Live data from Hacker News

New Mersenne Prime discovered (probably)

mersenne.org

11–20 of 126 posts

Re: New Mersenne Prime discovered (probably)

#11
post #3

I can swear something like 20+ years ago I found a new one too, but I didn’t realize the importance of it. I had just downloaded GIMPS and I was just messing around with it, and when I saw the message I thought “ok, cool!” and proceeded to turn it off.

[dead]

Re: New Mersenne Prime discovered (probably)

#12
post #7

Why don't they say what it is?

Because the EFF Cooperative Computing Awards for the first discovery of large enough prime numbers are still active. Publishing the probable prime in advance would risk someone verifying faster than GIMPS.

It's hard to see how that someone would count as the discoverer.

Re: New Mersenne Prime discovered (probably)

#13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the EFF Cooperative Computing Awards for the first discovery of large enough prime numbers are still active. Publishing the probable prime in advance would risk someone verifying faster than GIMPS.

It's hard to see how that someone would count as the discoverer.

That someone will totally count as the discoverer under the current rules [1], because it requires the deterministic primality proof for given number. It doesn't matter how much effort was taken to reach that candidate so far, even though it would be virtually impossible to find any new prime without that. I think the temporary embargo is fully justified for this reason.

(And I think it is technically possible to probe the reports to find what it was anyway, but it is not easy to find one at least for me. If you are really looking for that, look for the P-PRP result type.)

[1] https://www.eff.org/awards/coop/rules

Re: New Mersenne Prime discovered (probably)

#16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the EFF Cooperative Computing Awards for the first discovery of large enough prime numbers are still active. Publishing the probable prime in advance would risk someone verifying faster than GIMPS.

It's hard to see how that someone would count as the discoverer.

How hard?

NP hard?

I wonder why?

:)

Re: New Mersenne Prime discovered (probably)

#17
post #3

I can swear something like 20+ years ago I found a new one too, but I didn’t realize the importance of it. I had just downloaded GIMPS and I was just messing around with it, and when I saw the message I thought “ok, cool!” and proceeded to turn it off.

Do you have any slightest idea about the exponent, including how many digits in the exponent? I assume you had no account (otherwise there should have been some logs for that).

Re: New Mersenne Prime discovered (probably)

#18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to see how that someone would count as the discoverer.

That someone will totally count as the discoverer under the current rules [1], because it requires the deterministic primality proof for given number. It doesn't matter how much effort was taken to reach that candidate so far, even though it would be virtually impossible to find any new prime without that. I think the temporary embargo is fully justified for this reason. (And I think it is technically possible to pro…

Is there a probabilistic test for Mersene primes? I thought they just wanted confirmation via independent calculation.

Re: New Mersenne Prime discovered (probably)

#19
post #3

I can swear something like 20+ years ago I found a new one too, but I didn’t realize the importance of it. I had just downloaded GIMPS and I was just messing around with it, and when I saw the message I thought “ok, cool!” and proceeded to turn it off.

I'd believe it. Many years ago when I was around 10 years old and not understanding the concept of probability properly, I decided I had come up with a way to enumerate the lottery numbers and come up with a reasonably sized set of numbers to place bets for. I proceeded to write 9 pages of numbers for my father to place bets for. It is a 6/49 lottery so 6 balls are drawn from a set of 49 and you need to get all of them right to get the jackpot.

It would have cost a little under 95$ to have played all my numbers (for a jackpot around $1.5M) I gave him however it would have taken a lot of effort to manually enter them. My father just does one page because it is silly. The numbers are silly, everything about this is silly. I completely understand in hindsight. But it turned out page 7 had the winning combination.

Post reply on HN