincrash · · Score: 1, Funny

      it turns out that, yes, 25,964,950 1's text encoded is infact ~25 megabytes. i bet i could losslessly compress that with a 1:2000000 ratio.

    4. Re:2^25,964,951 - 1 by homeobocks · · Score: 1
      Wouldn't it just be easier to say, in something client-side (like Javascript), print out a bunch of digits 1? In C it would be:
      for(i = 0, i < 7816230, i++) printf("1");
      --
      MOUNT TAPE U1439 ON B3, NO RING
    5. Re:2^25,964,951 - 1 by homeobocks · · Score: 1

      Correction: just replace 7816230 with the number of binary digits.

      --
      MOUNT TAPE U1439 ON B3, NO RING
    6. Re:2^25,964,951 - 1 by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hope your web server has gzip and/or bzip compression...

    7. Re:2^25,964,951 - 1 by bird603568 · · Score: 2, Informative

      actually its 25964951 :)

    8. Re:2^25,964,951 - 1 by neurophys · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just started my PC to compute it:
      echo "2^25964951-1"|bc -l>prime

      If you put 'time' in front, the system will tell you how long it takes.

      Just checked that 2^1000000 took about 8,5s, but it is not linear. I expect it to take some 15 minutes one my AMD64

    9. Re:2^25,964,951 - 1 by KinkifyTheNation · · Score: 3, Funny

      So can I...

      2^25,964,951 - 1
      Voila!

    10. Re:2^25,964,951 - 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Sounds a bit like my little (pretty useless) text compression test, I did a batch script that copied a file into another 1024 times (where the first file was a plain-text file with just a "b"), then I did the same with the new file, and then the same thing again, in the end getting a single 1 GiB file filled with the same character over and over again (bbbbb...).
      Now that's all nice and such, but there's one more step to go, compressing that 1 GiB file... to one rar archive, with a grand size of 65,7 KiB (67 294 bytes)

    11. Re:2^25,964,951 - 1 by Joey+Patterson · · Score: 0

      I just tried compressing the 25 MB file using Windows compressed (zipped) folders. Turns out that it gets the 25,357 KB (~25 MB) file down to only 25 kilobytes.

    12. Re:2^25,964,951 - 1 by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      No problem. I just asked the C compiler, and it told me the result is 25964948.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    13. Re:2^25,964,951 - 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      That doesn't look like any syntatically valid form of "C" that I'm familiar with.

    14. Re:2^25,964,951 - 1 by neurophys · · Score: 1

      It took 21m58.6s. The file is 8046119 byte. It starts:122164630061277948107753

      and ends:6698933257280577077247

      Pål

    15. Re:2^25,964,951 - 1 by neurophys · · Score: 1

      Just a detail. The reason for the deviant filesize is almost 115000 '\' - one per line

      Pål

    16. Re:2^25,964,951 - 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      25 megabytes? Couldn't you compress it?

    17. Re:2^25,964,951 - 1 by MattJakel · · Score: 1

      I was interested in this same question, so I brought up a handy Python interactive prompt and typed:

      (2 ** 25964951) - 1

      Let's just say it's been over five minutes and it's still calculating.

    18. Re:2^25,964,951 - 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, I had to Force Quit Safari!

    19. Re:2^25,964,951 - 1 by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      Can anyone post those digits in case the site gets /.'ed?

      In binary, it's just a fucking lot of 1's (25,964,951 of them, almost 26 megabytes). If you could even count them all to be sure it's right, I'd be incredibly impressed. In decimal it's still really huge and looks incredibly complicated.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    20. Re:2^25,964,951 - 1 by Legume · · Score: 1
      Do it yourself:
      echo "2^25964951-1" | bc > prime.txt
      Depending on your net connection speed and CPU speed it's probably quicker to download it, but really, how soon do you need to be able to see the entire string of random-looking digits for yourself?
    21. Re:2^25,964,951 - 1 by DJStealth · · Score: 1

      Can you post the 2's compliment of that? :)

    22. Re:2^25,964,951 - 1 by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      #include

      int main() {
      int i;
      for (i = 0; i < 25964951; i++) {
      printf("1");
      }
      printf("\n");
      return 0;
      }

      Is that better? :)

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    23. Re:2^25,964,951 - 1 by hellings · · Score: 1

      Interesting... Windows puts up a 25K compressed folder of the file, while bzip2 outputs an 85 byte file. Industry leaders lead, once again.

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. "Whatever is said in Latin, seems prfound."
    24. Re:2^25,964,951 - 1 by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      Or even:

      #include <stdio.h>

      main() {
      int i;
      for(i=0; printf(i<25964951 ? "1" : ""); i++)
      ;
      }
      Nice sig, by the way.. ;)
    25. Re:2^25,964,951 - 1 by Nasheer · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that BZip2 has no "filesystem" capabilities, so you'll need to TAr ir first.

      --
      - Please, ignore everything written above.
    26. Re:2^25,964,951 - 1 by DJStealth · · Score: 1

      If anyone didn't get it, the 2's compliment is just 0's 25964951 of them :)

    27. Re:2^25,964,951 - 1 by hellings · · Score: 1

      Adding the tarring step to the M42.txt file to get M42.txt.tbz2 gives me 159 bytes. Using gzip alone gives me 25K (25,264 bytes) and a tgz file gives me about the same (25,335 bytes). Interesting comparison. If the file is in decimal then I get the following comparison: original file: 8,046,119 bytes bzip2 file: 3,504,368 bytes gzip file: 3,795,422 bytes The tar files that accompany are only about 1k larger than the zip files themselves.

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. "Whatever is said in Latin, seems prfound."
    28. Re:2^25,964,951 - 1 by Nasheer · · Score: 1

      Finished here too. Took 1h14m on my Duron 1GHz.

      --
      - Please, ignore everything written above.
    29. Re:2^25,964,951 - 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sad when you reply to your own joke, and you're wrong.

      The 2's complement is 0000...001
      The 1's complement is all 0's

    30. Re:2^25,964,951 - 1 by daegol · · Score: 1

      How about this?

      #!/bin/env python
      import sys
      for i in xrange(25964951):
      sys.stdout.write('1')

      Or to see it in decimal:

      python -c "print 2 ** 25964951 - 1"

      May take a while.

    31. Re:2^25,964,951 - 1 by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      python -c "print 2 ** 25964951 - 1"

      May take a while.

      No doubt! I gave it over an hour on my AMD 2600+ and still no result.. I attribute it less to Python's interpreted nature than the immense nature of the number in question. I still find it simply incredible that a number so huge may be indivisible.

    32. Re:2^25,964,951 - 1 by CodeMonkey4Hire · · Score: 1
      You could also try
      echo "2^25964951-1" | bc
      - or -
      dc -e "2 25964951 ^ 1 - p"
      although I was too impatient to let them finish (> 15 minutes on a workstation).
      --

      Let's go Hurricanes!!! 2006 Stanley Cup Champions!!!
    33. Re:2^25,964,951 - 1 by storm916 · · Score: 1

      The Duglas Prime, yea!

    34. Re:2^25,964,951 - 1 by sp3tt · · Score: 1

      In python:

      print "1" * 25964951

  2. Man. by DrEldarion · · Score: 5, Funny

    Those math freaks sure are a bunch of GIMPS.

    1. Re:Man. by JNighthawk · · Score: 0

      Flamebait mods here are an example of typical Slashdot mentality of "Mod/Post First, RTFA Later."

      --
      Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.
    2. Re:Man. by extra+the+woos · · Score: 1

      No they aren't. The gimp's sleepin. What, wake it up you say? /sorry

      --
      replacing it with NEW Folger's Crystals! (lets see if they notice the difference)
    3. Re:Man. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better than all the WIMPs and Winos in the Physics department!

    4. Re:Man. by halivar · · Score: 2, Funny

      Those math freaks sure are a bunch of GIMPS.

      All I know is this: Stephen Hawking is married to a real woman and I'm not.

