Largest known prime not Mersenne?
[quote=Ed Sandifer, "How Euler Did It"]Several Mersenne primes are known, and for several decades, the largest
known prime number was usually a Mersenne prime. This is no longer the case.[/quote] Am I misreading this? [url=http://www.maa.org/editorial/euler/How%20Euler%20Did%20It%2025%20amicable%20numbers.pdf]Here is the article[/url] 
According to Chris Caldwell,
[url]http://primes.utm.edu/notes/by_year.html#table2[/url] the last time the largest prime was not Mersenne was 1989. So I guess the guy just made a mistake. 
[QUOTE=Numbers]According to Chris Caldwell,
[url]http://primes.utm.edu/notes/by_year.html#table2[/url] the last time the largest prime was not Mersenne was 1989. So I guess the guy just made a mistake.[/QUOTE] Normally I would just blow off an error like that, but the guy writes articles for the MAA, so I'd expect him to be up on his stuff. I was wondering if there's some reason why he would write that. 
Not in the referred article for what I could understand.

[QUOTE=ppo]Not in the referred article for what I could understand.[/QUOTE]
It's on the first page, right after theorem 276 
Sorry, what I was trying to say is that there is nothing else in the article to give support to such statement.

All times are UTC. The time now is 02:42. 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000  2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.