Talk:Titanic prime

I think the "titanic", "giganic", and "mega" primes should be defined on "at least n bits (digits in base 2)", not base 10, because the base 2 are the natural base, but base 10 is an "artificial" base. For example, they can be defined as "at least 4096, 65536 and 1048576 bits" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.82.111.92 (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

:Wikipedia is based on published reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Verifiablity. We don't make up our own definitions of words. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

For the numbers 10^999 + n, the OEIS link gives Mathematica code

Select[Range[65000], PrimeQ[10^999 + # ] &]

where PrimeQ is a probable prime test,

and PARI code

for(n=1, 10^5, if(gcd(n, 10)==1, if(ispseudoprime(10^999+n), print1(n, ", "))))

So, the question is, have these numbers been proved prime? If not, then the article should say that they are probable primes. MathPerson (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

: OK, these numbers are really primes. PARI/GP's primecert() function can produce certificates of primality. Here's the code that proves the numbers are prime:

default(parisizemax, 2048 * 10^6);

{

for(n = 1, 10^5,

if(gcd(n, 10) == 1,

num = 10^999 + n;

if(ispseudoprime(num),

cert = primecert(num, 0);

if(cert != 0,

print("10^999 + ", n, " proved prime"),

print("10^999 + ", n, " was not proved prime")

)

)

)

)

}

MathPerson (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)