    5. Re:Man. by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      It blows my mind that a number as big as 25,964,951 cannot be divided by any other number! (excepting 1, or itself)

      Inconceivable!

    6. Re:Man. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      although 25,964,951 is prime, what's even more amazing is that 2^25,964,951-1 is prime, it's about 7.8 million digits and it's only divisible by one and itself!
      you can download it from http://www.mersenne.org/

    7. Re:Man. by ahknight · · Score: 1

      Inconceivable!

      You mean indivisible. :)

  3. Re:prime post by dhakbar · · Score: 2, Funny

    #11788398

    That's an even number, so your post wasn't prime. Liar!

  4. fp? by Mastadex · · Score: 0, Interesting

    2^25,964,951-1th post!!

    Ha, eat that first post guy!

    --
    A morning without coffee is like something without something else.
  5. OMG by computerme · · Score: 4, Funny

    No Way!!

    2^25,964,951 - 1.

    Is my password! Oh Man, I guess everyone knows it now....

    1. Re:OMG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Dont worry, I've changed it for you. :)

    2. Re:OMG by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      In what base? If it is in binary you wouldn't be able to get it past the lameness filter.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    3. Re:OMG by confused+philosopher · · Score: 1

      "2^25,964,951 - 1.
      Is my password! "

      Really? That's the password on my luggage! Now I have to get my dark sith to change it for me!

      --
      Why slashdot? Why not?
  6. And useful, too! by Eric+Smith · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now we can use the 41st and 42nd for a 50 megabit RSA key.

    1. Re:And useful, too! by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Isn't that kinda overkill?
      I'm going to use 2 as the second prime.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    2. Re:And useful, too! by lgw · · Score: 1

      George W. Bush The Great Divider

      Your sig is quite humorous in the context of a story on prime numbers. ;)

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:And useful, too! by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      Especially since GWB is the 42nd U.S. President (not counting Grover Cleveland's second term).. coincidence?

    4. Re:And useful, too! by lgw · · Score: 1

      ROFL! Didn't even think of that.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:And useful, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to be pedantic, 2 is the 1st prime, not the second. 1 is not a prime number.

    6. Re:And useful, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missunderstood. RSA requires two primes. I meant I would use this new prime as the first of two primes for RSA and I'd use 2 as the second of two primes for RSA.

  7. time to verify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    how many hours did it take to verify?

  8. Uh ohhh by Skiron · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    SCO are looking at legal action due to them copying, publishing AND comfirming their binary Linux code...

  9. Its the answer! by Rs_Conqueror · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is the 42nd one? I wonder if that means anything...

    1. Re:Its the answer! by neil.pearce · · Score: 1

      42nd found, but not necessarily the 42nd in sequential order, since there are still gaps to be filled in below it.

    2. Re:Its the answer! by igny · · Score: 1

      Clinton must be proud.

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
    3. Re:Its the answer! by freitasm · · Score: 1

      The OP was obviously referring to the Question... But what is the question now?

      [For you others, check Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy]

    4. Re:Its the answer! by zoloto · · Score: 1

      THIS IS THE Answer to life, the universe and everything

      !!! YES! Douglas Adams would be proud!

    5. Re:Its the answer! by jimmydevice · · Score: 0

      Yes,
      This is the last Mersenne prime found. The insects will take a couple 100 milion years to figure out VHDL.

      Jim Davis.

      He is Your God, They are Your Rules, You Burn in Hell

    6. Re:Its the answer! by zcat_NZ · · Score: 1

      Thanks for nothing guys; the previous universe was already quite bizzare and inexplicable enough...

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
    7. Re:Its the answer! by Bake · · Score: 1

      Relax, obviously they haven't found the Answer yet. Otherwise the universe would once again have been replaced by something even more bizzare and inexplicable. :-)

  10. Participate in the search by Drooling_Sheep · · Score: 5, Informative

    GIMPS (Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search

    They have Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, and OS/2 clients.

    1. Re:Participate in the search by Aeiri · · Score: 0, Troll

      I would rather use my CPU cycles for research on protein folding, a serious problem that can cause disease, than finding prime numbers.

    2. Re:Participate in the search by LinuxHam · · Score: 1

      You have the right idea , but why limit yourself?

      --
      Intelligent Life on Earth
  11. 42!!! by MicroBerto · · Score: 3, Funny

    This one contains all the information to the meaning of life, the universe, and everything!

    --
    Berto
    1. Re:42!!! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Looking at the binary representation, I conclude: Life, the universe and everything are all one, just repeated many times.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:42!!! by TimeTraveler1884 · · Score: 1

      But what was the question again?

    3. Re:42!!! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think it was something along the line of "What is the product of the sixth and the nineth Mersenne Prime?"

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    4. Re:42!!! by f00zy · · Score: 1

      Wait until you see 43. It undoes time and cleans dishes.

    5. Re:42!!! by tehshen · · Score: 1
      131071 * 2305843009213693951 = 302229149060648079851521
      --
      Guy asked me for a quarter for a cup of coffee. So I bit him.
  12. Why? by Ensign+Regis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not trying to be a troll here, but of what possible value is a really big prime number? Is there any practical value to it, or is it just an interesting bit of trivia?

    1. Re:Why? by irokitt · · Score: 4, Funny
      ...of what possible value is a really big prime number?


      I believe the search for Mersenne primes continues solely for the purpose of impressing women in bars. No, I don't think it would work either.
      --
      If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
    2. Re:Why? by MC68000 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The best reason for large Mersenne prime numbers that I can think of is that it gives data for mathematicians to formulate conjectures. There are many consequences to theoretical breakthroughs in the field of prime numbers, especially in the field of encryption, as the RSA algorithm requires large prime numbers.

      Note: This new prime number by itself is USELESS for encryption. There are only 42 Mersenne numbers, so they can't be used because there are insufficiently many.

      --
      E = m c^3 Don't drink and derive E = m c^3
    3. Re:Why? by Skiron · · Score: 1

      A lot of it is to do with number theory research. No one knows the extent of prime numbers, nor indeed an algorithm to find them.

    4. Re:Why? by XanC · · Score: 1

      The extent is known: there are infinitely many. The algorithm is another question.

    5. Re:Why? by djfray · · Score: 1

      Algorithms, no. Unless you consider a computer program performing delineation, or some other method of prime hunting an algorithm(technically it is!), ex: the Sieve of Erastothnes

      --
      This sig is o Unfunny o Funny
    6. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      There are only 42 Mersenne numbers

      And where in the world did you get that impression? There are an infinite number of Mersenne primes. I'd list them here, but unfortunately there is only a finite space available.

    7. Re:Why? by MC68000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There actually are very good algorithms for finding primality. It has reached the point where proving a number prime is MUCH easier than finding any factors of it.

      There are two types. One is deterministic, and will give you absolute proof that the tested number is prime. The other type is probability based. These are more popular. The most widely used is known as the Miller-Rabin test. It is known to be absolutely correct for all n 3*10^16. For larger n, it will never report a composite to be prime, but there is a small (around 10^-20) chance the "prime" number will be composite. There are no known prime numbers that Miller-Rabin reports to be composite.

      In the case of Mersenne numbers, it's a different story. There is a deterministic algorithm called the Lucas-Lehmer test. This will determine whether 2^p-1 is prime with O-notation p! The catch of course is that it only works for Mersenne numbers.

      --
      E = m c^3 Don't drink and derive E = m c^3
    8. Re:Why? by azaris · · Score: 1

      The density of primes is well known by the Prime Number Theorem. To find them in practice takes simply lots of tries and probabilistic tests to weed out the composites. The problem with primes is not finding them but finding the prime factors of an arbitrary integer.

    9. Re:Why? by Ayaress · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe there are an infinite number, but there are 42 found. I'd list them here, but at least one of them is seven million digits and my 8 key is broken.

    10. Re:Why? by adrianbaugh · · Score: 1

      You can prove not only that there is an algorithm to find the primes, but there is an algorithm to find any sequence of numbers you care to produce. It's a really ugly formula though (and generates lots of spurious negative answers), and not particularly interesting. See "The Music of the Primes" (search on Amazon or somewhere) for details.

