![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of 2305843009213693951 was copied or moved into Mersenne prime with this edit on 13:43, 11 October 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Mersenne prime was copied or moved into List of Mersenne primes and perfect numbers with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
Hi, currently reads that the wheat and chessboard issue is solved by M64, which is not the case. It's solved by T64, which is not the same thing. This needs to be correctly rectified. Beast01998 ( talk) 12:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok, not really. But: the infobox asserts a "publication year" of 1536, in a publication by Hudalricus Regius. There is a "reference" but actually it just a link to a google book version of what is apparently the Regius publication. None of this is mentioned in the history section of the article. So: the most prominently placed date and author information in the article is completely unsupported by sources and article text. This is ... not a good situation. (Pinging @ Brainstudent87 and PrimeHunter: whose edits brought this to my attention.) -- JBL ( talk) 18:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
If he didn't speak, is it still a talk? Double sharp ( talk) 04:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
This section says, "However, not all Mersenne numbers are Mersenne primes, and the composite Mersenne numbers may be factored non-trivially."
I don't know exactly what this last clause means. Is is merely saying that there are factorizations other than N times 1? Or that it takes non-trivial effort to factor these N? Moreover, for large primes p, Mp usually can NOT be factored with current computers and algorithms.
Therefore, I would recommend just deleting the last clause so it reads, "However, not all Mersenne numbers are prime." MathPerson ( talk) 17:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm 431x9719x2099863, the prime factorization of 243 - 1. 431x9719x2099863 ( talk) 14:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I think there are such Mersenne primes above the largest known Mersenne prime (at tetrational level, such as a prime number above 2 ↑↑ 10), so it is conjectured that there are infinitely many Mersenne primes. 2405:9800:BA31:F6:FD7E:6343:96DA:9CBD ( talk) 05:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
In the opening paragraph, how is the following sentence correct?
If n is 4, a composite number, then 24 − 1 which is 15, is not composite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstair ( talk • contribs)
@ GorillaWarfare:, :@ Fowler&fowler:, :@ JayBeeEll:, :@ Eviolite: I disagree with moving the table of known Mersenne primes to a new article. I think the table should stay in the Mersenne prime article, because it is easier to read information in one location instead of jumping back and forth. Best regards Szelma W ( talk) 13:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an articleand WP:ELLIST which states
lists themselves should not be composed of external links.It is against policy to do as you suggest and link to external files with full numbers. Beyond that suggestion I see nothing vital to include in this article that isn't already there (the indices are there, and the first few reasonably-long Mersenne primes are in the lede). -- eviolite (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Why is "Are there infinitely many Mersenne primes?" listed as unsolved? Isn't it proven already? https://journalspress.com/LJRS_Volume20/972_There-are-Infinitely-Many-Mersenne-Primes.pdf 2604:3D08:D177:B500:ACD5:551B:6D2B:D195 ( talk) 17:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
The part of the article starting with the following sentence
"All Mersenne numbers with the prime exponents not only primes pass the Fermat primality test for a = 2"
is own work of Mr. Matt Kalinski (possibly the Wikipedia user with the Mattedia nick). It is not confirmed by any other RS.
Is it allowed to add this kind of edits to the Wikipedia?
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of 2305843009213693951 was copied or moved into Mersenne prime with this edit on 13:43, 11 October 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Mersenne prime was copied or moved into List of Mersenne primes and perfect numbers with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
Hi, currently reads that the wheat and chessboard issue is solved by M64, which is not the case. It's solved by T64, which is not the same thing. This needs to be correctly rectified. Beast01998 ( talk) 12:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok, not really. But: the infobox asserts a "publication year" of 1536, in a publication by Hudalricus Regius. There is a "reference" but actually it just a link to a google book version of what is apparently the Regius publication. None of this is mentioned in the history section of the article. So: the most prominently placed date and author information in the article is completely unsupported by sources and article text. This is ... not a good situation. (Pinging @ Brainstudent87 and PrimeHunter: whose edits brought this to my attention.) -- JBL ( talk) 18:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
If he didn't speak, is it still a talk? Double sharp ( talk) 04:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
This section says, "However, not all Mersenne numbers are Mersenne primes, and the composite Mersenne numbers may be factored non-trivially."
I don't know exactly what this last clause means. Is is merely saying that there are factorizations other than N times 1? Or that it takes non-trivial effort to factor these N? Moreover, for large primes p, Mp usually can NOT be factored with current computers and algorithms.
Therefore, I would recommend just deleting the last clause so it reads, "However, not all Mersenne numbers are prime." MathPerson ( talk) 17:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm 431x9719x2099863, the prime factorization of 243 - 1. 431x9719x2099863 ( talk) 14:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I think there are such Mersenne primes above the largest known Mersenne prime (at tetrational level, such as a prime number above 2 ↑↑ 10), so it is conjectured that there are infinitely many Mersenne primes. 2405:9800:BA31:F6:FD7E:6343:96DA:9CBD ( talk) 05:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
In the opening paragraph, how is the following sentence correct?
If n is 4, a composite number, then 24 − 1 which is 15, is not composite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstair ( talk • contribs)
@ GorillaWarfare:, :@ Fowler&fowler:, :@ JayBeeEll:, :@ Eviolite: I disagree with moving the table of known Mersenne primes to a new article. I think the table should stay in the Mersenne prime article, because it is easier to read information in one location instead of jumping back and forth. Best regards Szelma W ( talk) 13:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an articleand WP:ELLIST which states
lists themselves should not be composed of external links.It is against policy to do as you suggest and link to external files with full numbers. Beyond that suggestion I see nothing vital to include in this article that isn't already there (the indices are there, and the first few reasonably-long Mersenne primes are in the lede). -- eviolite (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Why is "Are there infinitely many Mersenne primes?" listed as unsolved? Isn't it proven already? https://journalspress.com/LJRS_Volume20/972_There-are-Infinitely-Many-Mersenne-Primes.pdf 2604:3D08:D177:B500:ACD5:551B:6D2B:D195 ( talk) 17:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
The part of the article starting with the following sentence
"All Mersenne numbers with the prime exponents not only primes pass the Fermat primality test for a = 2"
is own work of Mr. Matt Kalinski (possibly the Wikipedia user with the Mattedia nick). It is not confirmed by any other RS.
Is it allowed to add this kind of edits to the Wikipedia?