Talk:Chernick's Carmichael numbers: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(Commented on probability of finding a(10).) |
(a(10) was found.) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
So, if a(10) does exist, it must be very large and, given the nature of the constraints, the probability of finding 10 primes which satisfy them is beginning to look low to me. --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 18:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC) |
So, if a(10) does exist, it must be very large and, given the nature of the constraints, the probability of finding 10 primes which satisfy them is beginning to look low to me. --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 18:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC) |
||
: a(10) was discovered today by Amiram Eldar (the author of the [https://oeis.org/A318646 A318646] sequence) for m = 3208386195840. -- [[User:Trizen|Trizen]] ([[User talk:Trizen|talk]]) 12:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 12:10, 4 June 2019
Does anyone know whether a(10) actually exists?
I've checked all values of 'm' up to 16 billion and found nothing. This is in contrast to a(9) which only required 'm' equal to 950,560.
So, if a(10) does exist, it must be very large and, given the nature of the constraints, the probability of finding 10 primes which satisfy them is beginning to look low to me. --PureFox (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)