      --
      "'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
      - JRR Tolkien.
    11. Re:Why? by PDAllen · · Score: 1

      Unless it's been settled recently, there _might_ be an infinite number of Mersenne primes, but last I heard no-one had proved that.

    12. Re:Why? by Coryoth · · Score: 1

      It has reached the point where proving a number prime is MUCH easier than finding any factors of it.

      Primality is in P in fact. It is just not a very conveniently low exponent (about O(n^9) dropping to about O(n^6) for most cases) so porbablistic algorithms are still the popular way to go.

      Jedidiah.

    13. Re:Why? by jcgf · · Score: 1

      If your 8 key is broken, how did you type that?

    14. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For larger n, it will never report a composite to be prime, but there is a small (around 10^-20) chance the "prime" number will be composite.

      So, which is it? If you have a "prime" that's really composite, what will the test say?

    15. Re:Why? by cryptor3 · · Score: 1

      There are no known prime numbers that Miller-Rabin reports to be composite.

      I'm certain that you can prove that no prime numbers will ever be reported composite by the definition of the test, but I don't have any number theory texts around me. I'm sure you can just look it up online. Or probably in Schneier's Applied Cryptography, too.

      If it didn't do that, the test would be useless.

    16. Re:Why? by sylvester · · Score: 1

      My recollection of Miller-Rabin is that, for each iteration, it returns either "Composite" or "Probably prime."

      With each iteration, you increase a power of 1/2 that your "unknown" number is actually prime. So if it makes it through 20 iterations, it's 1/2^20 that it's composite, and 1 - 1/2^20 that it's prime.

      I'm not sure where the grandparent got his 10^-20 number.

    17. Re:Why? by fredrikj · · Score: 1

      For larger n, it will never report a composite to be prime, but there is a small (around 10^-20) chance the "prime" number will be composite.

      Actually you got that first statement the wrong way around (and the second one right; they're in conflict with each other if you think about it). The Miller-Rabin test may report a composite to be prime, but may never report a prime to be composite.

      Also, the chance is (1/4)^n, where n is the number of bases you test the number against. So if you choose more bases, the probability decreases exponentially.

    18. Re:Why? by onemorechip · · Score: 4, Funny

      It has reached the point where proving a number prime is MUCH easier than finding any factors of it.

      Unless the number in question is composite. In that case, it is MUCH easier to find factors of it, than to prove that it is a prime.

      --
      But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
    19. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it isn't his 8 key that is broken, but rather his 9 key. He couldn't type the 9, so he used the 8 instead. OK?

    20. Re:Why? by Sneftel · · Score: 1

      It has reached the point where proving a number prime is MUCH easier than finding any factors of it.

      Great! Now all we have to do is find a way to prove that ALL numbers are prime, and our factoring needs will be a thing of the past!

      --
      The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
    21. Re:Why? by asyncster · · Score: 1

      Uh, no.

      Finding factors is a HARD problem.That's the whole point of RSA encryption. A person's public key is a composite number. If finding factors of a composite number was easy, then RSA would be broken.

    22. Re:Why? by AnyoneEB · · Score: 1

      But proving a composite number to be prime is impossible, so any possible task would be easier. The grandparent was a joke. Laugh.

      --
      Centralization breaks the internet.
    23. Re:Why? by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      alt56 perhaps? :P

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    24. Re:Why? by skybird0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The question of the number of Mersenne primes is open. It might very well be finite.

    25. Re:Why? by max+born · · Score: 1

      Perhaps that's why there's no Nobel Price for mathematics.

    26. Re:Why? by chaoticset · · Score: 1

      I believe prime numbers are of some tangential use in a little-known field called cryptography.

      --

      -----------------------
      You are what you think.
    27. Re:Why? by vandy1 · · Score: 1

      You're talking about the wrong test - the Fermat test. What you wanted was the Miller Rabin test. The Parent was correct - fuck, I wrote a program implementing both in first semester, first year!!

      Cheers,

      the Vandy Monster

    28. Re:Why? by PMoonlite · · Score: 1

      While the Lucas-Lehmer algorithm requires p iterations, there is no O(p) implementation of it, because the time required for each step of the calculation is based on the size of p (simply because larger numbers take longer to operate on). In this case I believe each operation is O(p) which would mean that the entire process is O(p^2). If the process were simply linear many more Mersenne primes would have been found by now.

      --
      -- Moderation in all things, exceptions to all rules --
    29. Re:Why? by MC68000 · · Score: 1

      10^-20 comes from the typical number of bases used. I forgot the exact number, but we obviously have a trade-off between how certain we want to be of the number's primality and computational time.

      --
      E = m c^3 Don't drink and derive E = m c^3
    30. Re:Why? by fredrikj · · Score: 1

      Nope, I'm right. (In fact, I've written a program implementing the Miller-Rabin test myself.)

      If you read the Wikipedia article, you'll see:

      It can be shown that there always exists a strong witness for any odd composite n, and that at least 3/4 of the values for a are strong witnesses for the compositeness of n.

      Also Mathworld says:

      If N multiple independent tests are performed on a composite number, then the probability that it passes each test is 1/4^N or less.

      And according to this page:

      Choose k independent integers a1,...ak which 1 < ar < n - 1. Then if (odd) n passes the Rabin-Miller test for each base ar, the probability that n is composite is no more than 1/4^k.

    31. Re:Why? by thelenm · · Score: 1

      of what possible value is a really big prime number?

      Here's one possible value: 2^25,964,951 - 1.

      --
      Use Ctrl-C instead of ESC in Vim!
    32. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are strong in the ways of the force.

    33. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps that's why there's no Nobel Price for mathematics.

      The short response: Although there has been some scandalous speculation and conspiracy theories, no one seems to know why.

      The long response: http://www.snopes.com/science/nobel.htm.

    34. Re:Why? by lgw · · Score: 1

      OTOH, I do believe I'd fall for a woman who *was* impressed by this!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    35. Re:Why? by ockegheim · · Score: 1

      Here's a link related to the Miller-Rabin for those with better maths than my good self. Whoever finally works out primes will be a famous man or woman.

      Oh, and Slashdot is for people whose first response is "Cool!", not "Why?"

      --
      I’m old enough to remember 16K of memory being described as “whopping”
    36. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, finding a factor of a prime is pretty hard too, which is what led to great-grandparent's very cool joke. Thought we should spell it out, for the benefit of the clue-impaired.

    37. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is some practical value. For example, several random number generators have periods that are exactly (or some function of) Mersenne primes. The aptly named "Mersenne Twister" is perhaps the most common these days, and if you need a good random number generator for some non-cryptographc reason (maybe a game or a scientific simulation) then you should take a look at it here

      Now, the RNG you can download there has period 2^19937 (a Mersenne prime), but every time someone discovers a bigger Mersenne prime, we can construct a new Mersenne Twister that'll take even longer before it starts repeating itself.

      FWIW, Mersenne Twister is not the only random number generator to require Mersenne primes. Compagner has another good one, and there are a few others...

    38. Re:Why? by vandy1 · · Score: 1

      Oops - just realised I misread your statement. Forget I said it. Indeed, it never misreports a composite, but may misreport a prime.

      Classic example of Monte Carlo algorithm.

      Cheers.

    39. Re:Why? by hugesmile · · Score: 1
      Also, finding a factor of a prime is pretty hard too,

      Actually, your statement is false. The beauty of THIS Mersenne Prime is that each and every binary digit of the 42nd Mersenne Prime (and I checked all 25 Million of them)... each bit ends up BEING a factor of EVERY prime. So finding a factor of a prime is trivial.

      Now, finding a non-trivial factor of a prime number is a little bit of a challenge. I'll work on that over lunch.

    40. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shoot, the message number of the parent post missed being a prime by 1! (11793351 is prime....)

    41. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll list them all, here they all are:
      2^2-1
      2^3-1
      2^5-1
      2^7-1
      2^13-1
      2^17-1
      2^19-1
      2^31-1
      2^61-1
      2^89-1
      2^107-1
      2^127-1
      2^521-1
      2^607-1
      2^1,279-1
      2^2,203-1
      2^2,281-1
      2^3,217-1
      2^4,253-1
      2^4,423-1
      2^9,689-1
      2^9,9 41-1
      2^11,213-1
      2^19,937-1
      2^21,701-1
      2^23,209 -1
      2^44,497-1
      2^86,243-1
      2^110,503-1
      2^132,049 -1
      2^216,091-1
      2^756,839-1
      2^859,433-1
      2^1,257 ,787-1
      2^1,398,269-1
      2^2,976,221-1
      2^3,021,377- 1
      2^6,972,593-1
      2^13,466,917-1
      2^20,996,011-1
      2^24,036,583-1
      2^25,964,951-1

    42. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, as far as I remember there has never been a proof that there are an infinite number of Mersenne Primes.

    43. Re:Why? by phyruxus · · Score: 1
      He typed the glasses key. duh...

      8)

      --
      "A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
      "d'Oh!" ~Homer
    44. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobel Prize

  13. ginormous by unihedron · · Score: 1, Troll

    That's a bit too large to fit on my poster! http://www.unihedron.com/projects/primes/index.php

  14. In related primetime news... by Joey+Patterson · · Score: 0

    Use this tool to determine if the ID number of your /. comment is prime!

  15. Might not be the 42nd largest by MarkByers · · Score: 4, Informative

    It is confirmed that it is a prime, but it hasn't yet been confirmed that it is the 42nd largest prime, because some numbers have not been checked.

    From TFA:

    However, note that the region between the 39th and 40th known Mersenne primes has not been completely searched, so it is not known if M20,996,011 is actually the 40th Mersenne prime.

    --
    I'll probably be modded down for this...
    1. Re:Might not be the 42nd largest by Eric+Smith · · Score: 4, Informative
      Of course it's not the 42nd largest prime. It's not even the 42nd largest known prime. It is the largest known prime.

      It is easily proven that there ISN'T a 42nd largest prime, because there isn't a largest prime.

    2. Re:Might not be the 42nd largest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't that be "42nd smallest"? If it was the 42nd largest, we'd know that there are 41 bigger than it.

    3. Re:Might not be the 42nd largest by MarkByers · · Score: 1

      Yep!

      To be precise, the 42nd smallest *Mersenne* prime.

      Thanks for the correction.

      --
      I'll probably be modded down for this...
    4. Re:Might not be the 42nd largest by djfray · · Score: 1

      No, it is the largest confirmed prime. You can't compare unconfirmed primes versus confirmed primes

      --
      This sig is o Unfunny o Funny
    5. Re:Might not be the 42nd largest by psb777 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Very poor moderation: This posting is OBVIOUSLY incorrect.

      --
      Paul Beardsell
    6. Re:Might not be the 42nd largest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > because there isn't a largest prime.
      sure there is. Just multiply all the primes together and add 1 -- voila: largest prime.

    7. Re:Might not be the 42nd largest by flynt · · Score: 1

      Replace "largest" with "Merseene" and your sentence would be correct. It is the largest known prime. It is a Mersenne prime. It is not the largest prime number, since there is no largest prime number. It may or may not be the 42nd Mersenne prime since they might have missed some in between (still checking). There, I think that's all the facts.

    8. Re:Might not be the 42nd largest by man_ls · · Score: 1

      Primes are odd. Odds * Odds = Odd, + 1 = Even. Even is impossible of being prime.

      Nice try though ;)

    9. Re:Might not be the 42nd largest by lanc · · Score: 1


      that's a bit - but really just slightly :) - recursive.

      --
      "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
    10. Re:Might not be the 42nd largest by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's certainly the 42nd Mersenne number which has been found to be prime (i,e, if sorting the Mersenne primes for the date when they have been found to be prime, then this one is at position 42). Note that future discoveries won't change that (except if any "known" Mersenne primes turn out not to be prime, i.e. if there was an error in the testing), the next Mersenne prime to be identified will be the 43rd, even if it's smaller.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    11. Re:Might not be the 42nd largest by pmjordan · · Score: 1

      Except for the very first prime number, which is 2, of course. Which makes the whole thing odd again.

      ~phil

    12. Re:Might not be the 42nd largest by Vicsun · · Score: 1

      What the parent meant was that it's not verified it's the 42nd mersenne prime. It's currently the largest one known, but it is possible there's another mersenne prime between the 41st and 42nd, making this the 43rd.

    13. Re:Might not be the 42nd largest by defy+god · · Score: 1

      2*2=4 , 4+1=5 (odd) Nice try though ;)

      --
      hackers of the world unite!
    14. Re:Might not be the 42nd largest by man_ls · · Score: 1

      I hereby move that the number 2 be stricken from the Integers, thus correcting my misstatement.

    15. Re:Might not be the 42nd largest by onemorechip · · Score: 1

      OK, I've already made one pedantic comment today, but I'll risk another. There is definitely not another Mersenne prime between the 41st and 42nd Mersenne primes.

      --
      But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
    16. Re:Might not be the 42nd largest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok but the prove that there isn't a largest prime.

    17. Re:Might not be the 42nd largest by Timmeh · · Score: 1

      OK.

      Bam. Kick it up a notch.

    18. Re:Might not be the 42nd largest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe preview your fucking post next time.

    19. Re:Might not be the 42nd largest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Wouldn't removing 2 from the integers make 4 a prime number?

    20. Re:Might not be the 42nd largest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you're arbitrarily ordering, I don't know what the standard way to order these things are, by the time they are discovered or by their ordinal position on the real number line. But since most things in math are time invariant so to speak, I'd guess you're wrong and that the latter is true . But perhaps not, either way, not a very interesting question.

    21. Re:Might not be the 42nd largest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um...multiplying all the prime numbers together and adding 1 does not give you the largest prime. It is the proof that there is no largest prime (exactly what the parent said) and that the number of primes is infinate.

    22. Re:Might not be the 42nd largest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Um...multiplying all the prime numbers together and adding 1 does not give you the largest prime. It is the proof that there is no largest prime (exactly what the parent said) and that the number of primes is infinate.

      you need to be able to recognize a joke!
      Oh wait, infinate? Maybe I need to be able to recognize a joke....

  16. Wow by bird603568 · · Score: 1

    Didnt Penn State hold the prior record for largest prime? I'm not sure if it was mersenne or not.

  17. Mersenne GIMPS FAQ by bigtallmofo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The FAQ for this endeavor can be seen here.

    One glaring ommission from the FAQ is "Why participate in this?" I guess if you have to ask why, there's no point in asking.

    --
    I'm a big tall mofo.
    1. Re:Mersenne GIMPS FAQ by psb777 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Good post but poor moderation: Now one can get moderated "insightful" by claiming an insight but declining to say what the insight is.

      --
      Paul Beardsell
    2. Re:Mersenne GIMPS FAQ by trurl7 · · Score: 1

      Actually, there *is* an answer as to "why". You simply didn't read it. From the "What are Mersenne primes? How are they useful?" section, I quote:


      Finding new Mersenne primes is not likely to be of any immediate practical value. This search is primarily a recreational pursuit. However, the search for Mersenne primes has proved useful in development of new algorithms, testing computer hardware, and interesting young students in math.

    3. Re:Mersenne GIMPS FAQ by spoonyfork · · Score: 1

      One glaring ommission from the FAQ is "Why participate in this?" I guess if you have to ask why, there's no point in asking.

      You're right, compared to protein folding, cancer research, and other research projects there is no good reason to run GIMPS. Heck even SETI@home could return something useful. But there are a couple reasons to do it:

      • One reason is money. The EFF put up a $100,000 prize for the discovery a 10 million digit prime.
      • Another reason is developing new algorithms and enhancing existing ones. The source code for the GIMPS project is available here.
      • Their deterministic stress test is great for checking stability of overclocked CPUs. Run ./mprime -t for a week with no errors and you're probably solid.

      My only real complaint about GIMPS is the lack of optimized AMD64 clients.

      --
      Speak truth to power.
    4. Re:Mersenne GIMPS FAQ by mblase · · Score: 1

      One glaring omission from the FAQ is "Why participate in this?" I guess if you have to ask why, there's no point in asking.

      Finding new and interesting numbers is the mathematical equivalent of climbing Mt. Everest -- you do it because they are there.

    5. Re:Mersenne GIMPS FAQ by Agret · · Score: 0

      What are Mersenne primes? How are they useful?

      A Mersenne prime is a prime number of the form 2P-1. There are 41 known Mersenne primes. The first few values of P which yield a Mersenne prime are 2, 3, 5, 7, 13 (the corresponding primes are 3, 7, 31, 127, 8191). A Lucas-Lehmer primality test is used to determine if 2P-1 is prime. For further information, visit Chris Caldwell's superb web page on Mersenne primes.

      Finding new Mersenne primes is not likely to be of any immediate practical value. This search is primarily a recreational pursuit. However, the search for Mersenne primes has proved useful in development of new algorithms, testing computer hardware, and interesting young students in math.



      From the FAQ you just linked me to none-the-less

      --
      Have you metaroderated recently?
  18. I wonder by opusman · · Score: 2, Funny

    Maybe Paris Hilton could use this prime to encrypt her phone book next time?

    1. Re:I wonder by AvantLegion · · Score: 1
      >> Maybe Paris Hilton could use this prime to encrypt her phone book next time?

      Use the number of men she's been slammed by to encrypt her cell phone data? BRILLIANT!

    2. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She actually DID use this number to encrypt her phone book. Her one flaw, she used it as a OTP (one time pad) twice.
      Phone Book XOR 42nd Mersenne Prime XOR 42 Mersenne Prime.....

  19. to put this into perspective by sgant · · Score: 2, Funny

    To put this into real-world perspective, if you had 1 dollar for every digit in the number, you would have 7,816,230 dollars!

    Wow...

    --

    "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    1. Re:to put this into perspective by kanweg · · Score: 4, Funny


      So??

      Bill G.

    2. Re:to put this into perspective by JPriest · · Score: 1

      Also, if you saved the number to an ASCII text file, the size of file would be almost 8 meg! Imagine how much CPU power it would require to crack an encryption method based on an 8 meg prime number.

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    3. Re:to put this into perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm imaginging...
      imagining..

      none at all.

      Anyway, it is not an 8 meg prime number in any useful mathematical nor cryptanalysis context.. Representing the number as ASCII really just bloats things 7 times (if you're represting with just 1 and 0 (and assuming 8 bits/char (i know ASCII is a 7-bit code)). For decimal its about 4.39x wastage.

    4. Re:to put this into perspective by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      You should be busy factoring the large prime!

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    5. Re:to put this into perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not very much; the only prime numbers that even approach 8 meg are all mersenne, so the would-be eavesdropper could look up the top couple of mersenne primes and try them as keys

    6. Re:to put this into perspective by JPriest · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the number is not the actual key. The actual key would be unknown, and hashed against some type of long mathematical algorithm involving the large prime number to produce the encrypted file. And apposed to other methods where you can brute force guess several thousand combinations per second, this would be more like combinations per minute on most hardware. So the time it would take to guess a "password" like Sl4shd0t! would be much longer than say DES due to the additional time required to verify each guess.

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
  20. Re:oh man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Mersenne primes are not suited for cryptography, so the discovery has little effect in the real world.

  21. Largest known perfect number? by The+Wookie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So does this make (2^25,964,951 - 1) * (2^25,964,950) the largest known perfect number?

    1. Re:Largest known perfect number? by MC68000 · · Score: 5, Informative

      yes. There is a theorem due to Euclid that every even perfect number (a number which is the product of all of its divisors except itself) is of the form
      (2^n-1)*2^n. The given form does not apply to odd perfect numbers, but it is unknown whether any odd perfect numbers exist.

      --
      E = m c^3 Don't drink and derive E = m c^3
    2. Re:Largest known perfect number? by Eric+Smith · · Score: 1

      Does the theorem also prove that every integer of the form (2^n-1)*2^n is a perfect number?

    3. Re:Largest known perfect number? by MC68000 · · Score: 1

      nope. Try it and see for small n. There are only as many perfect numbers known as there are Mersenne primes known.

      --
      E = m c^3 Don't drink and derive E = m c^3
    4. Re:Largest known perfect number? by CarlDenny · · Score: 4, Informative

      You mean a number which is the *sum* of all of its divisors except itself.

      A number which is the product of all its divisors except itself is, well, any product of exactly two primes.

    5. Re:Largest known perfect number? by MC68000 · · Score: 1

      doh!! My bad.

      --
      E = m c^3 Don't drink and derive E = m c^3
    6. Re:Largest known perfect number? by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      umm... the form of the formula is off.

      mersenne number is of the form:

      (2^n) -1

      when n is prime is the only time a mersenne number is prime.
      the reason for this is that you have a series of 2's. by itself, that series is divisible by 2k where k n. if you subtract 1 from the number however 2k is no longer a divisor and since the original number's factors were only of the form 2k there can be no other factors.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    7. Re:Largest known perfect number? by MC68000 · · Score: 1

      correction: The form of the number is (2^n-1)*2^(n-1)

      --
      E = m c^3 Don't drink and derive E = m c^3
    8. Re:Largest known perfect number? by Fortress · · Score: 1

      Euclid only proved that any integer of the form ((2^n)-1)*2^n is a perfect number when (2^n)-1 is prime.

      Years later, Euler proved that every even perfect number is of this form, i.e. there are no even perfect numbers not of this form.

      Wikipedia reference

    9. Re:Largest known perfect number? by lgw · · Score: 1

      The last digit of each perfet number (always 6 or 8) makes a weird and interesting pattern. I can't find that list anywhere on the web, however (Gooole has failed me). Does anyone have it handy? It's amusing to look at the pattern and attempt to predict the next value.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  22. Next Mersenne Prime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I predict that the next one that will be found will be the 43rd. You heard it here first!

    1. Re:Next Mersenne Prime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you might be wrong, since not all numbers up to this one have been searched.

  23. PARENT NOT FLAMEBAIT (GIMPS:name of project) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    GIMPS is the name of the project that apparently was responsible for finding this, so the parent was a joke, not flame bait.

  24. All that I can say is... by mat+catastrophe · · Score: 1

    "Nobody likes a math geek, Scully."

    --
    sig not found
    1. Re:All that I can say is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heh, you know your a nerd when you start dating a girl, only to realize that she looks like scully....man it rocks.... ;)

  25. I'll admit it...I was wrong... by rel4x · · Score: 1

    My brain said dupe, and the title disagreed...

    --

    Before you mod me funny, think, perhaps I was insightfully funny?
  26. "Not only" the largest Mersenne prime ... by gvc · · Score: 4, Informative

    The top three previously known primes were Mersenne. Here's a list. At the time they were discovered, almost all largest Mersenne primes have held the record for biggest prime until being edged out by another Mersenne prime. I am not sure when a non-Mersenne last had that status, but it is a rare occurrence.

    Looking for Mersennes is "picking the low fruit" when it comes to prime hunting so I question the phrasing "Not only is it the biggest Mersenne .."

    What would have been remarkable would have been if the new largest prime were *not* a Mersenne.

    1. Re:"Not only" the largest Mersenne prime ... by bird603568 · · Score: 1

      why can't they be 2^n+1? 2^1+1=3 and thats prime.

    2. Re:"Not only" the largest Mersenne prime ... by gvc · · Score: 1

      They can. It is just that Mersenne primes are fairly dense and trivial to test.

      Numbers of the form k*2^n+1 are pretty dense and also easy to test, but not the gold mine that Mersennes are.

