UCLA group discovers massive prime number

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Is Hard
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Group Prime
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the recent discovery of a massive 13-million-digit prime number by a UCLA group, exploring its implications, applications, and the nature of prime numbers themselves. Participants delve into topics such as encryption, the definition of prime numbers, and the motivations behind searching for large primes.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire about the practical applications of large prime numbers, particularly in encryption, and question the necessity of finding larger primes given existing security measures.
  • Others express skepticism about the relevance of large primes, suggesting that the search may be more of a hobby for mathematicians rather than a pursuit with significant practical benefits.
  • There is a debate regarding the definition of prime numbers, particularly the exclusion of '1' from being considered prime, with some arguing that including '1' would violate the unique factorization theorem.
  • Several participants humorously reference pop culture figures like Chuck Norris in relation to counting or discovering primes, indicating a light-hearted tone in parts of the discussion.
  • Some participants propose that the search for large primes is akin to exploration and discovery, comparing it to other human endeavors in science and sports.
  • There are discussions about the computational challenges involved in finding large primes and the implications of quantum computing on prime factorization.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the significance and utility of large prime numbers, with no clear consensus on their importance or the reasons for their discovery. The debate over the definition of prime numbers, particularly regarding the status of '1', remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Some claims about encryption and the time required to crack certain key sizes are presented without references, and there is uncertainty about the current state of cryptographic security. The discussion also touches on the computational feasibility of finding large primes, with varying opinions on the implications of Euclid's theorem regarding the infinitude of primes.

  • #31
tribdog said:
you know how big this number is? it takes a long long long long long time to do that. And who says there is an "all of them" there might be an infinite number of primes.

There is an infinite number, that's what Euclids theorem says isn't it?

I think the best reason is jimmysnyders: you lose unique facotrization, as 1 can appear as many times as one pleases.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #32
What do they use these large prime numbers for? I think I heard one time it was something to do with encryption but if so how does it work? Or is it just for fun?

Probably answered by now, but as far as I know prime numbers themselves are useless for encryption. The RSA algorithm makes use of numbers with 2 large factors, however. Realistically though, we passed the point a decade ago of finding numbers suitable for everyday encryption. 13 million digits is astoundingly large to be of any practical use.

And Howers is right; Euclid proved forever ago that there are an infinite number of prime numbers with only a couple of short statements.
 
  • #33
tribdog said:
I don't know the exact numbers but something like only 1 in 20 numbers can be divided by 7.

About three times that, as long as we are in the realm of not exact numbers.
 
  • #34
This is an amazing discovery. Until now, I thought prime numbers were massless :shy:

edit: oops, ivan made this joke already...
 
  • #35
tribdog said:
isn't the obvious enough? not all numbers can be divided by 7 so it gets put into a rather selective category doesn't it? I don't know the exact numbers but something like only 1 in 20 numbers can be divided by 7.

Bwahahaha ! :smile: I'd think that about 1 number in 7 can be divided by 7
 
  • #36
tribdog said:
isn't the obvious enough? not all numbers can be divided by 7 so it gets put into a rather selective category doesn't it? I don't know the exact numbers but something like only 1 in 20 numbers can be divided by 7.

Isn’t every seventh number (starting from seven) divisible by seven? And if you take the product of all the prime numbers, up to and including the so-called “largest prime” and add one to that, this new number is either a prime or it contains a prime larger than the previous largest. The number of primes is therefore infinite.
 
  • #37
schroder said:
Isn’t every seventh number (starting from seven) divisible by seven? And if you take the product of all the prime numbers, up to and including the so-called “largest prime” and add one to that, this new number is either a prime or it contains a prime larger than the previous largest. The number of primes is therefore infinite.

way to steal vanesch's joke. i award you -7 points.
 
  • #38
vanesch said:
Bwahahaha ! :smile: I'd think that about 1 number in 7 can be divided by 7
Looks like some folk here haven't done their 7 * table yet.
 
  • #39
Howers said:
way to steal vanesch's joke. i award you -7 points.

vanesch's joke? VANESCH'S JOKE?
 
  • #40
To be honest, I came here only for the post count.
 
