Talk:Titanic prime
Latest comment: 5 years ago by MathPerson in topic Are these first 30 numbers truly primes, or merely probable primes?
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 13 May 2021. The result of the discussion was merge. |
![]() | This page was proposed for deletion by JayBeeEll (talk · contribs) on 1 May 2021. |
Please add
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Numbers NA‑class | ||||||
|
Suggestions to the define of titanic primes
editI think the "titanic", "giganic", and "mega" primes should be defined on "at least n bits (digits in base 2)", not base 10, because the base 2 are the natural base, but base 10 is an "artificial" base. For example, they can be defined as "at least 4096, 65536 and 1048576 bits" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.82.111.92 (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is based on published reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Verifiablity. We don't make up our own definitions of words. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Are these first 30 numbers truly primes, or merely probable primes?
editFor the numbers 10^999 + n, the OEIS link gives Mathematica code
Select[Range[65000], PrimeQ[10^999 + # ] &]
where PrimeQ is a probable prime test, and PARI code
for(n=1, 10^5, if(gcd(n, 10)==1, if(ispseudoprime(10^999+n), print1(n, ", "))))
So, the question is, have these numbers been proved prime? If not, then the article should say that they are probable primes. MathPerson (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- OK, these numbers are really primes. PARI/GP's primecert() function can produce certificates of primality. Here's the code that proves the numbers are prime:
default(parisizemax, 2048 * 10^6); { for(n = 1, 10^5,
if(gcd(n, 10) == 1, num = 10^999 + n; if(ispseudoprime(num), cert = primecert(num, 0); if(cert != 0, print("10^999 + ", n, " proved prime"), print("10^999 + ", n, " was not proved prime") ) ) ) )