Is this possible?
 

I looked around but didn't find any answer. Is it possible to submit a possible prime number for testing with-out running the program, or to get the program to test a specific number over 100 million?

[quote=Unregistered;144026]Is it possible to submit a possible prime number for testing with-out running the program,[/quote]
Please clarify this part of the question.

[quote=Unregistered;144026] or to get the program to test a specific number over 100 million?[/quote]
You probably don't want to do that yet. It will take years on current hardware to complete a test of that size.

"Unregistered",

One of the goals of GIMPS is to generally avoid having more than one person testing any number at the same time (with a few special exceptions), for two main reasons:

1. Efficiency, avoiding needless duplication of effort. (Again, in a few special cases, duplication of effort is desireable, but certainly not if done [I]without cooperation[/I].)

2. Hard feelings if two people independently happen to find a prime while testing the same number at the same time without either knowing of the other's work.

That's why we have the PrimeNet assignment-reservation system.

Having said that, there [U]are[/U] ways of accomplishing what you propose, [I]as long as they're done in ways that cooperate with the existing assignment-reservation system[/I]!

[quote=Unregistered;144026]Is it possible to submit a possible prime number for testing with-out running the program,[/quote]I take this to mean that you want to see a certain particular Mersenne number tested (perhaps because you have some reason to suspect that it is prime), but it's okay with you if someone else does the actual testing.

However, be informed that so far, not a single one of the greatest mathematicians (or even anyone else) has successfully predicted in advance that any particular Mersenne number was prime. None. No one. Not one.

So you'd have to have a really, really, really good reason (_not_ mere curiosity!), explained in full higher-mathematics detail, to persuade anyone at GIMPS that your reason for wanting that particular number tested out-of-order is sufficient.

If my interpretation of what you want is correct, and you have a _really, really, really, really good higher-mathematics reason_ for getting that number tested before its natural turn in PrimeNet assignments, you could send an e-mail to George Woltman (go to [URL]http://www.mersenne.org/[/URL] and click on one of the links that are labeled "Feedback"), explaining what you want, and why. He may be able to arrange to have someone take a special look at that number while keeping PrimeNet from assigning the same number to someone else. (However, if your really, really, really, really good better-than-any-reason-anyone-else-has-ever-had higher-mathematics reason isn't good enough, George may prefer that you just let GIMPS/PrimeNet get to that number in the natural course of events.)

[quote]or to get the program to test a specific number over 100 million?[/quote]Again, you can e-mail George to request that a particular number be manually assigned to you for testing and not be assigned to anyone else as long as you're making regular progress. However, be prepared for him to decline because (as jrk pointed out) it'll take [U]years[/U], and he'd want some evidence that you wouldn't give up on it partway through, thus leaving the number both untested and unavailable to be assigned to anyone else.

[quote=cheesehead;144033]However, be informed that so far, not a single one of the greatest mathematicians (or even anyone else) has successfully predicted in advance that any particular Mersenne number was prime. None. No one. Not one.
[/quote]

You could credit Mersenne with predicting exponents 31 and 127.

[quote=davieddy;144074]You could credit Mersenne with predicting exponents 31 and 127.[/quote]
True, so cheesehead's statement really isn't right, but I doubt that Mersenne was any better than statistical chance would have him for the Mersennes he predicted (remember how small these ones were).

[quote=davieddy;144074]You could credit Mersenne with predicting exponents 31 and 127.[/quote]
[quote=Mini-Geek;144076]True, so cheesehead's statement really isn't right, but I doubt that Mersenne was any better than statistical chance would have him for the Mersennes he predicted (remember how small these ones were).[/quote]
He also guessed 2^67-1 and 2^257-1 were prime, so he loses some credit there.

[quote=jrk;144079]He also guessed 2^67-1 and 2^257-1 were prime, so he loses some credit there.[/quote]
And missed 61,89 and 107, but OTOH 2^67 wasn't factorised until
1903 and I guess it was 1950 before he was proved wrong about 257.
Considering his sparcity of guessing, you have to admit he was lucky!

By "predict", I meant "use some algorithm/formula/method that is related to intrinsic properties of prime numbers and can continue to forecast future discoveries at a greater-than-chance rate" -- i.e., use some mathematical "law" that is analogous to scientific laws. I doubt that Mersenne himself had any such algorithm/formula/method, so what I meant by my statement covers him, too.

- - -

Speaking of chance:

This afternoon I heard on radio about a "Tunnel To Towers" marathon race that had 343 firemen standing along the route representing the 343 firemen who died in the 9/11 Twin Towers collapse.

So, I'm thinking "343 = 7 * 7 * 7".

Then later I hear that the DJIA dropped 777 point-something.

:cheesehead:

- - - -

You want a prediction? [B]Here[/B]'s a prediction, based more on fundamental realities of the situation than anyone's Mersenne-prime guess (and published in the magazine named "Fortune", of course):

"Gas shortages: get ready for more"

[URL]http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/26/news/economy/gasshortage_okeefe.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008092710[/URL]

[quote]"343 = 7 * 7 * 7"[/quote]
7 + 7 + 7 + 3 + 3 - 4 = 23

:alien:

I wonder why Cochet hasn't posted in this thread yet?

Come to think of it, Mersenne's prediction of
31, 67, 127 and 257 suggests he had a bee in his bonnet
about exponents close to powers of 2.