mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > News

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2018-05-12, 23:52   #12
Batalov
 
Batalov's Avatar
 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

9,127 Posts
Default

WOT rules!
Batalov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-05-13, 00:07   #13
ATH
Einyen
 
ATH's Avatar
 
Dec 2003
Denmark

27×23 Posts
Default

Yes, WoT is a really great series.
ATH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-05-14, 22:51   #14
Xyzzy
 
Xyzzy's Avatar
 
"Mike"
Aug 2002

170368 Posts
Default

Xyzzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-05-17, 21:11   #15
GP2
 
GP2's Avatar
 
Sep 2003

22×3×5×43 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NBtarheel_33 View Post
In the M47 announcement, note that it is "almost 10 years" between the discovery of M47 and its proof of place
There has probably never been a time when the known Mersenne primes were all known to be in the right order from 1 to N, with no undiscovered primes smaller than the Nth. At least not since Euler's time, if ever.

Earlier discoverers left gaps, didn't do double-checking systematically or at all, and had some erroneous results. Guy Haworth's article from 1987 (looong PDF file) is a good overview.

In 1876 Lucas calculated that M127 was prime, but several smaller exponents remained unknown, including M101, M107, M109.

In 1913, Fauquembergue claimed to have proven that M101 and M137 and some others were composite, but his residues were later found to be incorrect (by Robinson).

In 1952, Robinson discovered six Mersenne primes from M521 to M2281, but his residue for M1889 was later found to be incorrect (in 1961 by Hurwitz).

In 1957, Riesel discovered M3217, however his residues for M2957, M2969, M3049, M3109 were later found to be incorrect.

In 1961, Hurwitz discovered M4253 and M4423, however his residues for M3637, M3847, M4397, M4421 were later found to be incorrect.

In 1963, Gillies discovered M9689, M9941, M11213, however his residue for
M12143 was later found to be incorrect (by Tuckerman).

In 1979, Nelson & Slowinski found M44497, however their residues were incorrect for about a dozen or more exponents.

Slowinski notoriously did not search systematically, and missed M110513.

And obviously Primenet by its design does not test exponents in monotonic rising order.


Sooner or later, we will hit a large gap between exponents, and in that case, we might actually double check all exponents below M50 before we find M51. For example, there were six cases where the next exponent was more than double the previous one (127–521, 607–1279, 4423–9689, 216091–756839, 1398269–2976221, 3021377–6972593).

If that turns out to be the case, then for the first time in centuries or possibly ever, the known Mersenne primes will be in known sequential order.
GP2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-06-12, 20:12   #16
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

237428 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GP2 View Post
In 1963, Gillies discovered M9689, M9941, M11213, however his residue for
M12143 was later found to be incorrect (by Tuckerman).
Interesting analysis. But this one looks like a possible exception. The incorrect residue for M12143 is larger than the primes that Gillies discovered. At that point in time could all Mersenne's have been proven to be in the correct order? The next prime was M19937. Could there have been enough time to doublecheck everything below M11213 before M19937 was discovered?
gd_barnes is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-06-12, 21:45   #17
GP2
 
GP2's Avatar
 
Sep 2003

22×3×5×43 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gd_barnes View Post
Interesting analysis. But this one looks like a possible exception. The incorrect residue for M12143 is larger than the primes that Gillies discovered. At that point in time could all Mersenne's have been proven to be in the correct order? The next prime was M19937. Could there have been enough time to doublecheck everything below M11213 before M19937 was discovered?
Back then, there were often gaps of several years between investigators trying to find Mersenne primes. M11213 was discovered by Gillies in 1963, and M19937 was discovered by Tuckerman in 1971, and there doesn't seem to be any record of anyone doing Mersenne prime searches between those two years.

So Tuckerman double-checked Gillies' ranges, but found a new prime himself. He searched up to 21,000. Then in 1978 Nickel & Noll started searching from 21,000 to 24,500 and eventually found M21,701 and M23,209.

Nelson & Slowinski double-checked up to 21,000 in 1979 and independently rediscovered M23,209 a couple of weeks after Noll. So they double-checked Tuckerman's work, but in the meantime Noll had found a new prime.

So I don't know if there was ever a time when someone completely double-checked the previous researcher's range without discovering a new prime themselves and thereby retriggering the need for more double-checking.

Maybe when Noll and Nelson & Slowinski independently discovered M23,209 within a couple of weeks of each other, there might have been a point when things might have been double-checked up to that point. But then again Noll inadvertently forgot to publish a residue for M22501...

Anyways, you can read Haworth's article until your eyes glaze over, but in the end it's hard to pin things down exactly.
GP2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What happened with Dubslow? aketilander Lounge 13 2013-08-31 00:35
n=500000 what happened? cipher Twin Prime Search 2 2009-07-15 01:15
What happened to my stats? BranMuffin PrimeNet 4 2008-11-19 22:33
what happened? ixfd64 PrimeNet 26 2006-02-15 23:50
What happened? ThomRuley Lone Mersenne Hunters 7 2003-07-31 16:31

All times are UTC. The time now is 01:47.

Thu Oct 1 01:47:32 UTC 2020 up 20 days, 22:58, 1 user, load averages: 1.43, 1.46, 1.51

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.