Talk:Titanic prime

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 May 2021. The result of the discussion was merge.

This page was proposed for deletion by JayBeeEll (talk · contribs) on 1 May 2021.

Suggestions to the define of titanic primes

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think the "titanic", "giganic", and "mega" primes should be defined on "at least n bits (digits in base 2)", not base 10, because the base 2 are the natural base, but base 10 is an "artificial" base. For example, they can be defined as "at least 4096, 65536 and 1048576 bits" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.82.111.92 (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is based on published reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Verifiablity. We don't make up our own definitions of words. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Are these first 30 numbers truly primes, or merely probable primes?

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

For the numbers 10^999 + n, the OEIS link gives Mathematica code

 Select[Range[65000], PrimeQ[10^999 + # ] &]

where PrimeQ is a probable prime test, and PARI code

 for(n=1, 10^5, if(gcd(n, 10)==1, if(ispseudoprime(10^999+n), print1(n, ", "))))

So, the question is, have these numbers been proved prime? If not, then the article should say that they are probable primes. MathPerson (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

OK, these numbers are really primes. PARI/GP's primecert() function can produce certificates of primality. Here's the code that proves the numbers are prime:

default(parisizemax, 2048 * 10^6); { for(n = 1, 10^5,

   if(gcd(n, 10) == 1,
     num = 10^999 + n;
     if(ispseudoprime(num),
       cert = primecert(num, 0);
       if(cert != 0,
         print("10^999 + ", n, " proved prime"),
         print("10^999 + ", n, " was not proved prime")
       )
     )
   )
 )

} MathPerson (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic