Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

It doesn't, really. It's just a novel prime that happens to be a Mersenne number (2^n - 1).


sort by: page size:

Explanation: A Mersenne prime is (2^n)-1 so in binary that's n 1s.

*mersenne prime

It's a very large prime number which has a very convenient representation, which makes it useful. You could use it in a Mersenne Twister RNG, for instance.

I think think when this was written, that number-1 was the largest known mersenne prime (which are the prime numbers that can be written as 2^something - 1). Some more context on this particular prime here: https://primes.utm.edu/notes/756839.html

It's not clear to me that anyone really cares about Mersenne primes, either, which is not to detract from this cool result in any way.

I'm still not convinced. I did read the whole article, but the subhead sums it up well:

> That new 17-million digit Mersenne prime number might matter. Someday.

(Emphasis mine, but that's not much of ringing endorsement of the usefulness of prime numbers.)


The relevant thing is not that's a prime (it's pretty trivial to find one), but a Mersenne Prime

Primality testing is not trivial at those number sizes


Those are called Mersenne Primes, and are in the form 2^p - 1, where p is a prime number.

No, but it's a relevant question anyway.

Mersenne prime: 2^n-1, for example 31=11111[base 2], we know 49 of them

Fermat prime: 2^(2^n)+1: for example 17=10001[base 2], we know 5 of them]

This is similar to a Fermat prime, but it's not exactly a Fermat prime. So the binary representation is horrible.

The main idea is that is you know the prime factorization of N+1 or N-1, then it's helpful to test if N is prime or not.


This isn’t a Mersenne prime.

https://www.ams.org/journals/mcom/2002-71-238/S0025-5718-01-... says “The Repunit R49081 = (104?°8¹ - 1)/9 is a probable prime.”, so we’re talking numbers that get written as all ones in decimal, not binary.


I'm too busy to check but I'd bet money that it's a Mersenne prime. The series looks exponential (like 2^n) and it's not hard to imagine that fenceposting (±1) led to each member in the series being (2^n)-1 - which is the form for Mersenne primes.

Edit: Dang, I was wrong. ;)


Is there any actual value to finding Mersenne primes? Genuinely curious.

is there anything special you can do with mersenne primes? if there's no pattern to them, can't it just be seen as dumb luck?

maybe proof that a large block of numbers doesn't contain mersenne primes?

maybe 2^521-1 being a mersenne prime is adversarial

It's not a 5 digit prime.

I think you are getting downvoted for your tone. I wondered the same thing as the parent post. I genuinely don’t about mersenne primes.

What always fascinated me about this sequence was the huge (multiplicative) gap between the exponents: 2^127 - 1 and 2^521 - 1.

If that property continued after 2^20,996,011 - 1 the next one would be around 2^86,133,241-1 which is bigger than the (provisional) 51st Mersenne prime, so we'd be stuck at "40th verified Mersenne prime found in 2003".

Which really makes you wonder about the density of these primes in exponent terms ...


I was looking at a list of prime numbers in binary format and I noticed a pattern, where if 2^n - 1, a Mersenne Prime, is in the list, then (2^(n+1) - 2^(n) - 1) is also in the list.

I looked at the list of Mersenne Primes on Wikipedia and checked the primality of (2^43112610 - 2^43112609 - 1) on Wolfram Alpha, but to test for any results larger than that, the results are inconclusive.

The largest discovered prime number is a Mersenne Prime (2^82589933 - 1), so I'm wondering how I can go about testing (2^82589934 - 2^82589933 - 1).

next

Legal | privacy