Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 01:04:55 UTC No. 16443390

>>16443183
Why do we need new prime numbers? Aren't 3 and 5 sufficient?

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 01:09:29 UTC No. 16443395

>>16443390
Prove it mathematically, faggot

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 01:12:16 UTC No. 16443400

>>16443183
>GIMPS

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 01:27:28 UTC No. 16443416

>>16443395
No.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 01:40:57 UTC No. 16443428

Who cares?

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 01:43:21 UTC No. 16443430

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 01:44:11 UTC No. 16443433

that's 136,279,841 binary 1s
wew

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 02:05:05 UTC No. 16443459

>>16443390
Projects like GIMPS are more a benchmark to show the current state of computing speed and distributed processing. Someone people also find them fun and a good use of idle cpu cycles.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 02:30:03 UTC No. 16443484

>The record is currently held by 2136,279,841 − 1 with 41,024,320 digits, found by GIMPS in October 2024. The first and last 120 digits of its value are:

881694327503833265553939100378117358971207354509066041067156376412422630694756841441725990347723283108837509739959776874 ...

(41,024,080 digits skipped)

... 852806517931459412567957568284228288124096109707961148305849349766085764170715060409404509622104665555076706219486871551

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 02:36:24 UTC No. 16443489

>>16443484
It's more interesting in binary. It's all 1's.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 02:54:22 UTC No. 16443502

>>16443489
you didn't even count them, faggot
get started

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 03:10:44 UTC No. 16443509

>>16443502
> Idiot can't read the OP
Ez: 136279841

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 23:50:26 UTC No. 16444981

green is my pepper!

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 00:42:40 UTC No. 16445055

>>16443183
Not my prime!

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 02:21:37 UTC No. 16445178

>>16443183
>research

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 03:16:20 UTC No. 16446737

>>16443183
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zmdfufJMz0

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 03:37:46 UTC No. 16446751

>>16443183
All primes are either
a. [math]2[/math]
b. [math]2^p\pm1[/math]

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 04:03:37 UTC No. 16446766

>>16443484
>(41,024,080 digits skipped)
Why'd you skip my favorite part :(

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 10:17:13 UTC No. 16446980

>>16446751
gr8 b8 m8

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 10:47:51 UTC No. 16447010

>>16446751
Wrong, Mersenne's formula skips most of the primes.

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 12:41:14 UTC No. 16447102

>>16446751
No, however... you could say that all primes are either 2 or 2n +/- 1

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 14:26:57 UTC No. 16447180

>>16443390
Prime numbers are useful for creating "random numbers".

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 09:35:04 UTC No. 16450240

>>16443183
optimus prime

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 12:00:00 UTC No. 16451998

That's wild.

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 12:16:12 UTC No. 16452016

>>16447180
ones with a million bits sure as fuck aren't

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 12:25:07 UTC No. 16452022

>>16446751
>>16447102
all primes are of the form 2 or p^n +/- 1

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 12:28:51 UTC No. 16452026

>>16447102
TIL 9 is a prime number

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 12:47:07 UTC No. 16452050

>>16452016
Many "random" generators work exactly by taking powers of numbers in the field with p elements where p is a fuckhuge prime. They will not appear random if the prime isn't big enough.

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:08:04 UTC No. 16452086

>>16443183
If that number is so big why won't it fight me?

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 14:24:12 UTC No. 16452209

>>16452050
how "random" do we need numbers to be really?