WE MADE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[eric_v]

I didn't believe it when I saw something in the output file... but it was true :

2003663613*2^195000-1 is prime!
2003663613*2^195000+1 is prime!

I hope there's no bug in the program

I let you cross-check it...

Eric

[paulunderwood]

I've checked:

./pfgw_ver_12_linux -q"2003663613*2^195000+1" -t
PFGW Version 1.2.0 for Pentium and compatibles [FFT v23.8]

Primality testing 2003663613*2^195000+1 [N-1, Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge]
Running N-1 test using base 11
Calling Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge with factored part 99.98%
2003663613*2^195000+1 is prime! (215.9000s+0.0005s)

and:

./pfgw_ver_12_linux -q"2003663613*2^195000-1" -tp
PFGW Version 1.2.0 for Pentium and compatibles [FFT v23.8]

Primality testing 2003663613*2^195000-1 [N+1, Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge]
Running N+1 test using discriminant 5, base 1+sqrt(5)
Calling Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge with factored part 99.98%
2003663613*2^195000-1 is prime! (601.2919s+0.0216s)

[XYYXF]

Congratulations!

A nice pair. :)

[ValerieVonck]

Congratulations!

[R. Gerbicz]

Originally Posted by paulunderwood

I've checked:

Yes, you should have to check this, because for k*2^n-1 the LLR do *only* a PRP test, because a true primality test is a little slower. The primality test is a classical p+1 test. ( I think for k*2^n+1 a PRP test is equivalent to a Proth test in LLR so that sholud be OK ).

You've beaten the hungarian Járai Antal and his team's twin prime record at ELTE.

[pacionet]

I hope that twinprimesearch.org will be cited in the papers on this discovery.
Thanks to everybody !

[Skligmund]

I hope the proper channels were used to notify, in order to keep others from reporting the twin prime.

GJ!!!!

[pacionet]

I emailed Chris Caldwell telling this discovery. Please write down the names (name , surname, age and country) of the people who should get credit of this discovery.

Even if twinprimesearch.org should not get any credit, i Hope that you agree that it should be cited in the papers of the discovery.

I think something like that:

"Today, January 15, 2007 two distributed computing projects, Twin Internet Prime Search and PrimeGrid, have found the largest known twin primes: 2003663613*2^195000-1 and
2003663613*2^195000+1 . The numbers have XXXX digits. The discovery was made by: <LIST OF THE PEOPLE WHO GETS CREDITS>".

we should send this news to the Guinness World Records.

[R. Gerbicz]

Originally Posted by pacionet

The numbers have XXXX digits.

The twins have 58711 digits (in base 10).
I've also finished a check by pfgw on my slow computer:

PFGW Version 20050213.Win_Dev (Alpha/IBDWT 'caveat utilitor') 
Primality testing 2003663613*2^195000+1 [N-1 Proth test]
Running N-1 Proth test using base 11 (2^195000 is 99.985% of N-1)
2003663613*2^195000+1 is prime! (477.5060s+0.0083s)

Done.
PFGW Version 20050213.Win_Dev (Alpha/IBDWT 'caveat utilitor') 
Primality testing 2003663613*2^195000-1 [N+1, Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge]
Running N+1 test using discriminant 5, base 1+sqrt(5)
Calling Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge with factored part 99.98%
2003663613*2^195000-1 is prime! (3448.9456s+0.0122s)

Done.

[pacionet]

My special thanks for this discovery:

- eric_v , of course;
- MooooMoo
- gribozavr
- PrimeGrid
- Jean Penne' for LLR
- Paul Jobling for NewPGen

and ... myself

Now, it's time to move to next exponent !

[Jean Penné]

Originally Posted by R. Gerbicz

Yes, you should have to check this, because for k*2^n-1 the LLR do *only* a PRP test, because a true primality test is a little slower. The primality test is a classical p+1 test. ( I think for k*2^n+1 a PRP test is equivalent to a Proth test in LLR so that sholud be OK ).

You've beaten the hungarian Járai Antal and his team's twin prime record at ELTE.

Congratulations for this beautiful record!
Please note that LLR does a deterministic primality test on both k*2^n+1 and k*2^n-1 numbers, not a PRP! It actually does a PRP test only if the base is not two.
Regards,
Jean