20031214, 12:16  #1 
Aug 2002
2×3 Posts 
GIMPS webpage
Shouldn't it be GIMPS Finding the 6 Largest Known Primes?
Last fiddled with by eratos on 20031214 at 12:18 
20031214, 14:51  #2 
Sep 2003
Borg HQ, Delta Quadrant
702_{10} Posts 
Another thing to add to this thread...

20031214, 17:57  #3  
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA
2^{2}×3×641 Posts 
Re: GIMPS webpage
Quote:
Each of the six times GIMPS has found a new Mersenne prime, it has been the largest known prime as of its date of discovery. So in that sense, GIMPS has found 6 "Largest Known Prime"s. But the wording "...the 6 Largest Known Primes" seems to require referring to the current list of six largest primes, which would include that largest known nonMersenne prime that was not GIMPS's discovery. So, actually our "Finding the 5 Largest Known Primes" slogan has been factually incorrect for a while, and has only just been restored to correctness by M40. (I think George and Scott never changed the 5 to a 4 because they hoped to find another record prime quickly and didn't want to go through the hassle of changing the 4 back to a 5 then.) Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 20031214 at 17:59 

20031214, 18:21  #4 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA
7692_{10} Posts 
Correction to my preceding posting:
According to Chris Caldwell's list of hundred largest known primes at http://primes.utm.edu/primes/search.php?Number=100 there are currently seven known nonMersenne primes that are larger than GIMPS's first discovery (six additions since I last looked  I shoulda looked before posting), and they have all been discovered in 2003. So GIMPS has found what are currently the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and thirteenth largest primes. And it looks like we'll lose fourth and fifth places soon. Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 20031214 at 18:24 
20031216, 21:17  #5 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA
2^{2}×3×641 Posts 
Sure enough, looks like Seventeen or Bust's latest discovery is the fourthlargest nowknown prime, so GIMPS's primes are now first, second, third, fifth, sixth, and (AFAIK) 14th in size.

20031216, 21:25  #6  
Sep 2003
Borg HQ, Delta Quadrant
2·3^{3}·13 Posts 
Quote:


20031216, 23:30  #7 
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
10011111111000_{2} Posts 
Prehaps wording such as "Finding 6 world record largest primes" or "The world leader in record primes" (I know that is not quite "right", who ever figured that 2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,,,101 is prob. the leader).
Last fiddled with by Uncwilly on 20031216 at 23:31 
20031217, 00:28  #8  
Sep 2003
Borg HQ, Delta Quadrant
2·3^{3}·13 Posts 
Quote:
Last fiddled with by PrimeCruncher on 20031217 at 00:28 

20031217, 01:30  #9 
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
5×1,553 Posts 
Anyone want to change that .gif file for me? And no I don't remember what font I used.
Finding the last 6 world record primes or Finding 6 world record primes or something else I suppose shorter is better so that it fits on low res screens 
20031217, 03:28  #10 
Sep 2002
Austin, TX
3·11·17 Posts 
Here is an updated version I put together with "Finding 6 World Record Primes!". It fits the original web page , so all you have to do is replace the old one with this one .
Last fiddled with by E_tron on 20031217 at 03:31 
20031217, 03:37  #11 
Nov 2003
165_{10} Posts 
Very nice, however, you might want to use the same font as the other banners just for consistency. By inspection, the old font was Ariel, and the font you used is Times New Roman.

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
security of the webpage?  Unregistered  Information & Answers  4  20130208 04:42 
The webpage cannot be found for win7 64  benDan  Software  4  20121217 05:59 
Webpage on NewtonRaphson  ewmayer  Other Mathematical Topics  36  20120911 13:32 
Gimps Results to webpage?  Unregistered  Information & Answers  2  20091027 18:15 
Yet another GIMPS FAQ  Prime Monster  Lounge  9  20030412 12:12 