    3. Re:"Not only" the largest Mersenne prime ... by jeffwolfe · · Score: 2, Informative

      I am not sure when a non-Mersenne last had that status, but it is a rare occurrence.

      391581*2^216193-1 was the largest known prime from 1989 to 1992. Before that, the last non-Mersenne record was 1951-1952. A complete list can be found here.

  27. not me by minus_273 · · Score: 1

    I think i will stick with 2^1 -1 :)

    --
    The war with islam is a war on the beast
    The war on terror is a war for peace
    1. Re:not me by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that isn't prime. By definition 1 is not prime.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:not me by sameerdesai · · Score: 1

      Uhuh!! 1 is not a prime number

    3. Re:not me by minus_273 · · Score: 1

      that was the point of the post. laugh its funny.

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    4. Re:not me by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Sorry. Just it is a very common misconception that one is a prime number. Just wanted to set the record straight :)

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  28. Clarification - by spudchucker · · Score: 1

    It's the largest known.

  29. Big Deal - Javascript!! by XanC · · Score: 5, Funny

    I found it by leaving my browser open for a while on this page.

    1. Re:Big Deal - Javascript!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, thanks for a great laugh!

      Amazing how much sillyness exist on the internet :-D

    2. Re:Big Deal - Javascript!! by bcmm · · Score: 1

      Thank you very much for that link.
      You've just brightened the day for hundreds of people.


      2417 and counting...

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    3. Re:Big Deal - Javascript!! by marat · · Score: 1

      Interestingly if JavaScript features string arithmetics like REXX does, it's not a worst language to choose - after all special packages like Maple V work the same way.

      Could not find square root complexity in the net (we all know it's just 1, even not so long one these days :)), but let it be N multiplications from some hints, therefore N^3 for operation, checking N^0.5 remainders is lower order of magnitude (the algorithm is deadly inefficient, but low in memory consuming). Thus you'll have to wait 3E27 iterations, or (1 microsecond per iteration) 118272929675906 years. Just don't forget to buy UPS before starting and replace batteries on time.

  30. Torrent by TorrentNinja · · Score: 4, Funny

    Here is a torrent of the prime number.. it's 25MB..

    M42.torrent

    Some good times testing bandwidth :)

    1. Re:Torrent by kyhwana · · Score: 1

      Oops, look like the tracker is down. Anyone have another tracker/.torrent?

      --
      My email addy? should be easy enough.
  31. Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are its factors?

    1. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1 and ... oh, nevermind

  32. I'm just curious... by bigmanjq · · Score: 1

    But what is the purpose of knowing such large prime numbers? How can we use this in a practical way? I'm not flaming, because I'd really like to know how this can be used.

    In any case, I like the idea of finding prime numbers just for the sake of finding them. Just like landing on the moon... because we can.

    1. Re:I'm just curious... by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      numbers of sufficient size and primacy can be used to cypher.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  33. OK, here it is by rbarreira · · Score: 1

    If you read the entry page (www.mersenne.org), you would have seen this link:

    Why participate?

    --

    The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
  34. Re:Why - algorithm by Skiron · · Score: 1

    'algorithm' was wrong to use. I meant 'formula' in that numbers need to be tested to be prime, you cannot deduce by applying a known interation - hence why it takes such a long time to compute proof of a possible candidate.

  35. A ha! by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 0

    We have a new answer to life, the universe and everything! It's 2^25,964,951 - 1

    Now.. who wants to find out what this code refers to? I'm guessing we're looking at a safe or a bank account

    --
    I like muppets.
    1. Re:A ha! by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 0

      It'll be the number of a flat in Islington.

  36. ok, so 2^2-1 by FinalCut · · Score: 1

    ok, so he can use 2^2 -1 :O)

    boy, guys around here sure are quick to jump on a mistake. he was just being funny.

    1. Re:ok, so 2^2-1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd pick 2, plain and simple :P

  37. Largest Prime? by sameerdesai · · Score: 0

    From TFA: This prime has 7,816,230 digits, which makes it not only the largest Mersenne Prime, but also the largest prime of any kind ever discovered If p1,p2.. pn are primes than p1*p2*..pn+1 is always a prime. I can always construct a prime using this to get a larger prime. I think he meant largest Mersenne prime discovered of any kind.

    1. Re:Largest Prime? by MC68000 · · Score: 4, Informative

      That is not true. The number p1*p2*....*pn+1 is either a prime, OR it has a factor that is not one of the p's. In either case, you have a new prime, which as an aside proves that there are infinitely many primes.

      --
      E = m c^3 Don't drink and derive E = m c^3
    2. Re:Largest Prime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3*5+1=16 and 16 is not prime.

    3. Re:Largest Prime? by MacGabhain · · Score: 1

      3 * 7 + 1 is prime?

    4. Re:Largest Prime? by SamBeckett · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is actually true but only if you enumerated every single prime up to your largest:

      2*3 - 1 = 5
      2*3*5 - 1 = 29
      2*3*5*7 - 1 = 209 = 11*19

      haha just kidding. /runs away

    5. Re:Largest Prime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a difference between knowing that there's a larger prime and discovering it; that's the whole point of looking for them. In the case of the example you give, it is only true that p_1*p_2*p_n+1 has a prime factor larger than p_n; the number itself need not be prime, thus you haven't necessarily found a prime larger than p_n, you've just shown that one exists.

    6. Re:Largest Prime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Not necessarily: suppose p1=2, p2=3, p3=5, p4=7, p5=11, p6=13. Then p1*p2*p3*p4*p5*p6 + 1 = 30031 = 59 * 509

      While p_1*...*p_n + 1 isn't divisible by any of the p_i, it might be divisible by some other prime.

    7. Re:Largest Prime? by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      call this new prime p.

      the largest prime is now:

      (2^p) - 1

      since for all mersenne numbers, which are of the form (2^n) -1, when n is prime the the mersenne number is prime.

      soooooooo

      do I win something?

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    8. Re:Largest Prime? by Hynee · · Score: 1
      That is not true. The number p1*p2*....*pn+1 is either a prime, OR it has a factor that is not one of the p's. In either case, you have a new prime, which as an aside proves that there are infinitely many primes.

      Looks like I'm the first one to work out why you're wrong.

      That sequence requires that you know all the primes between p_1 (==2) and p_n, but we can find primes such as the Merseine prime numbers without knowing all the prime numbers below them. In fact, it's been discussed in this thread that we don't know for sure that there aren't other Merseine primes below this one.

      --
      Damn, I already moderated this topic. Now I'll have to log in with my sock puppet to comment.
    9. Re:Largest Prime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two is a prime number

      2*3*5+1=31, which is prime.

    10. Re:Largest Prime? by MC68000 · · Score: 1

      GP is right, notice the word OR :)

      --
      E = m c^3 Don't drink and derive E = m c^3
    11. Re:Largest Prime? by vorpal22 · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. If 2 is not in {p1, ..., pn}, then clearly for all i in {1, ..., n}, pi is odd since pi is a prime number not equal to 2. Thus, p1 * ... * pn is odd, and p1 * ... * pn + 1 is even, and hence, has a divisor, 2, and is not prime.

    12. Re:Largest Prime? by Cliff.Braun · · Score: 1

      no, 2*3*5*7+1 is a prime.

    13. Re:Largest Prime? by tadmas · · Score: 1

      since for all mersenne numbers, which are of the form (2^n) -1, when n is prime the the mersenne number is prime.

      Um, does that mean 11 is not prime? 2^11 - 1 = 2047 = 23 * 89.

      So, unfortunately, you'll still need to check if M(M(25964951)) is prime. Good luck -- let us know how that turns out! ;)

    14. Re:Largest Prime? by chiok · · Score: 0

      We don't know all the primes up to this Mersenne Prime. We don't even know what 'n' is here. So, we haven't discovered a prime greater than this Mersenne Prime.

    15. Re:Largest Prime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pi is odd since pi is a prime number not equal to 2

      You learn something new every day ;)

  38. Darren Aronofski section? by MSBob · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one who was surprised to see a Darren Aronofski dedicated section on slashdot? Not that I'd disapprove... Darren's a supertalented director and I recommend PI to any slashdot geek.

