3 ms·
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'
by lifthrasiir 2y ago
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 https://www.eff.org/awards/coop/rules
- phkahler 2y agoIs there a probabilistic test for Mersene primes? I thought they just wanted confirmation via independent calculation.
- lifthrasiir 2y agoAny probabilistic primality test will work, but GIMPS currently uses the first-time Fermat probable prime test with a very robust certificate [1] to filter almost all non-primes in advance. [1] https://www.mersenne.org/various/math.php#prp https://www.mersenne.org/various/math.php#prp
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- af3d 2y agoIt's called the "Lucas–Lehmer primality test". Without it, GIMPS probably wouldn't have found a single one of them in an acceptable amount of time. The one that was just discovered is HUGE. I had to write a program just to slow down the output enough to be able to appreciate its shear magnitude (it is still printing as I write this!).