Infinite prime numbers

Status
Not open for further replies.

WalkerDPlank

Junior Member
Nov 25, 2009
3
0
0
On April 12th, the 47th known Mersenne prime, 242,643,801-1, a 12,837,064 digit number was found by Odd Magnar Strindmo from Melhus, Norway! This prime is the second largest known prime number, a "mere" 141,125 digits smaller than the Mersenne prime found last August.
Would it not be reasonable to think that there are higher prime numbers, in fact wouldn't it be reasonable to think that if you keep on going there would be an infinite amount of prime numbers?
 

PhatoseAlpha

Platinum Member
Apr 10, 2005
2,131
21
81
The infinitude of primes was proven 23 centuries ago. So, you're kind of late on that discussion.
 

TuxDave

Lifer
Oct 8, 2002
10,571
3
71
On April 12th, the 47th known Mersenne prime, 242,643,801-1, a 12,837,064 digit number was found by Odd Magnar Strindmo from Melhus, Norway! This prime is the second largest known prime number, a "mere" 141,125 digits smaller than the Mersenne prime found last August.
Would it not be reasonable to think that there are higher prime numbers, in fact wouldn't it be reasonable to think that if you keep on going there would be an infinite amount of prime numbers?

There are an infinite number of prime numbers. The hard (or slow, depending which approach you take) part is how to prove it's prime.
 

CP5670

Diamond Member
Jun 24, 2004
5,667
766
126
As mentioned already, it's easy to show that there are infinitely many primes, but it's actually still not known if there are infinitely many Mersenne primes.
 
Last edited:

KIAman

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2001
3,342
23
81
As mentioned already, it's easy to show that there are infinitely many primes, but it's actually still not known if there are infinitely many Mersenne primes.

Actually, the hypothesis is that there are infinite amount of Mersenne primes considering infinite numbers but it becomes hard to verify IF a number is Mersenne prime or not beyond a certain size simply because of our lack of computing power.
 

CP5670

Diamond Member
Jun 24, 2004
5,667
766
126
Actually, the hypothesis is that there are infinite amount of Mersenne primes considering infinite numbers but it becomes hard to verify IF a number is Mersenne prime or not beyond a certain size simply because of our lack of computing power.

That was my point, it's only a hypothesis so far. :p

The computational difficulty of finding out if a given number is a Mersenne prime or not is a different matter altogether.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
That was my point, it's only a hypothesis so far. :p

The computational difficulty of finding out if a given number is a Mersenne prime or not is a different matter altogether.

All the difficulty is in determining if it's a prime.
It's trivial to determine if the prime is Mersenne or not.
 

CP5670

Diamond Member
Jun 24, 2004
5,667
766
126
All the difficulty is in determining if it's a prime.
It's trivial to determine if the prime is Mersenne or not.

The algorithms used to detect Mersenne primes actually take advantage of the special structure of those primes, and are more efficient than just using general primality tests.

In any case though, these algorithms don't tell us anything about whether there are infinitely many Mersenne primes or not.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
The algorithms used to detect Mersenne primes actually take advantage of the special structure of those primes, and are more efficient than just using general primality tests.

In any case though, these algorithms don't tell us anything about whether there are infinitely many Mersenne primes or not.

Ah, I see, that is what you were referring to.
 

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,286
145
106
beyond the proof that there is an infinite number of primes, there is no other proof, AFAIK, about the existence of and infinite x type of primes. (twin primes, sexy primes, Mersenne, ect)

And there is a good reason for this. We don't have a formula to generate prime number x. It is very hard to determine what pattern prime numbers occur in. For all intents and purposes, it is pretty much random. (Though, we actually know the distribution of primes, oddly enough, it follows a logarithmic distribution)
 

CP5670

Diamond Member
Jun 24, 2004
5,667
766
126
There is actually an exact formula for prime numbers in terms of the zeta function's zeros (the log estimate comes from it), but it's very complicated and useless for any numerical calculations. As you said, the small-scale behavior of the distribution of primes is seemingly quite random.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.