    --
    Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
    1. Re:Darren Aronofski section? by popo · · Score: 0

      On what planet is Darren a "supertalented director"?

      Give me one example. "Pi"?

      Pff.. Yawn.

      --
      ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    2. Re:Darren Aronofski section? by hunterx11 · · Score: 1

      And Requiem for a Dream . True, only two movies, but I certainly look forward to seeing his next.

      --
      English is easier said than done.
    3. Re:Darren Aronofski section? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Yes, sometimes the best movies come from directors who don't put out 3 movies a year. Look at Tarantino, Kubrick, Tim Burton, as well as many others i'm probably forgetting.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    4. Re:Darren Aronofski section? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Isn't he working on the Sandman movie? Very few people could understand the darkness in that comic.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  39. Anybody else notice... by joNDoty · · Score: 3, Interesting

    that the digits make a phone number?? 225-964-9511 used to dial the residence of a man in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

    Now all you get is "the number you have dialed is not a working number"

    Could this be the first telephone slashdotting in history!?

    1. Re:Anybody else notice... by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Except perhaps 867-5309.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  40. 1 is not a prime by tetromino · · Score: 1

    because by definition, primes are elements of your current ring that generate a proper ideal. The ideal generated by a unit element in the ring is obviously the entire ring, i,e. not proper; and in the ring of integers, 1 is most definitely a unit.

    Please take a math class before posting on this subject.

    1. Re:1 is not a prime by wwest4 · · Score: 3, Funny

      You know, with an attitude like yours, you really missed your calling as a nerd battle rapper.

    2. Re:1 is not a prime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that how primenem started out before he got famous?

    3. Re:1 is not a prime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Please take a math class before posting on this subject."

      Even most nerds only get as far as vector calc, and never take any set theory, number theory, complex vars or analysis at all. Shame.

    4. Re:1 is not a prime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please take a math class before posting on this subject.

      Please remove vibrator from ass before reading slashdot

  41. and our final news of today... by e**(i+pi)-1 · · Score: 1

    ... QWest announced to have solved their IT problems. Delayed phone connection times had appeared already in 1998, when the company was called US West.

  42. Thanks a lot... by blmatthews · · Score: 1

    How about a warning if you're going spoil the ending.

    :-)

  43. So, we have the number.... by jack_canada · · Score: 0, Redundant

    What can we use it for? What's the purpose of attempting to find larger prime numbers?

    1. Re:So, we have the number.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Getting researchers laid.

  44. I have the next largest prime after this one by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

    (2^((2^25,964,951) - 1) ) -1

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    1. Re:I have the next largest prime after this one by ABeowulfCluster · · Score: 1

      Prove it.
      Mathematically.

    2. Re:I have the next largest prime after this one by Colonel+Cholling · · Score: 1

      Very clever, except not all numbers of the form 2^n-1 where n is prime are themselves prime.

      --

      I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
    3. Re:I have the next largest prime after this one by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      you are correct. I miss read the math world article about them.

      for the number to be prime, n must be prime, but that does indeed not exclude n being prime and the number being composite. it just says that you cannot have a prime mersenne number if n is composite.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  45. Okay guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm setting a pot of coffee. I'm going to prove by hand that this thing is prime. Does any one have any Tylenol Arthritis pills I can borrow?

  46. One use of Mersenne Primes... by MAdMaxOr · · Score: 3, Informative

    is the Mersenne Twister (MT), a pseudorandom number generator.

    Pseudorandom number generators are periodic, that is they start repeating the sequence of "random" numbers, after a while. This is bad. The period of the MT is as big as the Mersenne Prime that you choose to base the algorithm on. So, if you wanted a REALLY long period, you could use this new prime. In practice, however, very few people need this long of a period.

    1. Re:One use of Mersenne Primes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually in most cases "salting" the randomness is perfectly fine. Change one of the "previous" values used in calculating the next random value, replacing it with some truly random one (network timing, temperature readouts, user input etc). The "true random" sources have the serious disadvantage of being "low bandwidth" but using them to disrupt the chain of randomness before the cycle repeats, creates really unpredictable output.

    2. Re:One use of Mersenne Primes... by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      In some cases, that would not be good, since many applications want deterministic "random" sequences (also called pseudorandom sequences). This might be useful, for example, on:

      a) When you want to be able to repeeat a computation (with pseudorandom sequences, you just have to print out the randomness seed in the beginning of the program in order to do this)

      b) Online games which do repeated computations on several of the clients. In order to guarantee consistency among them, pseudorandom sequences can be used as long as the seed is chosen by the server and sent to them through the network before the game starts. I use this technique and I'm quite happy with it, meaning that I can have randomness in the game without increasing the network traffic.

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
  47. Shift the "unsed" computational power... by ChristianBaekkelund · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ok, now that we've finally found prime numbers so ridiculously large as to never have any practical purpose within any of our lifetimes, can we stop running the GIMPS screen saver, and move over all that computational power to something that might actually help mankind (within our lifetimes, even)?

    No, not SETI@home (which is about as useful as GIMPS), can't folks please switch to something like the UD/NFCR "Screensaver Lifesaver" that processes some various highly computationally intensive biological problems (ligand fitting, etc.) related to a number of issues (these are directed at cancer research, specifically):
    - http://www.chem.ox.ac.uk/curecancer.html
    - http://www2.nfcr.org/site/PageServer?pagename=scre ensaver
    - http://www.grid.org/download/gold/download.htm

    I don't know, maybe it's just me, but when I hear of all the people running GIMPS, SETI@home, etc. etc., I feel a tiny bit sad that maybe all those unused cycles could be used towards something more useful, but not as sexy...

    1. Re:Shift the "unsed" computational power... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      That's just because you don't know that the extraterrestrials know the cure for cancer, but will not tell us unless we tell them a large enough prime ...

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:Shift the "unsed" computational power... by ChristianBaekkelund · · Score: 1

      "unused" even...yeah, I can spell.

    3. Re:Shift the "unsed" computational power... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but if Big Pharma wants a supercomputing cluster, they can afford to build their own. Anything that comes out of one of these projects is going to be patented, licensed, and sold by some of the greediest corporations on earth for tens of thousands of dollars per treatment. Why should anyone make a donation to someone who is going to use it to enrich themselves at the expense of society as a whole?

    4. Re:Shift the "unsed" computational power... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's better to just let them all die than to have them possibly overpay medication!

    5. Re:Shift the "unsed" computational power... by ChristianBaekkelund · · Score: 1

      Clearly you didn't even LOOK at the URLs. Nothing to do with private corporations, everything to do with public non-profit charities + academia...like the National Foundation for Cancer Research. Yeah, I would feel real bad helping those guys!

      It's ok troll, try again.

    6. Re:Shift the "unsed" computational power... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or turn off your computer and use leave the electricity for the dialysis machines at the local hospital.

    7. Re:Shift the "unsed" computational power... by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Not until they created a unix variant of their grid software. And not until I can be sure my PC is not abused, and that there are no possible weaknesses in their programs. They can do this either by creating a Java client (hint hint) or making their software open source.

    8. Re:Shift the "unsed" computational power... by ChristianBaekkelund · · Score: 1

      The call for a *nix client is valid.

      But what do you mean by "abused"?? Do you think they're going to run other stuff on your computer or something? This isn't Spyware or anything, it's a screen saver sending data occasionally to a server at some university (or sometimes foundation/company).

      And possible weaknesses?? You're not running a server, you're running a client. The possibility for: a) anyone caring enough to try to do something malicious with some small program that a small percentage of the public will run, b) there being a possibility with the fact that you are running a client that only occasionally connects to one dedicated server.

      While a Java client could only help, and open source, sounds feasible, you can loosen the tinfoil hat a bit... :)

    9. Re:Shift the "unsed" computational power... by ChristianBaekkelund · · Score: 1

      Well, valid question:

      What would eventually be greater for the world as a whole? The energy saved by not running the computers at all?...or the results gained by using them towards problems like protein folding?

