## Other

drummers-lowrise

Message boards : Cullen/Woodall prime search : New Cullen Prime

 Subscribe SortOldest firstNewest firstHighest rated posts first
Author Message
rogue
Volunteer developer

Joined: 8 Sep 07
Posts: 1187
ID: 12001
Credit: 18,565,548
RAC: 0

Message 14974 - Posted: 20 Apr 2009 | 23:12:57 UTC

It's about time that someone knocked my 3+ year old record off. What I find really interesting is that I found the largest known Woodall at the time at about the same time. Since then, 5 new Woodalls have been discovered. I am rather surprised that only one Cullen has been found in the same time period.

Now if we could just find that elusive GCW 13 Cullen or Woodall...

geoff
Volunteer developer

Joined: 3 Aug 07
Posts: 99
ID: 10427
Credit: 343,437
RAC: 0

Message 15016 - Posted: 22 Apr 2009 | 2:17:19 UTC - in response to Message 14974.

Congratulations Dennis and everyone else involved in this project, what a great find!

DoES
Volunteer tester

Joined: 11 Oct 08
Posts: 779
ID: 30382
Credit: 74,302,485
RAC: 0

Message 15136 - Posted: 26 Apr 2009 | 0:23:47 UTC - in response to Message 15016.

Yes -- congrats on an excellent prime number -- but I am a little curious as to why it shows as 6328548 x 2 ^ 6328548 + 1 in Prime Grid and when you look at Chris Caldwell's list it is 1582137 x 2 ^ 6328550 + 1 --- ??????

DoES
____________
Member of AtP

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
Albert Einstein

rogue
Volunteer developer

Joined: 8 Sep 07
Posts: 1187
ID: 12001
Credit: 18,565,548
RAC: 0

Message 15137 - Posted: 26 Apr 2009 | 0:31:43 UTC - in response to Message 15136.

Because 6328548 = 1582137 * 2^2. Since this is base 2, the Prime Pages will divide k by that base (if it can) and store the number that way.

DoES
Volunteer tester

Joined: 11 Oct 08
Posts: 779
ID: 30382
Credit: 74,302,485
RAC: 0

Message 15138 - Posted: 26 Apr 2009 | 3:36:32 UTC - in response to Message 15137.

Because 6328548 = 1582137 * 2^2. Since this is base 2, the Prime Pages will divide k by that base (if it can) and store the number that way.

Fair enough---( just curious)
____________
Member of AtP

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
Albert Einstein

mfbabb2
Volunteer tester

Joined: 10 Oct 08
Posts: 510
ID: 30360
Credit: 8,907,445
RAC: 10,812

Message 39825 - Posted: 30 Aug 2011 | 22:36:42 UTC - in response to Message 39321.

Perhaps you meant "Because 6328548 = 1582137 * 4^2." ?

No, 2^2 is correct (=4).
____________
Murphy (AtP)

Message boards : Cullen/Woodall prime search : New Cullen Prime