20110209, 08:18  #1 
May 2007
11^{2} 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. 
20110209, 08:50  #2 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
23326_{8} Posts 

20110209, 09:11  #3 
Feb 2009
3·13 Posts 
Nice! Congrats engracio!
Just for grins I am doublechecking 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 doublecheck effort now! 
20110209, 13:01  #4 
"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. 
20110209, 15:25  #5 
"Vincent"
Apr 2010
Over the rainbow
2858_{10} 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 
20110209, 15:50  #6 
Jun 2003
2×3×17×53 Posts 

20110209, 15:53  #7 
"Vincent"
Apr 2010
Over the rainbow
2·1,429 Posts 
shoot, wrong one.

20110209, 16:28  #8 
Jan 2007
Germany
20A_{16} Posts 
RESPECT GUYS !!!!!
Also , today was found the first known 19tuplet !!! 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 20110209 at 16:30 
20110209, 17:35  #9 
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT5)
1869_{16} Posts 
Wowsers! Big congratulations on what is (from what I gather) a very unexpectedlyearly 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 Bustlike "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... 
20110209, 17:41  #10 
"Phil"
Sep 2002
Tracktown, U.S.A.
45F_{16} 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 doublecheck. John Blazek and Mark Rodenkirch had just set up PRPNET to start some doublechecking, 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 20110216 at 07:53 
20110209, 21:06  #11  
Jun 2003
Ottawa, Canada
3×17×23 Posts 
Quote:
Yay, we found the last one, that is great. I will stop my clients for now as well. 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
probable largest prime.  sudaprime  Miscellaneous Math  11  20180205 08:10 
Hi, how can I test my probable prime number?  mohdosa  Information & Answers  22  20141010 11:34 
Megadigit probable prime found, our third!  philmoore  Five or Bust  The Dual Sierpinski Problem  25  20090909 06:48 
Another record probable prime found!  philmoore  Five or Bust  The Dual Sierpinski Problem  15  20090208 19:43 
Record probable prime found!  philmoore  Five or Bust  The Dual Sierpinski Problem  18  20090128 19:47 