2^9092392+40291 is a probable prime!

engracio · 2011-02-09, 08:18

Well guys it was nice while it lasted. Pending on more rigorous testing by Phil, we have BUSTED nummer funf.

I thought I might post this prior to more verification to let others go on to other projects on their queue.

Batalov · 2011-02-09, 08:50

enderak · 2011-02-09, 09:11

Nice! Congrats engracio!

Just for grins I am double-checking this (I am sure several others will be as well.) It should be done by early Wednesday afternoon.

Hopefully not everyone will switch over to other projects - we'll need help with the double-check effort now!

akruppa · 2011-02-09, 13:01

Awesome. Congrats to Phil and all contributors.

I'll try to get a few factors out of 2^9092392+40290 so we can make a somewhat stronger PRP test.

firejuggler · 2011-02-09, 15:25

Code:

[Wed Feb 09 16:18:52 2011]
ECM found a factor in curve #1, stage #1
Sigma=7978179970243502, B1=1000, B2=100000.
UID: firejuggler, 2^29092392+40290 has a factor: 108661946

108661946= 2*43*1263511

axn · 2011-02-09, 15:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by firejuggler

Code:

[Wed Feb 09 16:18:52 2011]
ECM found a factor in curve #1, stage #1
Sigma=7978179970243502, B1=1000, B2=100000.
UID: firejuggler, 2^29092392+40290 has a factor: 108661946

108661946= 2*43*1263511

Wrong one.

firejuggler · 2011-02-09, 15:53

shoot, wrong one.

Cybertronic · 2011-02-09, 16:28

RESPECT GUYS !!!!!

Also , today was found the first known 19-tuplet !!!

630134041802574490482213901 + d, d = 0, 6, 10, 16, 18, 22, 28, 30, 36, 42, 46, 48, 52, 58, 60, 66, 70, 72, 76 by Raanan Chermoni & Jaroslaw Wroblewski

mdettweiler · 2011-02-09, 17:35

Wowsers!

Big congratulations on what is (from what I gather) a very unexpectedly-early prime! This project has definitely had more than its share of "good luck" (statistically speaking

) throughout. Makes you wonder if there's some property of these numbers that causes some conjectures to produce well above expectations (and others, well below, as we've observed at CRUS); if so, then it bodes well for Riesel base 6, which has had almost Five or Bust-like "luck" thusfar and is now down to two k's (one of which is extremely low weight and is supposed to take decades to find a prime for).

Meanwhile, though...

philmoore · 2011-02-09, 17:41

Awesome! Thanks for going ahead and posting this, Engracio. I am going to suggest abandoning any prp tests above this exponent. I see unconnected, paleseptember, engracio, and I have the only unfinished tests below it. Assuming that it checks out (and it almost certainly will) it would be nice to get a complete set of residues for an eventual double-check. John Blazek and Mark Rodenkirch had just set up PRPNET to start some double-checking, so this development took me by surprise. I have some strong prp tests running, and will keep you posted as they come in.

Jeff Gilchrist · 2011-02-09, 21:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by engracio

Well guys it was nice while it lasted. Pending on more rigorous testing by Phil, we have BUSTED nummer funf.

I thought I might post this prior to more verification to let others go on to other projects on their queue.

Congrats engracio! I grabbed the numbers before and after yours, unlucky again.

Yay, we found the last one, that is great. I will stop my clients for now as well.

2011-02-09, 15:25	#5
firejuggler Apr 2010 Over the rainbow A28₁₆ Posts	Code: [Wed Feb 09 16:18:52 2011] ECM found a factor in curve #1, stage #1 Sigma=7978179970243502, B1=1000, B2=100000. UID: firejuggler, 2^29092392+40290 has a factor: 108661946 108661946= 2431263511

2011-02-09, 16:28	#8
Cybertronic Jan 2007 Germany 2³×41 Posts	RESPECT GUYS !!!!! Also , today was found the first known 19-tuplet !!! 630134041802574490482213901 + d, d = 0, 6, 10, 16, 18, 22, 28, 30, 36, 42, 46, 48, 52, 58, 60, 66, 70, 72, 76 by Raanan Chermoni & Jaroslaw Wroblewski Last fiddled with by Cybertronic on 2011-02-09 at 16:30

2011-02-09, 17:41	#10
philmoore "Phil" Sep 2002 Tracktown, U.S.A. 3·373 Posts	Awesome! Thanks for going ahead and posting this, Engracio. I am going to suggest abandoning any prp tests above this exponent. I see unconnected, paleseptember, engracio, and I have the only unfinished tests below it. Assuming that it checks out (and it almost certainly will) it would be nice to get a complete set of residues for an eventual double-check. John Blazek and Mark Rodenkirch had just set up PRPNET to start some double-checking, so this development took me by surprise. I have some strong prp tests running, and will keep you posted as they come in. Last fiddled with by philmoore on 2011-02-16 at 07:53

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
probable largest prime.	sudaprime	Miscellaneous Math	11	2018-02-05 08:10
Hi, how can I test my probable prime number?	mohdosa	Information & Answers	22	2014-10-10 11:34
Megadigit probable prime found, our third!	philmoore	Five or Bust - The Dual Sierpinski Problem	25	2009-09-09 06:48
Another record probable prime found!	philmoore	Five or Bust - The Dual Sierpinski Problem	15	2009-02-08 19:43
Record probable prime found!	philmoore	Five or Bust - The Dual Sierpinski Problem	18	2009-01-28 19:47

2011-02-09, 08:18	#1
engracio May 2007 11² Posts	2^9092392+40291 is a probable prime! Well guys it was nice while it lasted. Pending on more rigorous testing by Phil, we have BUSTED nummer funf. I thought I might post this prior to more verification to let others go on to other projects on their queue.

2011-02-09, 08:50	#2
Batalov "Serge" Mar 2008 Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2 2·7·677 Posts

2011-02-09, 09:11	#3
enderak Feb 2009 3·13 Posts	Nice! Congrats engracio! Just for grins I am double-checking this (I am sure several others will be as well.) It should be done by early Wednesday afternoon. Hopefully not everyone will switch over to other projects - we'll need help with the double-check effort now!

2011-02-09, 13:01	#4
akruppa "Nancy" Aug 2002 Alexandria 2,467 Posts	Awesome. Congrats to Phil and all contributors. I'll try to get a few factors out of 2^9092392+40290 so we can make a somewhat stronger PRP test.

2011-02-09, 15:53	#7
firejuggler Apr 2010 Over the rainbow 2³·5²·13 Posts	shoot, wrong one.

2011-02-09, 17:35	#9
mdettweiler A Sunny Moo Aug 2007 USA (GMT-5) 3·2,083 Posts	Wowsers! Big congratulations on what is (from what I gather) a very unexpectedly-early prime! This project has definitely had more than its share of "good luck" (statistically speaking ) throughout. Makes you wonder if there's some property of these numbers that causes some conjectures to produce well above expectations (and others, well below, as we've observed at CRUS); if so, then it bodes well for Riesel base 6, which has had almost Five or Bust-like "luck" thusfar and is now down to two k's (one of which is extremely low weight and is supposed to take decades to find a prime for). Meanwhile, though...