  • #41
schroder said:
Isn’t every seventh number (starting from seven) divisible by seven? And if you take the product of all the prime numbers, up to and including the so-called “largest prime” and add one to that, this new number is either a prime or it contains a prime larger than the previous largest. The number of primes is therefore infinite.
So Euclid says anyway... but then what does he know :biggrin:
 
  • #42
Howers said:
To be honest, I came here only for the post count.

Try harder, posts in GD don't count.
 
  • #43
Howers said:
To be honest, I came here only for the post count.

If posts in here counted I'd have several thousand. If they'd let me out of here I'd thousands too.
 
  • #44
Borek said:
About three times that, as long as we are in the realm of not exact numbers.
Is this the joke? If so, Borek should get the credit. I thought it was a good one.
 
  • #45
vanesch said:
This is an amazing discovery. Until now, I thought prime numbers were massless :shy:

edit: oops, ivan made this joke already...

That's okay, some jokes are worth telling twice. :biggrin:

I thought only Catholic numbers have mass.
 
  • #46
Why don't they use the computer power for something useful? Calculating massive prime numbers was used to test the computational power of computers, I think they have gone far enough.
 
  • #47
Monique, ever hear of Folding@Home?

There are plenty similar projects, don't worry, heh.
 
  • #48
jimmysnyder said:
Is this the joke? If so, Borek should get the credit. I thought it was a good one.

Haha, yeah. I totally missed that. That non-exact numbers thing threw me off.

Borek said:
Try harder, posts in GD don't count.
Argh. You've out witted us all.

Maybe I should return to Academic Guidance and tell people what book they need to study linear algebra. That should put me in the 1000s by next week!
 
Last edited:
  • #49
jimmysnyder said:
Is this the joke? If so, Borek should get the credit. I thought it was a good one.

Joke? I was deadly serious.
 
  • #50
its a joke when Borek says it, but no one had a problem believing I thought 1 in 20 numbers is divisible by 7? I don't know if I should be offended or if this is just another case of "don't feed the tribdog"
 
  • #51
tribdog said:
its a joke when Borek says it, but no one had a problem believing I thought 1 in 20 numbers is divisible by 7? I don't know if I should be offended or if this is just another case of "don't feed the tribdog"
Sorry Tribdog, if you had said 2 in 20 numbers were divisible by 7 it would have looked like a joke :smile:

And this post means we've hit the next prime number in this thread!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #52
5 is a very pretty prime =)
 
  • #53
Art said:
Sorry Tribdog, if you had said 2 in 20 numbers were divisible by 7 it would have looked like a joke :smile:

And this post means we've hit the next prime number in this thread!

yes, post number 51 is a great prime. almost as good as 15,18,21 and 24.
 
  • #54
Art said:
Sorry Tribdog, if you had said 2 in 20 numbers were divisible by 7 it would have looked like a joke :smile:

And this post means we've hit the next prime number in this thread!

Whaaaa?!? 51 is not prime! But 53...? :biggrin:
 
  • #55
DOH! tribdog, you beat me to post # 53!
 
  • #56
Dr Pepper has 23 flavors.
Baskin Robbins has 31 flavors.
Boeing has a 757

I wonder what the biggest prime number on a product is?

Prices like $4999 don't count.

I don't have the answer. It's merely the LowlyPion Conjecture.
 
  • #57
Power Point Viewer 2003.
 
  • #58
Good ones. All I could think of was Formula 409.
 
  • #59
Monique said:
Why don't they use the computer power for something useful?

LowlyPion said:
Dr Pepper has 23 flavors.
Baskin Robbins has 31 flavors.
Boeing has a 757

I wonder what the biggest prime number on a product is?

Prices like $4999 don't count.

I don't have the answer. It's merely the LowlyPion Conjecture.
You see Monique, there is a use for prime numbers. Without cutting edge prime numbers, where would we get prime time TV shows, USDA prime beef, prime real estate locations, and Prime Ministers not to mention exotic composite materials. Look at what happened with subprime loans. Now the gov't is looking to prime the pumps so these numbers will come in very handy. But most importantly, we have to keep one step ahead of the terrorists. What if they had a bigger prime number than we do?
 
  • #60
jimmysnyder said:
But most importantly, we have to keep one step ahead of the terrorists. What if they had a bigger prime number than we do?

:smile: I almost ruined my keyboard !
 

Similar threads

What is the latest research on the brilliant minds of UCLA?
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
8K