mersenneforum.org On Ramanujan's B'day, I'm hereby declaring that "Pi Exponent" M314,159,257 is a definite Prime!!
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2021-12-22, 16:53 #1 IndrajithGamage     "Indrajith Gamage" Dec 2021 Sri Lanka 910 Posts On Ramanujan's B'day, I'm hereby declaring that "Pi Exponent" M314,159,257 is a definite Prime!! Hi, this is Indrajith Gamage from Sri Lanka. I'm a complete newbie to Mersenne forum and not qualified beyond Bachelors' degree level in Mathematics. (If you don't already know, Sri Lanka is the small island country below India.) One nice coincidence is that I'm posting this on 22nd of December 2021, which is the Birthday of the Indian Mathematical genius Ramanujan. So with those things in mind, I'm making this post to declare that the exponent M314,159,257 is a definite prime. I'm also hereby reserving and naming it as the "Pi Exponent". The reason behind that name is very simple. Just cross check it with the first 7 digits of Pi (3 and first 6 decimals). They match exactly. I found this today itself and made a Facebook post for verification purposes at 5.51pm IST today.(GMT +5.30) So why is this declaration important? The answer is quite simple. I know that the current record holder for the biggest prime known is M82,589,933 and has been so since 2018. My exponent itself is nearly 4 times larger, which means it's more than 2231 times massive. So it will be no surprise with current resources we have, verifying this using LL or any other methods will be quite a while ahead. However, I'm giving you my word that this is undoubtedly a prime, and easily the biggest Prime Number found by quite a stretch. The "Pi Exponent" is doubly fascinating, because as we all know, Pi has a special place in any mathematician's heart. This is probably redundant, but in case anyone does not understand, I'm specifically declaring that, 2314,159,257 - 1 is a Prime Number Given the size of this massive number, I guess anyone will agree that I have no hope of scientifically verifying it with my puny personal processing power, nor will it be possible without some serious help within a reasonable time frame. However, I'm prepared to wager anything that this is definitely a prime. I don't want to disclose how I found it because it wasn't scientific, and that's not really important either. What's important is that this will be scientifically proven with an LL test (or something similarly accurate). I would really love to see this happen before the next Pi day, which is March 14th, 2022. If some serious processing power can be dedicated to running this test, I think it's easily achievable. Probably not with the Mersenne resources only, but if there's a possibility of getting a big media attention to this along with some dedicated super computers, it will be quite easy. The fact that the exponent is so similar to Pi will clearly help in getting much wider coverage in media. I can promise you that it will end with success by proving it is a prime, this is guaranteed. I'm very much aware that my words itself don't matter in this regard, that's why I'm putting down my real name in my account. You can verify my information anyway you like, and I'm asking everyone to take a leap of faith here. If you'd like, you can check the official Mersenne exponent status of the "Pi Exponent" right here. It's currently verified as a Pseudo Prime, so that will give some confidence to anyone who's skeptical. https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...ll=1&ecmhist=1 Let's try to get some big attention to this cause, using any avenues you can. With some luck, companies and agencies with massive computing power will find it beneficial to support and join this effort to verify the "Pi Exponent" as the biggest verified prime. Of course, in the bigger picture, the success of this will definitely give a massive boost to Mersenne.org as well as their worthy cause of finding Primes, including Mathematics and STEM education as a whole. So even if you are not inclined to believe me, this would be a worthy cause. However, I give you my word that this will end in success. The fact that I took my time to write this lengthy post with my real name etc. is hopefully an indication itself of how sure I am. Therefore, I hope you will join me in this worthy cause, and find it charitable to give some exposure to this effort using whatever means you can. Let's try to turn this into a real phenomenon, get some help from real supercomputers and complete the verification by March 14th 2022. So Thank you everyone. I wish you all the joy of being a partner in this massive, successful endeavor. Indrajith Gamage. Sri Lanka. Last fiddled with by IndrajithGamage on 2021-12-22 at 17:13
 2021-12-22, 17:05 #2 axn     Jun 2003 2·2,683 Posts
2021-12-22, 17:27   #3
mathwiz

Mar 2019

1000001112 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by IndrajithGamage However, I'm prepared to wager anything that this is definitely a prime. I don't want to disclose how I found it because it wasn't scientific, and that's not really important either.
Sure, put $1,000 down and I'll wager that it's not a prime, and run gpuOwl on it. 2021-12-22, 17:30 #4 VBCurtis "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 23×661 Posts Quote:  Originally Posted by mathwiz Sure, put$1,000 down and I'll wager that it's not a prime, and run gpuOwl on it.
I am willing to act as escrow for this wager.

