Re: New prime number found

2016-05-24 Thread John Clark
On Tue, May 24, 2016 Russell Standish wrote: ​> ​ > The unofficial convention on plain text email notation is that of > LaTeX, so one would have to write 2^{74207281-1} if you wanted to > include the -1 in the exponent. > ​Or you could just write 2^74207280​ ​ John K Clark​ > -- You rece

Re: New prime number found

2016-05-24 Thread Russell Standish
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 04:09:24PM -0400, John Mikes wrote: > Brent to your 1-22 post: > what trapped me was a negligent way of writing. JCK wrote it right, you > repeated it nonchallantly (leaving out the empty space): > 2^74207281-1 (instead of correctly: (2^74207281 -1) > what really included

Re: New prime number found

2016-05-24 Thread John Mikes
Brent to your 1-22 post: what trapped me was a negligent way of writing. JCK wrote it right, you repeated it nonchallantly (leaving out the empty space): 2^74207281-1 (instead of correctly: (2^74207281 -1) what really included the (-1) into the wxponent rather than into the RESULT of the raised b

Re: New prime number found

2016-01-22 Thread Brent Meeker
It's to correct your misreading. 2^74207281 concludes ...436352 so 2^74207281-1 concludes ...436351 and does not end in zero. Brent On 1/22/2016 1:12 PM, John Mikes wrote: /Is this to vindicate, or abrogate my negative response?/ /JM/ On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Brent Meeker

Re: New prime number found

2016-01-22 Thread Russell Standish
The prime number ends in a one. The power of two (2^74207281) from which 1 was subtracted must therefore have ended in 2. As Brent says. So yes, JM, if you subtract 1 from this new prime number, the result will be even, as you say. But that is also true of every prime number except for 2, so is no

Re: New prime number found

2016-01-22 Thread John Mikes
*Is this to vindicate, or abrogate my negative response?* *JM* On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > The number ends in 1 not the power of two, which must end in 2. > > Brent > > On 1/20/2016 11:49 AM, John Mikes wrote: > > JKC: is that so indeed? my minuscule math tells me that

Re: New prime number found

2016-01-20 Thread Brent Meeker
The number ends in 1 not the power of two, which must end in 2. Brent On 1/20/2016 11:49 AM, John Mikes wrote: JKC: is that so indeed? my minuscule math tells me that if something (any long number - or short) ends with a "1" then the/*_MINUS 1_*/ of this number ends in a zero, dividable e.g. b

Re: New prime number found

2016-01-20 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:49 PM, John Mikes wrote: > >> JKC: is that so indeed? my minuscule math tells me that if something (any >> long number - or short) ends with a "1" then the* MINUS 1* of this >> number ends in a zero, dividable

Re: New prime number found

2016-01-20 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:49 PM, John Mikes wrote: > JKC: is that so indeed? my minuscule math tells me that if something (any > long number - or short) ends with a "1" then the* MINUS 1* of this number > ends in a zero, dividable e.g. by 2, even 10 etc... 22 million digits??? > John, the number

Re: New prime number found

2016-01-20 Thread John Mikes
JKC: is that so indeed? my minuscule math tells me that if something (any long number - or short) ends with a "1" then the* MINUS 1* of this number ends in a zero, dividable e.g. by 2, even 10 etc... 22 million digits??? John M On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 1:26 PM, John Clark wrote: > The largest kno

New prime number found

2016-01-20 Thread John Clark
The largest known prime number has just been found, 2^74207281 -1 is prime; it starts off as 300376 carries on for a bit and then concludes with 436351. I omitted the middle bit because the entire number is 22,338,618 digits long. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/01/