![]() |
![]() |
#1002 |
Sep 2011
Germany
3,121 Posts |
![]()
57*572^235362+1 found by Ralfy (648989 digits)
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1003 |
Sep 2011
Germany
3,121 Posts |
![]()
134*937^219783-1 found by Neriyah (653140 digits)
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1004 |
"Nuri, the dragon :P"
Jul 2016
Good old Germany
2·52·17 Posts |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1005 |
Sep 2011
Germany
C3116 Posts |
![]()
44*950^208860-1 found by Odicin (621929 digits)
116*950^258458-1 found by Neriyah (769619 digits) |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1006 |
Sep 2011
Germany
3,121 Posts |
![]()
74*932^229308-1 found by Ralfy (680913 digits)
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1007 |
"Sam"
Nov 2016
5148 Posts |
![]()
A good start to a new year.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1008 | |
May 2007
Kansas; USA
7·1,531 Posts |
![]() Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1009 |
Jun 2015
Vallejo, CA/.
1,093 Posts |
![]()
According to Chris Caldwell List this is the only prime discovered and reported on Jan 1st (2022)
rank ..prime ....................digits ..who ...when .................comment 1785 684 · 157375674 + 1 824946 L5112 Jan 2022 1/1.22 12:58:22 CDT Perhaps it has to do with time zones. Congratulations to both discoverers. Last fiddled with by rudy235 on 2022-01-02 at 05:55 Reason: spacing |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1010 | |
"Rashid Naimi"
Oct 2015
Remote to Here/There
1000110000102 Posts |
![]() Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1011 | |
May 2007
Kansas; USA
7·1,531 Posts |
![]() Quote:
Both discoverers? There was only one discoverer. It is not unusual for only one top-5000 prime to be discovered/reported in a single day. It happens quite often. Perhaps people are less likely to check their machines on a holiday and so there might be somewhat fewer primes reported on such days. But this is not out of the ordinary. Many times there are no primes reported in a 24-hour time frame. Any prime found here is a nice prime so we always celebrate the discoveries. ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1012 |
Jun 2015
Vallejo, CA/.
1,093 Posts |
![]()
The reference to time zones was meant to mean that a prime might be discovered in New Year's eve in Oregon at 23:00 pacific daytime and would arguably be considered not the first prime of the new year, while a prime discovered 6 hours earlier in London might be considered as one belonging to the new year.
I don't write this in the animus of creating an argument, I am merely try to explain what I meant by "time zones". I hope it is understood That is something I agree with enthusiasm and hopefully everyone else does too.. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Report top-5000 primes for all k<=1001 | gd_barnes | No Prime Left Behind | 1610 | 2022-05-22 05:08 |
Report top-5000 primes for k=1003-3000 | gd_barnes | No Prime Left Behind | 688 | 2020-04-24 07:31 |
All top 5000 primes will have the same number of digits in 2014 ;-) | Batalov | Conjectures 'R Us | 10 | 2013-03-29 01:29 |
Twenty Oldest Primes on Top 5000 List | masser | Lounge | 9 | 2008-08-27 12:31 |
get all the 5000 biggest primes above 100K digits | jasong | jasong | 1 | 2007-06-09 22:51 |