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".
Additionally, it doesn't bother to give the length of M39, though it does for M38, and quotes Tim Cusak as saying that he "expects the new prime to be confirmed this week by a second test on a supercomputer". This article was clearly posted before the official confirmation was completed. Also, George Woltman said in an email on the 24th that the verification would complete around Dec 6th. Just my 2 cents.. -John >Warut Roonguthai wrote: > > http://www.academicpress.com/inscight/11302001/grapha.htm > >Look like the cat is out of the bag now - it's 2^13,466,917 - 1. Was >this early publication indended? I thought the press release was due >only after the independent double check completed, but then they quote >Tim Cusak of Entropia, which makes it sound like an official >announcement. Or is the official double check finished already? -- John Bafford [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dshadow.com/ _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