 2021-12-22, 17:34 #5 kriesel     "TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17" Mar 2017 US midwest 73·89 Posts What's my cut of the winnings? https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...48&postcount=6 https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...4159257&full=1 (would take about 2 weeks in Gpuowl on a single Radeon VII, or RX 6900XT) showed it definitively composite with a res64 value that positively excludes it as a possible prime, over 6 months ago. PRP composite plus certification completed same day. It was actually performed on one of 4 prime95 workers on a used $500 Xeon Phi 7210 system over a period of months and occasionally interrupted with wavefront doublechecking. Some redacted excerpts from results.txt, results.json.txt: Code: [Tue Jan 12 02:06:44 2021] UID: Kriesel/moa, M314159257 completed P-1, B1=2125000, B2=70429000, E=6, Wh4: ________ [Fri Jun 11 12:40:01 2021] {"status":"C", "exponent":314159257, "worktype":"PRP-3", "res64":"3A7F291B4DA3A___", "residue-type":1, "res2048":"8D5A...", "fft-length":17694720, "shift-count":232515581, "error-code":"00000000", "security-code":"________", "program":{"name":"Prime95", "version":"30.6", "build":4, "port":4}, "timestamp":"2021-06-11 17:40:01", "errors":{"gerbicz":0}, "proof":{"version":2, "power":9, "hashsize":64, "md5":"2675..."}, "user":"Kriesel", "computer":"moa"} [Fri Jun 11 13:09:27 2021] Proof file p314159257.proof successfully uploaded OP, congrats, you have earned a spot in the "dubious claims" list of misguided statements about Mersenne "primes" that are composite or almost certainly so. Please read up some in the reference info. Ideally before posting more erroneous content. The learning curve is considerable. Finally, welcome to the Mersenne forum. (Moderators, please move this thread from factoring related to Misc. Math) Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2021-12-22 at 18:17 2021-12-22, 18:46 #6 IndrajithGamage "Indrajith Gamage" Dec 2021 Sri Lanka 32 Posts Quote:  Originally Posted by kriesel What's my cut of the winnings? https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...48&postcount=6 https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...4159257&full=1 (would take about 2 weeks in Gpuowl on a single Radeon VII, or RX 6900XT) showed it definitively composite with a res64 value that positively excludes it as a possible prime, over 6 months ago. PRP composite plus certification completed same day. It was actually performed on one of 4 prime95 workers on a used$500 Xeon Phi 7210 system over a period of months and occasionally interrupted with wavefront doublechecking. Some redacted excerpts from results.txt, results.json.txt: Code: [Tue Jan 12 02:06:44 2021] UID: Kriesel/moa, M314159257 completed P-1, B1=2125000, B2=70429000, E=6, Wh4: ________ [Fri Jun 11 12:40:01 2021] {"status":"C", "exponent":314159257, "worktype":"PRP-3", "res64":"3A7F291B4DA3A___", "residue-type":1, "res2048":"8D5A...", "fft-length":17694720, "shift-count":232515581, "error-code":"00000000", "security-code":"________", "program":{"name":"Prime95", "version":"30.6", "build":4, "port":4}, "timestamp":"2021-06-11 17:40:01", "errors":{"gerbicz":0}, "proof":{"version":2, "power":9, "hashsize":64, "md5":"2675..."}, "user":"Kriesel", "computer":"moa"} [Fri Jun 11 13:09:27 2021] Proof file p314159257.proof successfully uploaded OP, congrats, you have earned a spot in the "dubious claims" list of misguided statements about Mersenne "primes" that are composite or almost certainly so. Please read up some in the reference info. Ideally before posting more erroneous content. The learning curve is considerable. Finally, welcome to the Mersenne forum. (Moderators, please move this thread from factoring related to Misc. Math)
Hi, thanks for the reply. I double checked, and clearly you're pointing to a less stringent test right? I know the probability seems very low right now, but can you please run it on LL and prove it?

