Talk:Largest known prime number

message: In the history section, the first number of the list, under Discoverer lists ˝Anonymous˝ but fr:8 191 cites Abû Tahir Ismail al-Mardini as the discoverer. Should this change— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pqnlrn (talk • contribs) 15:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  M₁₃ a.k.a, 8191 

message: Well, it seems Euler never actually said in print that it was prime; however, he had already done over half the work to prove it so, and apparently some experts believe he knew it anyway for the reason that the remaining work would not have taken him very long (it amounts to six trial divisions). (But then, why didn't he include it in the table of large primes he prepared in 1762?) So I have added a disclaimer about this. Double sharp (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  6700417 

message: The chart showing increase in number of digits suggests that Moore's law is at work here.  The connection is noted in Introduction to Cryptography]. SpinningSpark 17:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moore's law 

message: I noticed that the decimal expansion entry for the prime number with the notation 180×(M127)2+1 is currently:
5210644015679228794060694325390955853397149309953825381775591280356090833797121
From what I can tell, this number is neither prime nor what the notation should expand to.
The correct number should be:
5210644015679228794060694325390955853335898483908056458352183851018372555735221
Could someone double check this before editing the page?
Aerdil (talk) 07:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted. I have fixed it. Thanks. The wrong number was added by Putian Ye in . It falsely computed M127 as 2127 instead of 2127-1. I have checked all other numbers added in the edit and they are correct. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect decimal expansion for 180×(M<sub>127</sub>)<sup>2</sup>+1 

message: I came to this article because I wanted to know the answer to the question: is there a proof that a largest prime number does or does not exist. I don't see that question addressed at all. I think it should be included in the article, is there a proof one way or another or is it an open question? --MadScientistX11 (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the answer to my question is that Euclid proved there is no largest prime: Euclid prime proof. I think it would be a good idea to add that to the article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already in the second paragraph of the lead. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  But Is There a Largest Prime Number in Theory? 

message: The 5794777-repdigit 11111111...11111111 found Apr 20, 2021 by Ryan Propper & Sergey Batalov deserves to listed, but with a pointer to the Probable Prime page. EdPeggJr (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest Probable Prime 

message: has a proposal to bring together coverage of the search for large prime numbers under one article, large prime number, and has suggested that this article might provide the best starting point from which to build that article. I think it might be beneficial if (i) more editors weighed in at the AfD and (ii) we talked in more detail about how all of this material might best be organised. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Titanic primes should be de-listed since it overemphasizes the Lucas-Lehmer test. The new page should list largest primes proven by different primality tests.  I recently added the largest probable prime R8177207 to this page with the distinction that it's not proven. 98.226.112.251 (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

text: This page semms like part of a large prime number, so it seems like we can already move this page to a large prime number. That may make the merge discussion easier.--SilverMatsu (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titanic prime]] and the [[large prime number]] article proposal  

message: The power of 2 is 82589933 so
By math,we can say 
n=8258993 
The number of digit = 3n+1
                                    = 3×8258993 + 1
                                    = 24776979 + 1
                                    = 24776970 digits 
So, 24776979 exactly digits in this prime number 
This is wrong that the numbers of digits in this prime number is 24862048. 
If you want to any thing about this then reply.
Thank you 2402:3A80:1F8C:9BC5:0:0:6C0:35A1 (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You have several errors, starting with omitting an ending "3" in 82589933. The correct formula is ceil(n × log10(2)) = ceil(82589933 × 0.3010299956...) = 24862048. The article is right. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers of digits in this prime number 

message: 09-Jan-2024 Just found a new Prime cred. Wolfram Alpha and Bing Chat. 2⁸²⁵⁸⁹⁹³³-1 + 2,338 [Unverified], which has 24,862,048 digits. Professor. Damian A. James Williamson 
https://twitter.com/CA_22562_AN/status/1744686253705212204 KING (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Found Prime [Unverified]