 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
what is this list? edit
That list: 3, 5 7, 11 etc... is that for the exponent p or the Wagstaff prime itself? It says in the article those are the first few Wagstaff primes, but I don't think so... for instance, if 5 was a Wagstaff prime, it would follow that ((2^p)+1)/3 = 5 for some prime p, ie 2^p = 14, which is nonsense... ln(14) isn't even natural.
Bird of paradox 19:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Those are the indexes, see (sequence A000978 in the OEIS). They are themselves prime, which naturally leads to some confusion. The Wagstaff primes themselves are listed in OEIS: A000979. PrimeFan 22:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I rewrote the definition to make clear the difference between the wagstaff primes and the prime exponents of 2 in the numerator. I also wrote out explicitly why 3,11,and 43 are wagstaff primes. some connections to other areas would help fill out the article.Essap 23:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)essap
new theorem on Wagstaff primes? edit
Several days ago, someone named Anton Vrba claims to have discovered a new primality test for Wagstaff numbers that is very similar to the Lucas–Lehmer primality test. [1] I generally take any theorem that is not published in an academic journal with a grain of salt. In fact, several others are saying that Vrba's proof is incorrect. However, I was able to verify this hypothesis for values of q up to 167.
In any case, I've mentioned this purported new theorem in the article. If anyone feels that it is inappropriate, feel free to remove it. --Ixfd64 (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
(2^83339+1)/3 edit
See factorb, it is a definitely prime XDDD!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.82.96.89 (talk) 04:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)