mersenneforum.org

mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   Lounge (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Largest known prime not Mersenne? (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=5193)

Orgasmic Troll 2005-12-23 14:56

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]

Numbers 2005-12-23 18:33

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.

Orgasmic Troll 2005-12-23 20:02

[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.

ppo 2005-12-23 21:36

Not in the referred article for what I could understand.

Orgasmic Troll 2005-12-23 21:48

[QUOTE=ppo]Not in the referred article for what I could understand.[/QUOTE]

It's on the first page, right after theorem 276

ppo 2005-12-23 22:00

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.