John Bafford wrote: > > It looks to me like someone goofed in publishing this, for a few > reasons. The article consistently gets the definition of Mersenne > numbers wrong. While it does mention something about the expoential > "2p", it claims that Mersenne numbers are of the form "2p - 1", that > the previous Mersenne prime was "26,972,593 - 1", and the new one is > "213,466,917 - 1". >
Typesetting error, I think. In each case the contiguous numbers after the initial "2" are supposed to be the exponent. Gerry -- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gerry Snyder, AIS Director & Symposium Chair, Region 15 RVP Member San Fernando Valley, Southern California Iris Societies in warm, winterless Los Angeles--USDA 9b-ish, Sunset 18-19 my work: helping generate data for: http://galileo.jpl.nasa.gov/ _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
