Definition talk:Mersenne Prime

Just added the newest two Mersenne primes and a link for the G.I.M.P.S. website to the page. I thought it might be of interest to users. Rob 18:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine idea. I was going to add it myself last night but short of time as I had a gig to do. Another busy day today so I might not get time to do more - but I wonder whether to include the GIMPS bit as a separate section: "Current status" or something, or add GIMPS as a separate subsection in its own right. Or even a separate page. Whether to actually include all the Mersenne primes in a table is something else to consider. --Matt Westwood 11:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea to add a table of the known primes. I was thinking about it and was unsure, but it seems like a good idea to have the complete list accessible on this site. That also enables us to augment the list as more are discovered. -Rob 21:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Only difficulty there being that someone's gotta have to keep alert to changes in the situation (particularly with the filling in the gaps). I'm no longer part of GIMPS (got involved with Seventeen or Bust instead) so someone else will need to do this. --Matt Westwood 22:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. That was my initial reservation when I added "the two newest" Mersenne primes, as that could obviously change tomorrow. But, I don't really see any great difficulty in keeping up on it. I can add new MP's as they are discovered. I think it's a good idea to have them listed here for user reference. It's also another google search that will lead a new user our way. -Rob 23:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest removing the "index" numbers from the left of the MP list? As you have mentioned, there may be Mersenne Primes within the shown range that are yet to be discovered. Also, the Aug./Sept. 2008 primes became the first Mersenne Primes to be discovered "out of order", so indexing by Prime order becomes slightly ambiguous since it doesn't match order of discovery. Since the dates and P values are listed, I don't see any need to show an index values. What do you think? -Rob 23:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the index value is a good idea because they are often described as "the 46th Mersenne number" meaning the 46th one in order (even though at the moment from 40 onwards is a "provisional" 46th). Since other sources use the index, we'd probably be losing something if we didn't include it - although leaving them off when the indexing is uncertain is another thing to wonder whether.--Matt Westwood 05:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is best to keep our listing consistent with those used by others. The only problem that I have there is with the Aug. and Sept. 2008 Mersenne primes. I have seen the index numbers refer to them in order of discovery (i.e. Aug. is 45, Sept is 46), and also in order of the size of P. The GIMPS site refers to them in order of discovery. If we are going to index, I feel that this would be the best way in order to avoid confusion. I realize that we don't have index numbers past 39, but should the list be ordered by date of discovery? -Rob 12:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

My personal view is: no, they should be in order of size. --Matt Westwood 18:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Order of size makes more sense, since order of discovery is completely arbitrary and determined by chance (the opposite of most of mathematics) --Cynic (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree in what makes more sense (which is certainly order by size of P). But, maybe the indexing should go by the "standard" as to remain consistent with other listings. Since these numbers have been indexed long before this site existed I think it's important to recognize what the standard indexing reasoning is. That's why I brought up whether keep index number or not. -Rob 11:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Got this table from here:. I can't find anything on the Gimps site that indexes them in order of discovery. Can you provide a link? --Matt Westwood 18:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)