mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Data

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2013-02-05, 19:48   #1
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

25·233 Posts
Default Yes, Virginia, there _is_ a largest prime number!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ixfd64 View Post
NBC News: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/50707223/n...cience-science

Another "largest prime number" fail.
The recent discovery isn't even the largest KNOWN prime.

I know a larger one.
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-05, 19:50   #2
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

25×233 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
The recent discovery isn't even the largest KNOWN prime.

I know a larger one.
Any prime you can name, I can name bigger,
I can name any prime bigger than you.

No you can't.
Yes, I can.
No you can't.
Yes I can, yes I can, yes I can!
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-05, 19:56   #3
ewmayer
2ω=0
 
ewmayer's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Rep├║blica de California

1130310 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
I know a larger one.
Not explicitly, you don't.

This has been covered numerous times before.
ewmayer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-05, 19:58   #4
c10ck3r
 
c10ck3r's Avatar
 
Aug 2010
Kansas

547 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
The recent discovery isn't even the largest KNOWN prime.

I know a larger one.
Doctor Silverman, I for one am dying to know this number. Please send the full decimal representation of this number as a Word document to: mersenneforum@gmail.com
Don't worry if it takes multiple emails, that's fine. Also, send an attachment of the proof to the same address.
Much obliged.
John Shook, PhD
(Patiently hoping for a degree)
c10ck3r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-05, 20:06   #5
Dubslow
Basketry That Evening!
 
Dubslow's Avatar
 
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88

722110 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by c10ck3r View Post
John Shook, PhD
(Patiently hoping for a degree)
Heh, that's a good one, I'm remembering that for further use
Dubslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-05, 20:07   #6
ewmayer
2ω=0
 
ewmayer's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Rep├║blica de California

89×127 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by c10ck3r View Post
Doctor Silverman, I for one am dying to know this number. Please send the full decimal representation of this number as a Word document to: mersenneforum@gmail.com
I'll settle for a photo (and accompanying official press release) of RDS holding up a check from EFF for all the remaining record-prime prizes.

But I'm easy.
ewmayer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-05, 20:38   #7
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

25·233 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ewmayer View Post
I'll settle for a photo (and accompanying official press release) of RDS holding up a check from EFF for all the remaining record-prime prizes.

But I'm easy.
I did NOT, repeat NOT say that I knew its decimal (or binary) representation.

I can however, give an exact (mathematically precise) specification of a
larger prime. Determining its decimal representation would take a bit of
computing.......

Given any prime, one can always give a larger one.

You knew this, of course. There are lots of numbers for which one can
give a precise representation. But not in decimal.......

I am pointing out something that should be obvious. It is possible to know
a number without knowing its decimal (or binary) representation.
Non-mathematicians often confuse one with the other.

Let M48 be the newly discovered prime.

Ackerman(M48, M48) is a uniquely and precisely defined number. But I
wouldn't want to compute it in decimal.
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-05, 20:44   #8
chalsall
If I May
 
chalsall's Avatar
 
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados

100011010001002 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
Ackerman(M48, M48) is a uniquely and precisely defined number. But I wouldn't want to compute it in decimal.
What a waste of carbon....
chalsall is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-05, 20:49   #9
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

25×233 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ewmayer View Post
Not explicitly, you don't.
Yes, I do. I can give an explicit definition.

In formal automata/language theory it can be specified exactly. (or
as you say, "explicitly"). Of course if one wants to be fuzzy in the definition
of the word "explicit" then it sort of becomes meaningless.

It just depends on the (formal) language one is willing to accept.

If one only accepts decimal (or binary), then one is going to be
very limited in the numbers one can specify. i.e. try specifying 'pi'.
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-05, 20:58   #10
chalsall
If I May
 
chalsall's Avatar
 
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados

215048 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
i.e. try specifying 'pi'.
U+03C0.
chalsall is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-05, 21:26   #11
Dubslow
Basketry That Evening!
 
Dubslow's Avatar
 
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88

722110 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
Yes, I do. I can give an explicit definition.

In formal automata/language theory it can be specified exactly. (or
as you say, "explicitly"). Of course if one wants to be fuzzy in the definition
of the word "explicit" then it sort of becomes meaningless.

It just depends on the (formal) language one is willing to accept.

If one only accepts decimal (or binary), then one is going to be
very limited in the numbers one can specify. i.e. try specifying 'pi'.
'pi' is the smallest strictly positive solution x of the following equation defined over the reals: \sum_{i=0}^\infty {\frac{(-1)^i x^{2i+1}}{(2i+1)!}} \quad = \quad 0 (this happens to be the ratio of the circumference to diameter of a "circle", i.e. the set of points S^1 = \{(x,y)\in \mathbb{R}^2 | x^2+y^2=r^2,\quad \forall r \in\mathbb{R}\backslash \{0\} \}. If you really want to get fancy, the circumference and diameter can be defined by some suitably abstract integral [but I haven't had enough analysis to say much more than that].)

Now, what is your formal specification/explicit definition of a prime larger than M48? Something like Ackerman(M48, M48) is a formally specified number, but I highly doubt its primality (not that you or I could prove it one way or the other). It's quite a bold claim you made (or so it seems to my as-yet-untrained senses).

Last fiddled with by Dubslow on 2013-02-05 at 21:31 Reason: exclude r=0
Dubslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NEW MERSENNE PRIME! LARGEST PRIME NUMBER DISCOVERED! dabaichi News 561 2013-03-29 16:55
New largest prime number found Prime95 Miscellaneous Math 20 2008-07-29 16:58
Number of zero's in largest prime... Heather Math 90 2006-04-01 22:06
get the 15th largest prime number in 3 months wfgarnett3 PSearch 1 2004-06-28 20:51
New largest prime number??? McBryce Lounge 39 2003-08-12 19:35

All times are UTC. The time now is 22:52.

Sun Jul 12 22:52:41 UTC 2020 up 109 days, 20:25, 1 user, load averages: 1.15, 1.21, 1.35

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.