![]() |
|
|
#342 |
|
Aug 2006
3×1,993 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#343 |
|
May 2010
Prime hunting commission.
24·3·5·7 Posts |
Proved the primality of 477317336992314989983, a Generalized Proth number, via trial factoring.
P.S: Can someone prove the primality of the number 29201806527798202690471270497026289647897695441591089473790387382190437432352472117744280333628938004491474620381040060030880069981 using trial factoring alone? (Please, do not attempt. It would take you somewhere around 1060 years to do so.) Last fiddled with by 3.14159 on 2010-09-07 at 16:03 |
|
|
|
|
|
#344 |
|
Aug 2006
3×1,993 Posts |
Low-end p25. It's been computing since before I posted about it, but then I thought that since you might disallow it I should ask.
I did a number of tests to convince myself that you'd allow it. First, I proved that the number was prime (so I won't come up with a factor toward the end of my TD). Next, I checked that neither the number plus 1 nor the number minus 1 had an unusual factorization, like Mersenne and (generalized) Fermat numbers do. Taking it further, I thought you might cry foul if you saw that it was close to a power with a large exponent (say, if my number was 2^82 - 57), so I'm now checking that there are no powers with large exponents within a million of the number. Will that do? Edit: Check complete. The largest exponent within a million of the number is 1, so that shouldn't be a problem. Last fiddled with by CRGreathouse on 2010-09-07 at 16:05 |
|
|
|
|
|
#345 |
|
May 2010
Prime hunting commission.
110100100002 Posts |
Hmm. You would preferably use a small PRP you found, but, okay.
Also: You can use anything from the list. (Proths, k-b-b's, Cullen-Woodalls, etc.) 282 - 57? I wouldn't be bothered. That would go under General arithmetic progressions (For the k * n - c analogues anyway.) Here, k = 1. All I require is that the number not be proven easily due to only having special-form potential factors. Ex: 484550591673673379619288086628103598801942479039 = 679 * 2149 + 191 is allowed. In general, General arithmetic progressions requires that it cannot be easily proven via N-1 testing, as Proths, k-b-b's, and Cullen-Woodalls are. Last fiddled with by 3.14159 on 2010-09-07 at 16:11 |
|
|
|
|
|
#346 |
|
Aug 2006
3·1,993 Posts |
OK, proof is done!
2077756847362348863128179 is prime, and this was proven only with trial division. |
|
|
|
|
|
#347 | |
|
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville
26·131 Posts |
Quote:
in that category. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#348 | |
|
May 2010
Prime hunting commission.
24×3×5×7 Posts |
Okay, holding the record for TF, at a p25.
Quote:
Last fiddled with by 3.14159 on 2010-09-07 at 16:13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#349 |
|
Aug 2006
3·1,993 Posts |
Well, at the time that I started the test it was only a BPSW probable prime. While the test was running I did the work described (primality test, power check, etc.).
I don't know of a good way to check that the number isn't "like" 679 * 2149 + 191, but looking at the factorizations of the hundred numbers around mine I don't see anything funny like that. Do you? |
|
|
|
|
|
#350 | |
|
May 2010
Prime hunting commission.
24·3·5·7 Posts |
Quote:
Also: You can use General arithmetic progressions. A somewhat larger example: 895941833940689770406518404950638729749847666944846720296578047412481689041272732974527851579222195722870329231843700770993569019955737882905281399 is 287 * 2480 + 887. Last fiddled with by 3.14159 on 2010-09-07 at 16:22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#351 |
|
Aug 2006
3·1,993 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#352 | |
|
May 2010
Prime hunting commission.
24·3·5·7 Posts |
Quote:
Last fiddled with by 3.14159 on 2010-09-07 at 16:27 |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Prime posting thread, part 2. (With a catch.) | 3.14159 | Miscellaneous Math | 55 | 2010-11-19 23:55 |
| Tiny range request .... 555.1M | petrw1 | LMH > 100M | 1 | 2010-07-13 15:35 |
| Other primes thread | nuggetprime | No Prime Left Behind | 32 | 2009-10-21 21:48 |
| Error: tiny factoring failed | 10metreh | Msieve | 26 | 2009-03-08 23:28 |
| Tiny error on nfsnet pages. | antiroach | NFSNET Discussion | 1 | 2003-07-08 00:27 |