I think I found the highest known prime number.

Avahlanch

New member
Joined
Sep 29, 2017
Messages
3
I think I found the highest known prime number. What should I do about this? I've seen on the internet that you could get money?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Subhotosh Khan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 18, 2007
Messages
18,580
What should I do about this? I've seen on the internet that you could get money?
The same place should tell you where you should send your discovery.

May be you can send it to the mathematics department of Harvard University!
 

stapel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 4, 2004
Messages
15,948
I think I found the highest known prime number. What should I do about this? I've seen on the internet that you could get money?
In light of Euclid's famously simple proof that there is no "largest" prime (for instance, here), you know that it's impossible to do what you've claimed. So please reply with clarification of your post. Thank you! ;)
 

JeffM

Elite Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
3,791
In light of Euclid's famously simple proof that there is no "largest" prime (for instance, here), you know that it's impossible to do what you've claimed. So please reply with clarification of your post. Thank you! ;)
But, at any given instant there must be the highest known prime. I suggest that the OP collect his award quickly.
 

tkhunny

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
10,101
This depends on one's feelings towards "known". If we know that there is no limit to their number, it is not unclear to imagine that we cannot know, even for a moment, anything that is "highest" in any reasonable definition of the word.

Question for OP. What is the magnitude of this number you claim to have found?
 

JeffM

Elite Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
3,791
Lookagain pointed out that I misread the cited proof. What I thought was an omission was not omitted.
 
Last edited:

lookagain

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
2,447
Actually, the proof cited is flawed.

It assumes the existence of a finite list of all primes. it further assumes that there are L primes in the list, p_1, p_2, etc.

Now it constructs \(\displaystyle \displaystyle u = 1 + v \text {, where } v = \prod_{j=1}^L p_j.\)

Obviously \(\displaystyle \text {For } j = 1,\ ... \ L,\ p_j \ | \ v \implies p_j \ \not | \ v + 1 = u.\)

So far all is well. The proof then concludes that therefore u is prime, but that does not follow.
No, the proof does not conclude that.

The proof concludes that either u is prime, or u has prime factors larger than the supposed largest prime in the list.
 
Last edited:

JeffM

Elite Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
3,791
No, the proof does not conclude that.

The proof concludes that either u is prime, or u has prime factors larger than the supposed largest prime in the list.
You are correct. Thank you. I missed what I feel is a minor clause in the cited proof. I shall correct my post.
 
Top