At 10:01 PM 10/25/2001 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >On 25 Oct 2001, at 10:31, Ken Kriesel wrote: > >> M33219278 is the smallest Mersenne Number with at least 10^7 digits, >> but M33219281 is the smallest Mersenne Prime with at least 10^7 >> digits. > >Um, I seem to remember testing that number & confirming Rick >Pali's discovery that it is _not_ prime. > >Perhaps it would be fair to say that M33219281 _was_ the smallest >_candidate_ 10 million (decimal) digit Mersenne prime (pending LL >testing). It isn't even that now.
As Steinar Gunderson promptly pointed out, I should have said not "Mersenne Prime" but something like "Mersenne Prime Candidate". That would be valid until at least one LL test completes giving nonprime result, after which I would consider it a probable nonprime. After a matching double check completes, I think most would regard it a proven nonprime. Brian's double check completed April 6 on M33219281, confirming Rick Pali's results of Nov 5 2000; this exponent was tested as part of the QA effort and was for a time the largest completed double check. (M40250087 is to my knowledge the largest completed single or double-check.) How about this: M33219281 is the smallest Mersenne Number of prime exponent with at least 10^7 digits. Currently there is no Mersenne Prime known with 10^7 or more digits, so my error yesterday is rather glaring. Oops. Ken _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
