Thread for posting tiny primes

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

We must have different understandings of the word "scapegoat", because this sentence makes no sense in its context.

You asked for my objections and I explained them.

a scapegoat is defined as : "someone who is punished for the errors of others" by a subdomain of princeton.edu so I think what Pi means is he thinks we are punishing him by making the error of supposedly not telling him outright that he's changing the rules too much. I think a view we've taken on this forum a lot is that the OP must define everything clear from the start (I've broken this rule a lot) hence any omission that makes his ideas hard to understand and needs more work by first responders (not the paramedics, police and fire fighters) punishing them and making the OP a "crank". thus the views look equal and opposite just as newtons laws of motion dictate.

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by science_man_88

a scapegoat is defined as : "someone who is punished for the errors of others" by a subdomain of princeton.edu so I think what Pi means is he thinks we are punishing him by making the error of supposedly not telling him outright that he's changing the rules too much.

It's possible that this is what he means, I don't know. But that doesn't fit the definition of scapegoat: (1) we're not punishing him, and (2) the errors are his own, not those of another.

Now if I made a biting remark about you every time Pi changed his requirements, we could make a case for scapegoating... .

[3.14159]

Originally Posted by Charles

You refuted none of them!

I refuted all of them.

You said I encourage the waste of computing power/electricity?

Turn off your comp., hypocrite. You're wasting electricity and computing power yourself.

Originally Posted by Charles

It's possible that this is what he means, I don't know. But that doesn't fit the definition of scapegoat: (1) we're not punishing him, and (2) the errors are his own, not those of another.

I already fixed many of the "errors", I was aware of.

Originally Posted by Charles

Now if I made a biting remark about you every time Pi changed his requirements, we could make a case for scapegoating... .

Generalizing based on one or two items = Logic fail.

The only noticeable issues I had with the list were Special/General Cofactor.

There are no issues with the other items, as far as an examination goes.

If you have an issue with #20, don't submit anything for #20.

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by 3.14159

I refuted all of them.

You said I encourage the waste of computing power/electricity?

Turn off your comp., hypocrite. You're wasting electricity and computing power yourself.

That's not a refutation, that's a tu quoque attack.

But I *am* able to turn off my computer for longer if I use modern primality proving software than if I use outdated software, so I don't see where you're coming from. Further, my CPU powers down when processing demand is low (using Cool 'n' Quiet or SpeedStep, depending on which computer I'm using), so even without turning it off I save power by not using outdated software.

Originally Posted by 3.14159

Generalizing based on one or two items = Logic fail.

On which one or two items was I generalizing? My text that you quoted above this remark referred to a counterfactual conditional in which I insulted sm88, which is neither a generalization nor based on one or two items.

Originally Posted by 3.14159

If you have an issue with #20, don't submit anything for #20.

I have an issue with it being offered, regardless of whether I participate or not. This is not uncommon: people protest killing baby harp seals even when they are not forced to participate.

[3.14159]

Originally Posted by Charles

That's not a refutation, that's a tu quoque attack.

Copout. Invalid.

Originally Posted by Charles

I have an issue with it being offered, regardless of whether I participate or not. This is not uncommon: people protest killing baby harp seals even when they are not forced to participate.

A bit more time to finish. Boohoo, it's the end of the world. Big deal.

[3.14159]

A 19637-digit #20 entry:

22507*2^65218 + 1 is prime! (a = 3) [19637 digits]
22507*2^65218 + 1 is prime! (verification : a = 7) [19637 digits]

Also: Does "127*2^504 + 1 divides GF(503, 5) !" mean, it divides 5^{26187124863169134960105517574620793217733136368344518315866330944769070371237396439066160738607233257207093473020480568073738052367083144426628220715008} +1 ?

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by 3.14159

Copout. Invalid.

Instead of refuting my claim, you cop out and call me a hypocrite. When I point out that this doesn't invalidate my claim, you say it's a copout.



I can tell who hasn't been on a forensics team!

Originally Posted by 3.14159

A bit more time to finish. Boohoo, it's the end of the world. Big deal.

An unverifiable, wasteful entry is a bad idea. It's like trying to get a high score on Progress Quest.

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by 3.14159

Does "127*2^504 + 1 divides GF(503, 5) !" mean, it divides 5^{26187124863169134960105517574620793217733136368344518315866330944769070371237396439066160738607233257207093473020480568073738052367083144426628220715008} +1 ?

Usually GF(503, 5) would mean 503^(2^5) + 1 (see Caldwell's GF page), but in this case it seems to mean what you write, since

[Merfighters]

Originally Posted by kar_bon

It's totally outdated!

Better use this link of the currently Top 20.

Yes. It's totally outdated.
But there's no entry at Top 20 for such kinds of primes.

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

Usually GF(503, 5) would mean 503^(2^5) + 1 (see Caldwell's GF page), but in this case it seems to mean what you write, since

Yes. Proth tests for GF divisors only for base 3, 5, 6, 10, 12 (and 2 for Fermats).

[3.14159]

PRP found: 2093*600!²⁶ + 1. (36614 digits)

Verification:

Primality testing 2093*600!^26+1 [N-1, Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge]
Running N-1 test using base 601
Generic modular reduction using generic reduction FFT length 12K on A 121630-bit number
Running N-1 test using base 617
Generic modular reduction using generic reduction FFT length 12K on A 121630-bit number
Calling Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge with factored part 36.03%
2093*600!^26+1 is prime! (219.5876s+0.0241s)

[3.14159]

Originally Posted by Charles

An unverifiable, wasteful entry is a bad idea. It's like trying to get a high score on Progress Quest.

Depends on how you look at it. I see it as a somewhat useful challenge, you see it as wasteful.

And, with the post above, I think I set the new record for factorial-based Proths, item 3.

Strangely, Benford's law did not kick in. (The leading digit should normally be 1.)

It begins with 955499252369921152293287757967723326530086716047517322.....

Also: Did you submit anything for the only entry you seemed to like, item 16? Number, square, and fourth?