
View Poll Results: Where is the new (maybe not) prime?  
18.019.0 M  3  2.11%  
19.020.0 M  7  4.93%  
20.021.0 M  11  7.75%  
21.022.0 M  10  7.04%  
Elsewhere, missed in DC, below 18 M  10  7.04%  
14.4kbps or less to 19.2kbps  2  1.41%  
21.6kbps to 26.4kbps  1  0.70%  
28.8kbps to 36.0kbps  3  2.11%  
38.4kbps to 52.8kbps  14  9.86%  
better than dialup  37  26.06%  
Less than 16 million  13  9.15%  
16 million  5  3.52%  
17 million  5  3.52%  
18 million  9  6.34%  
19 million or more  12  8.45%  
Voters: 142. You may not vote on this poll 

Thread Tools 
20030603, 05:43  #23 
Aug 2002
CA_{16} Posts 
I think we need to blame M40 on Xyzzy. I arrived a bit late for the chat on the 24th/25th, and he tells me I just missed George with exciting newsM40 had been found! Of course, after he's done yanking my leg, Tasuke comes in and Xyzzy goes even farther, saying it's an 8M found on a triple check.
Spooky having the real M40 show up a few days later. 
20030603, 07:43  #24 
"Mike"
Aug 2002
7·29·37 Posts 
I'm still waiting for M38½... :(

20030603, 16:21  #25  
∂^{2}ω=0
Sep 2002
República de California
2·5^{2}·223 Posts 
Quote:


20030603, 16:42  #26 
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the
1647_{16} Posts 
And just as Richard Brent's search for Primitive Trimorials is nearing completion for M6972593 (after nearly 2 1/2 years) so M13466917 could be started, someone has to go and find another Mersenne prime...

20030603, 18:36  #27  
Feb 2003
2·59 Posts 
Quote:


20030603, 20:52  #28  
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
6,833 Posts 
Quote:
And 13466917 is 5 mod 8 too. See http://web.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/work/richard.brent/trinom.html for the primitive trinomials search. So.... GIMPS needs to work a little harder to find a 1 or 7 mod 8 Mersenne prime or Richard Brent's project will come to an end! 

20030604, 00:10  #29  
∂^{2}ω=0
Sep 2002
República de California
2×5^{2}×223 Posts 
Quote:
AFAIK Noll never made a precise definition of "clumpiness," nor has anyone provided any convincing evidence that a random selection of primes having the same overall statistical frequency and properties (e.g. the way in which they thin out as they get larger, which *can* be accurately described using statistics about the number of possible prime divisors of the primeexponent Mersenne numbers) should on average be significantly less "clumpy" than the known Mersenne prime exponents. All the evidence we have points to the exponents occurring randomly, but with definite statistical properties, much like the (generic) prime numbers themselves. 

20030604, 11:33  #30 
Nov 2002
2×37 Posts 
40th mersenne prime
Does anyone know the exponent of the "new" prime????
Thank andi314 
20030604, 11:46  #31 
Sep 2002
2×7 Posts 
Yes, at least George Woltman, EW Mayer and the discoverer!
But they are not going to tell us until the verification is done. We all have to wait about 2 1/2 weeks...... Regards Achim 
20030604, 12:06  #32 
Nov 2002
2·37 Posts 
Thanks for your answer
Andi314 
20030604, 22:49  #33  
Feb 2003
2×3×13 Posts 
Re: 40th mersenne prime
Quote:


Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Is Moore's Law wrong, or is it wrongheaded (6th time around)  jasong  jasong  12  20160527 11:01 
what I do wrong  pepi37  Linux  4  20150712 09:13 
Am I doing it wrong?  kracker  PrimeNet  3  20120701 22:35 
something wrong with my RAM?  ixfd64  Hardware  13  20100717 20:49 
something wrong here?  ixfd64  Lounge  2  20070917 13:20 