- Thread starter Avahlanch
- Start date

- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007

- Messages
- 18,454

The same place should tell you where you should send your discovery.What should I do about this? I've seen on the internet that you could get money?

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

- Joined
- Feb 4, 2004

- Messages
- 15,946

In light of Euclid's famously simple proof that there is no "largest" prime (for instance,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?

But, at any given instant there must be the highestIn light of Euclid's famously simple proof that there is no "largest" prime (for instance,), you know that it's impossible to do what you've claimed. So please reply with clarification of your post. Thank you!here

- Joined
- Apr 12, 2005

- Messages
- 10,029

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

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.

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

Last edited:

You are correct. Thank you. I missed what I feel is a minor clause in the cited proof. I shall correct my post.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.