It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# New prime number found!

page: 1
2
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 06:56 PM
I just found this and didnt see it posted here so i decided to

www.telegraph.co.uk...

A team from the the University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA) found the new prime – meaning it can be divided only by itself and one - by connecting 75 computers and harnessing their power. The number is the largest "Mersenne prime" to have been discovered. Mersenne primes are numbers expressed as two to the power of "P" minus one - where P is itself a prime number. In the UCLA team's new prime, P is 43,112,609. Their number is the 46th known Mersenne prime and the eighth to have been discovered at UCLA. Mersenne primes are named after their discoverer, Marin Mersenne, who was a 17th century French mathematician. "We're delighted," said UCLA's Edson Smith, the team's leader. "Now we're looking for the next one, despite the odds." The \$100,000 prize was offered by the Electronic Frontier Foundation for anyone discovering the first Mersenne prime with more than 10 million digits. The foundation set up the prime number prize to promote co-operative computing on the internet. Their offer saw thousands of people around the world have participating in the "Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search", or Gimps - in which they devoted some of their computer's unused power to performing the calculations needed to find huge Mersenne primes.

I dunno 'bout you but I consider this breaking news.

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 06:58 PM
That's really interesting and all but you must have posted this in the wrong thread... political news?

I'll contribute by saying my pre-cal teacher might be interested.

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 07:56 PM

I think the only place to post the news is here, because it relates to computer science. Prime numbers of any kind can't be found analytically and so you need to employ the brute power of computers. But you can save lots of time by writing an efficient algorithm that speeds up the search. New models of mainframe computers have been tested in similar manner by computing number pi to billions of decimal places and so on.

There are infinitely many Mersenne primes, as proven a long time ago, and so the search for them is more or less about the computing speed to get to them.

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 10:03 PM
I bet everybody is thinking, but what is the point?

What application relies on new prime numbers?

[edit on 28-9-2008 by monkeybus]

posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 03:26 AM

Some computer encryption methods use them. I don't think there are many other practical applications.

Second line.

posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 03:36 AM
Rain Man could have told you that for a biscuit.

posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 09:29 AM
Wouldn't the following be an easier way to find all the prime numbers up to "X"?
First, have a computer create a database of all numbers all the way up to X.

Next, have a computer run all possible multiplications of all the numbers all the way to X, excluding 0 and 1. (example, 2x2=4, 2x3=6, 2x4=8... 3x2=6, 3x3=9, etc.). Have them throw out any duplicate answers (2x3=6, as does 3x2=6, so you only have one "6" stored). This is stored in a second database.

Compare the two lists. If the numbers match, you throw them both out. Any that don't match, you put in a third database. Voila! There are your prime numbers.

With desktop PCs (let alone mainframes, supercomputers, or cluster computers) able to do calculations in the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS per second, I don't forsee this being a big problem.

posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 12:28 PM

Hi sir_chancelot,
your way to find prime numbers is relevant (for a human brain and for small numbers) but it's not working for computers and high numbers and you have one misconception about computers, like many ohter people : you mistake frequency (aka "CPU speed") and the "power" of a CPU, i.e. 32 or 64 bits for the most recent home PCs.

Let's start with number coding. The highest signed number a 64 bits CPU can code is (2^63)-1 : 1 bit for the sign (+ or -), 63 bits for the power of 2, and -1 because you have to count out 0.
So the highest signed number for a 64 bits CPU is 9,223,372,036,854,775,807. The highest unsigned number is (2^64)-1.
Of course, if you try on your Windows calculator, you'll see you can go much higher (to about 2^100,000) but it's using some programming tricks.

Now, let's get back to your "algorythm". It's the way human brain works, simple, effective but very long. Let me show you with a similar algorythm :
Imagine you want to count from 1 to (2^63)-1, by adding 1 every 1x10^-9 second, approx. corresponding to a 1Ghz CPU. It would take [(2^63)-1] / [(10^9)x60*60*24*30*12] = 296 years (if I didn't make a mistake in my calculation). But you get the picture.
Now Imagine for a number like 2^43,112,609 ... You see now it IS quite a feat and finding such high prime numbers is not that simple.

I hope I shed some light on this achievement. As for the use of finding such a high number ... glory I guess

posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 05:50 PM

I wonder if savants could do that. Their limitations on memory and numbers seems never ending to me.

posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 06:51 PM

OK then,
With wanting to sound like a smart A... I would like you to post here the next prime number beyond 43,112,609.

