[QUOTE]I wonder if Curtis Cooper is going to send us those pins again...[/QUOTE]We have inquired about the buttons and we have been told they are thinking about it.

:bounce:

We asked Professor Cooper a few questions:

1 - Where is the lucky computer located?
2 - When it was found was it beeping frantically?
3 - Are you planning to sell the computer on eBay?

[QUOTE]The naming convention we use for computers here at the University of Central Missouri is crazy. The name of the machine that found M57885161 is:

ml--wd-210--22l

The ml-- is a 4 letter code for the department where the computer is located. That is the Modern Language department. The wd- is a 3 letter code for the building. That is the Wood building. The 210- is the 4-digit code for the room number: 210. And the -22l is the 22nd computer in the lab. Wood 210 is a computer classroom/lab where they teach modern language classes. I think there are about 30 computers in that lab. The Wood building houses the departments of History, Political Science, Communications, and Modern Languages.

Wood has been the location of all 3 of our Mersenne discoveries.

commwd-102--07l
commwd-102--04l
ml--wd-210--22l

We are running GIMPS in many buildings at UCM: Wood, Martin, Science, Grinstead, Library, Ward Edwards, Lovinger (all in Warrensburg), and our Central Summit Center in Lee's Summit. It is amazing that all of our discoveries were in the Wood building. But our Information Services tech in that building is one of the best and understands what we are doing. He lets me know when things happen in that building so I can attend to them.

The computers running in our labs have their sound turned off. So there was no beeping.

The IS tech in Wood has paid attention to our computers that have discovered the Mersenne primes. I don't know exactly what has happened to them but they have talked about putting those computers in the university museum.[/QUOTE]

Fox News: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/05/worlds-largest-prime-number-discovered[/url]

[QUOTE]World’s [B]largest prime number[/B] discovered -- all 17 million digits[/QUOTE]

*sigh*

[QUOTE]There are only 48 known Mersenne primes.[/QUOTE]

:orly owl:

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;327868]We asked Professor Cooper a few questions:

1 - Where is the lucky computer located?
2 - When it was found was it beeping frantically?
3 - Are you planning to sell the computer on eBay?[/QUOTE]

what does a Liberal Arts major say after graduation? [SPOILER]Would you like fries with that record prime?[/SPOILER]

:curtisc:

15 members! :smile:

EDIT: Is it just me or is mersenne.org really, really, slow? Traffik jam?
EDIT2: and after a while I get "pnErrorResult=3 pnErrorDetail=Database unavailable ==END=="

Ars Technica: [url]http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/02/volunteer-discovers-a-new-17-million-digit-prime-number[/url]

[QUOTE=ixfd64;327928]Ars Technica: [url]http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/02/volunteer-discovers-a-new-17-million-digit-prime-number[/url][/QUOTE]

At least they got the title, and the first paragraph, partially correct....

[QUOTE=ixfd64;327873]Fox News: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/05/worlds-largest-prime-number-discovered[/url]

[QUOTE]There are only 48 known Mersenne primes.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

I mistakenly thought Fox News had omitted "known" from the sentence. It seems I'm getting accustomed to those mathematically illiterate reporters. However, I did notice two other errors:

[QUOTE]The number -- 2 multiplied by itself 57,885,161 times, written mathematically as 2[sup]57,885,161[/sup]-1 -- is the first prime discovered in four years.[/QUOTE]

1. The editor forgot "minus 1" in the first part.
2. M57,885,161 is not the "first prime" to be discovered in four years.

I've started an article on Wikinews: [url]http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Record_size_17.4_million-digit_prime_found[/url]

Feel free to improve it, but remember to stick to the facts.

[quote] 2 multiplied by itself 57,885,161 times...[/quote]

This is a pet peeve of mine.

2[SUP]3[/SUP]-1 = 2 * 2 * 2 - 1

2[SUP]3[/SUP]-1 is not "2 multiplied by itself 3 times, less 1".

It is "2 multiplied by itself 2 times, less 1".

Or am I missing something?

[QUOTE=aketilander;327846]According to the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenstra%E2%80%93Pomerance%E2%80%93Wagstaff_conjecture#Lenstra.E2.80.93Pomerance.E2.80.93Wagstaff_conjecture"]Lenstra–Pomerance–Wagstaff conjecture[/URL] we are supposed to find 5.92 Mersenne primes between 10M-digits Mersennes and 100M-digits Mersennes. We have already found 4 between 10M-digits and 18M-digits and many below 18M-digits untested.

That's what I call heads!!! :smile:

... or there might be something wrong with the conjecture???[/QUOTE]

If finding primes would be the same as cycling, then no amount of EPO could've achieved this luck indeed.