Sieving freakishly big MMs (was "World record" phone number?)

davieddy · 2012-09-23, 08:10

Isn't the notion rendered nonsense by multiplying all the primes up to (say) a billion together and adding 1?

David

LaurV · 2012-09-23, 09:00

2*3*5*7*11*13+1=59*509

davieddy · 2012-09-23, 11:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaurV

2*3*5*7*11*13+1=59*509

Hmm.
So the largest prime is > 13.
Euclid must have got it wrong!

rogue · 2012-09-23, 12:48

That is behind the proof that there are an infinite number of primes.

davieddy · 2012-09-23, 12:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaurV

2*3*5*7*11*13+1=59*509

Nothing beats a refutation as well as a simple counter-example.

retina · 2012-09-23, 12:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by davieddy

Isn't the notion rendered nonsense by multiplying all the primes up to (say) a billion together and adding 1?

Maybe it is composite with all factors less than M43112609?

ATH · 2012-09-23, 13:52

There are tons of examples in math where we are looking for the interesting cases and ignoring the "trivial" cases which this is. Like the "nontrivial Riemann zeta function zeros".

davieddy · 2012-09-23, 14:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogue

That is behind the proof that there are an infinite number of primes.

Doh.
Forgot that during a senile moment.

ewmayer · 2012-09-23, 19:00

I can say with 100% certainty that the smallest prime factor of M(M43112609) is a world record prime, but without an explicit demonstration of such a factor, that is meaningless.

davieddy · 2012-09-23, 19:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by ewmayer

I can say with 100% certainty that the smallest prime factor of M(M43112609) is a world record prime, but without an explicit demonstration of such a factor, that is meaningless.

Now you being Ernigmatic again.

davieddy · 2012-09-23, 20:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by ewmayer

I can say with 100% certainty that the smallest prime factor of M(M43112609) is a world record prime, but without an explicit demonstration of such a factor, that is meaningless.

Just as well Bob is temporallily indisposed.

2012-09-23, 08:10	#1
davieddy "Lucan" Dec 2006 England 2·3·13·83 Posts	Sieving freakishly big MMs (was "World record" phone number?) Isn't the notion rendered nonsense by multiplying all the primes up to (say) a billion together and adding 1? David

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Is CEMPLLA 1.5 "the only software in the world capable of discovering" something? Not really.	CRGreathouse	Number Theory Discussion Group	51	2018-12-16 21:55
Official "World cup 2014/2018" teat	LaurV	Hobbies	74	2018-07-11 19:33
Problem E7 of Richard Guy's "Unsolved problems in number theory"	Batalov	Computer Science & Computational Number Theory	40	2013-03-16 09:19
Is the USA the "new" peacekeeper of the world??	outlnder	Soap Box	20	2005-02-03 09:30
Would Minimizing "iterations between results file" may reveal "is not prime" earlier?	nitai1999	Software	7	2004-08-26 18:12

2012-09-23, 09:00	#2
LaurV Romulan Interpreter "name field" Jun 2011 Thailand 19×541 Posts	23571113+1=59509

2012-09-23, 12:48	#4
rogue "Mark" Apr 2003 Between here and the 2×59² Posts	That is behind the proof that there are an infinite number of primes.

2012-09-23, 13:52	#7
ATH Einyen Dec 2003 Denmark 2×17×101 Posts	There are tons of examples in math where we are looking for the interesting cases and ignoring the "trivial" cases which this is. Like the "nontrivial Riemann zeta function zeros".

2012-09-23, 19:00	#9
ewmayer ∂²ω=0 Sep 2002 República de California 5×2,351 Posts	I can say with 100% certainty that the smallest prime factor of M(M43112609) is a world record prime, but without an explicit demonstration of such a factor, that is meaningless.