On Tuesday 20 August 2002 16:32, Tony Forbes wrote: > We all know that A. Hurwitz discovered the Mersenne primes 2^4253 - 1 > and 2^4423 - 1 in 1961. > > (i) Were these the first two 1000+ digit primes discovered?
Yes. See http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/notes/by_year.html#table2 > > (ii) If that is true, then is it generally accepted that the larger one > (4423) was discovered first? (The story I heard was that left the > computer running overnight and when he came to look at the results he > read the printer output backwards, thus seeing 4423 before 4253.) Interesting. Is the "discovery" the point at which the computer finishes with zero residual (in which case 4423 was discovered first) or the point at which a human being becomes aware of the result of the computer run (in which case 4423 was discovered first). (Unless the operator (remember those?) was reading the printout as it was being output?) Regards Brian Beesley _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