    10. Re:Shift the "unsed" computational power... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What would eventually be greater for the world as a whole? The energy saved by not running the computers at all?...or the results gained by using them towards problems like protein folding?

      I have created a distributed computing screensaver to solve this very problem. With enough computers and time, we could have the answer in less than a decade!
  48. Mmmmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's nice, dear. Do you want some tea?

  49. Re:prime post by Radio+Shack+Robot · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Klerck, it's good to see you. You old scumbag you!

    --

    Beep. Boop. Beep. You have questions. I have answers and your home address.
  50. Yea I knew that one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Geez I wish people would ask me these things first.
    ~

  51. waits..... by t0ny747 · · Score: 0

    /me types "echo "2^25964951 - 1" | bc" and waits a long time...

    --
    Taco?
  52. easy.. by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    Take that Mersenne prime, keep adding 2 onto it until you reach a new prime (it shouldn't take too long), there you have it a non-Mersenne world beating prime.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  53. Damn, I thought it said... by payndz · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...Metroid Prime. I would finally have had a new game for my Gamecube!

    --
    You must think in Russian.
  54. Nope... by rbarreira · · Score: 1

    No, because you're wrong...

    The fact that n is prime doesn't mean that 2^n-1 is prime. The converse is true though - for 2^n-1 to be a prime, n needs to be a prime.

    --

    The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
  55. And a REALLY hot cup of tea... by Ironix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    2^25,964,951 to 1 against also happens to be the finite amount of improbability needed to generate the infinite improbability drive out of thin air.

    --
    Still #1 -- Lonely Gay Geek
  56. M42.gz.gz.base64 by Morosoph · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Homegrown, gziped twice, and base 64 encoded :-)
    begin-base64 644 M42.gz.gz
    H4sICOMCIUIAA000Mi5nei4A7dw9jgEBAAXgGbZ gI1Yi0SiMZDoamy00Cgqd
    RKMWvUPYKOmdgMQB9Jxis7XolEr i7woKId9XvfId4OWVJqnUNlFuBcnOz3ew
    3/wGV6NocdoVlp8 BAAAAAAAAAPDiRv/jZHgL0fmv3e0BAAAAAAAAAK9u8JX9
    uI8 Cjv1i89llAAAAAAAAAICHzRv1+LYFyB3Oq8rwmRcFvJF1nK+mM 7PaNLwA
    +SBAu5ViAAA=
    ====
    1. Re:M42.gz.gz.base64 by barrkel · · Score: 1
      Same thing, bzip2'd once, and uuencoded:
      begin 644 M42.bz2
      M0EIH.3%!62936?Q#GK<`QM^*`*``$```""``,,P) JFF`B*FU55"*GB[DBG"A
      %(?B'/6X`
      `
      end
  57. Re:prime post by emurphy42 · · Score: 1

    Recently overheard in rec.puzzles:

    "15973846 is prime, base 28."

  58. More important discovery by phoric · · Score: 1

    The Nobel Prize in mathematics was awarded yesterday to a California professor who has discovered a new number. The number is "bleen", which he says belongs between six and seven.

    1. Re:More important discovery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -George Carlin

  59. Want pi now! by tepples · · Score: 1

    No, it's a Wobbl and Bob section, of course! Go watch an episode or two or three point one four; when come back bring Pi.

  60. All the digits! by TheEternalVortex · · Score: 1

    12216463006127794810775396403128843926736142422307 5246409537660469964558090568 61569077485126904041824640546847438710050537492630 0211252045279090179843593936 65081567696785664085904567474142 [...] 122164630061277948107753964031288439267 36142422307524640953766046996455809056861569077485 1269040418246405468474387100 50537492630021125204527909017984359393665081567696 785664085904567474142 If you care for all of them you can get them here.

  61. Oops, the last set of digits is wrong (fixed) by TheEternalVortex · · Score: 1

    Primes can't be even:

    12216463006127794810775396403128843926736142422307 5246409537660469964558090568 61569077485126904041824640546847438710050537492630 0211252045279090179843593936 65081567696785664085904567474142 [...] 385490495601035978179020911166625548392 45482841605918218299877770398697774443727671302636 0619053009303039928104331685 207750711330535159626516698933257280577077247

  62. How many primes are known? by KrugalSausage · · Score: 1

    How many are out there known so far? Where can I find an exact number? I'm curious.

    1. Re:How many primes are known? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can find the answers to many such questions at this apropriately-named site:
      http://primepages.org/

      I've been on the primes email list where I recall this being asked. Someone has done all primes up to about 10^15, and of course there are (dozens? hundreds? thousands? millions?) of known primes larger than 10^15.

    2. Re:How many primes are known? by ericcantona · · Score: 1

      there is an infinity of primes

      something known since antiquity

      for a series of primes p1, p2, p3 ...pn, the next prime (p(n+1)) can always be found : (p1 * p2 * p3 ..Pn)+1

      --
      When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown in to the sea
  63. Chudnovsky Brothers? by Schwarzchild · · Score: 1

    I wonder if Darren got his idea for the movie PI based on the exploits of two mathematicians who built a supercomputer in their spare bedroom and computed PI to billions of digits. The story was in the New Yorker but it is now here.

    --

    "sweet dreams are made of this..."

  64. No linux clients by seanvaandering · · Score: 1

    so thats out of the question ;)

  65. nature and prime by sixofonehalfdozenofa · · Score: 1

    is there any event in the natural world that follows the patterns of prime numbers? I like to think pragmatically...

    1. Re:nature and prime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a species of ape that reportedly uses prime numbers to pass secret messages to each other.

  66. Excellent, now lets use it to save the world! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that we have conquered this incredible hurdle, lets utilize this prime as god intended - to cure cancer!

  67. The Ultimate Answer to Why Participate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Why participate in this?"

    Because it's MY computer, I bought and paid for it, and I decide what to do with my extra cycles.

  68. For what? by page275 · · Score: 1

    Well ... sorry for the dummy comment ... do we need to use a prime that big? Perhaps to scare some E.T. about our intelligence then.

  69. Re:prime post by lgw · · Score: 1

    Which is clearly false, as with any number that appears even in any even base. The parity is the same.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  70. Real O-notation by Myria · · Score: 1

    This is a bit of inaccurate hand-waving, but the algorithm is closer to O(p^3). It takes p modular squares to do a Lucas-Lehmer test. A modular square in a bad implementation would take O(p^2) time, so it's O(p) * O(p^2) = O(p^3).

    In reality, it's a bit less than O(p^3), because squaring modulo a Mersenne number can be done significantly faster than O(p^2), in fact approaching the theoretical speed limit O(p log2 p).

    The reason the tests take so long is simply the size of the numbers. An optimal Lucas Lehmer test would take time O(p^2 log2 p). Since we use processors that do 32 bits at a time, p=25964951/32=811405. O(p^2 log2 p) > 12924002851764 operations. On a 3 GHz processor capable of 1 32x32 multiply per clock (unrealistic), that's 4308 seconds as an optimal minimum. Add realism and you can easily see how it takes a month.

    calc.exe formula: 811405y2*(811405n/2n)

    Melissa

    --
    "Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
  71. 42nd Mersenne Prime by CedricVonck · · Score: 1

    There is no proof yet that it is proven prime.
    It is currently under verification.

  72. Re:prime post by emurphy42 · · Score: 1

    I didn't get it either, at first.

    Hint: 282933 is cool, base 28.

  73. Re:prime post by lgw · · Score: 1

    I got it and I still don't get it. :p

    It seems to me that there is a fundamental confusion between cleverness and amusement in rec.puzzles. This must be the same crowd that giggles when the result of calculation is some profanity when the calulator is turned upside down.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  74. M42.bz2.uu by Morosoph · · Score: 1

    Cool.

  75. Re:prime post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately, he's dead. Dead, dead, dead, dead, dead.