Let us know how you get on...

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 03:34 AM

The next prime number after 43,112,609 is 43,112,621. But it takes a bit more effort to figure out if

2^43,112,621 - 1 = Mersenne prime?

There is a shortcut, a very good guess, that it isn't: There is no way that the UCLA number crunchers would miss the very next one.

A Mersenne prime is a prime number that shows up when number 2 -- the only even prime number -- is multiplied by itself p times, where p is a prime, and 1 is subtracted from the result. The formula looks like this.

Mersenne prime = 2^p - 1.

These kind of primes are named after 17th century theologian and philosopher Marin Mersenne, who compiled the list of them up to p = 257.

Actually there is no proof that the set of Mersenne primes is infinite as I thought, and the question remains unsolved. Computers are of no use here; got to use your head.

There is a curio connected with the latest Mersenne prime that the folks in UCLA missed, because it didn't occurred to them to look for funny stuff. It goes like this: The exponent p = 43,112,609. Which part of this number is related the most to Mersenne primes: 43, 112, or 609?

I think I'll send the puzzle to UCLA to see what number they pick and why.

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 05:58 AM

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS

Hi sir_chancelot,
your way to find prime numbers is relevant (for a human brain and for small numbers) but it's not working for computers and high numbers and you have one misconception about computers, like many ohter people : you mistake frequency (aka "CPU speed") and the "power" of a CPU, i.e. 32 or 64 bits for the most recent home PCs.

Let's start with number coding. The highest signed number a 64 bits CPU can code is (2^63)-1 : 1 bit for the sign (+ or -), 63 bits for the power of 2, and -1 because you have to count out 0.
So the highest signed number for a 64 bits CPU is 9,223,372,036,854,775,807. The highest unsigned number is (2^64)-1.
Of course, if you try on your Windows calculator, you'll see you can go much higher (to about 2^100,000) but it's using some programming tricks.

Now, let's get back to your "algorythm". It's the way human brain works, simple, effective but very long. Let me show you with a similar algorythm :
Imagine you want to count from 1 to (2^63)-1, by adding 1 every 1x10^-9 second, approx. corresponding to a 1Ghz CPU. It would take [(2^63)-1] / [(10^9)x60*60*24*30*12] = 296 years (if I didn't make a mistake in my calculation). But you get the picture.
Now Imagine for a number like 2^43,112,609 ... You see now it IS quite a feat and finding such high prime numbers is not that simple.

I hope I shed some light on this achievement. As for the use of finding such a high number ... glory I guess

While I thank you for the time to explain this for anyone who doesn't know, I am a network engineer, so I am well aware of what you are trying to say. I have never confused "marketing speed" with how fast the computer actually works. If you want to be accurate, how come you didn't talk about dual pipelining/hyperthreading or mention dual cores?

I would assume that someone who KNOWS computers would also know that you would NOT do it with a Windows Operating system.

Once the database is completed, it is FOREVER DONE (until you wanted to go higher). Want to find a prime between 400,000,000 and 500,000,000? You wouldn't start at 1. That's already been done. You start at 400 mil, and proceed to 500 mil. The tough part is getting the first database done.

Now, let's look at your example. A single computer? Yes, it would take a long time. Clusters? How about 1,000 computers doing the same, each with a different chunk of numbers? How about something like "big blue"?
See my point?

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 06:01 AM

Originally posted by VIKINGANT

OK then,
With wanting to sound like a smart A... I would like you to post here the next prime number beyond 43,112,609.

Let us know how you get on...

Wanting to sound EXACTLY like a smart A.., I will reply thusly: Why in the HECK would I even be interested in wasting my time on this?

Or, put another way. This doesn't directly benefit anyone, let alone me, so why would I?

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 07:10 AM
It was interesting until it bacame about whose brain is bigger...snooze.

The original post was a cool fact that may not be relevant to any of us just interesting to know. Thanks.

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 12:38 PM

The prime number they just found is 13 million digits long. You know how big a table of numbers covering all integers between 1 and a number with 13 million digits is?

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 01:15 PM
Not sure if this is relevant, however I started a thread on the 25th about numbers and our connected consciousness within this reality. How when one person reaches above the known to the next level, science and our number system as a whole rises to the next level of understanding.

Hard to explain my theory as I am considered a non logical type thinker, more an abstract thinker. More a sense you could say than thought process.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

new topics

top topics

2