I'm really confident in my method, albeit it being unscientific. It will be a great way to show that you're absolutely correct and I'm absolutely wrong. Care to take to take up the challenge, especially since I wasted all these time writing this? I believe it could be a really nice eye opener for you and the whole organization. Just try and prove me definitively wrong. (and let's meet one day when something unbelievable happens) 😊

P. S. Remember, if probability is always accurate, no one would win lotteries.

2021-12-22, 18:52   #7
slandrum

Jan 2021
California

23·72 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by IndrajithGamage Hi, thanks for the reply. I double checked, and clearly you're pointing to a less stringent test right? I know the probability seems very low right now, but can you please run it on LL and prove it?
No need. The only thing probable about a PRP test is if it says that it is probably prime. If it says it's composite, it's as definite as LL. We don't need to waste any more time on this.

Last fiddled with by slandrum on 2021-12-22 at 18:52

2021-12-22, 19:04   #8
kriesel

"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

11001011000012 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by IndrajithGamage I'm really confident in my method, albeit it being unscientific. It will be a great way to show that you're absolutely correct and I'm absolutely wrong. Care to take to take up the challenge, especially since I wasted all these time writing this? I believe it could be a really nice eye opener for you and the whole organization. Just try and prove me definitively wrong.

PRP-C = proven composite. https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...32&postcount=8
Cert successful = proven correct and complete run. Done. In the composite-result case, this is MORE reliable than a Lucas-Lehmer test, in the real world, with real software, excellent but fallible programmers and software QA, good but not completely error-free real hardware, because the Gerbicz Error Check and VDF are used for PRP/proof, but not for the Lucas-Lehmer test.

Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2021-12-22 at 19:19

2021-12-22, 19:44   #9
mathwiz

Mar 2019

4078 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by IndrajithGamage I'm really confident in my method, albeit it being unscientific. It will be a great way to show that you're absolutely correct and I'm absolutely wrong. Care to take to take up the challenge, especially since I wasted all these time writing this?
You have already been proven wrong by the existing, verified C-PRP test that was done for this exponent.

Instead of wasting your (and everyone else's) time with these ridiculous posts, please take some time to learn the MATH, and the types of tests performed by GIMPS clients.

2021-12-22, 20:35   #10
VBCurtis

"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

23·661 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by IndrajithGamage P. S. Remember, if probability is always accurate, no one would win lotteries.
You claim to have Bachelor's level knowledge of mathematics, yet repeat this trope about probability that demonstrates serious misunderstandings about probability. You also don't understand anything about primality tests- not a good basis on which to make claims.

Run the test yourself. We know via the prp test the number is composite. The only person left to convince is you, and the software is out there for you to use yourself.

Meantime, shush until you learn what the tests do, and what their results mean. Your next post should explain why you are mistaken about prp testing, and what the result of a prp test tells you.

Continuing to make claims that your number "could be prime" is cause for a ban. "My ignorance leads me to think I could be right even though you all think you know better" is crank behavior, and is not welcome here.

 2021-12-23, 03:59 #11 Dobri   "刀-比-日" May 2018 26·5 Posts The Archimedes' constant π is equal to 3.141,592,65... but not 3.141,592,57.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post shubhra Information & Answers 6 2022-01-03 22:17 eight6225219 Miscellaneous Math 7 2019-11-21 14:59 devarajkandadai Math 11 2009-08-12 17:01 petrw1 PrimeNet 6 2009-01-12 22:39 ewmayer Lounge 4 2006-09-06 20:57

All times are UTC. The time now is 06:59.

Fri May 27 06:59:24 UTC 2022 up 43 days, 5 hrs, 0 users, load averages: 1.52, 1.29, 1.22