Big and bigger: New prime numbers claim top two spots

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Yesterday we reported on the impending announcement of two newly discovered mammoth prime numbers, and the details, now out, do not disappoint. According to the Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search (GIMPS), the volunteer-powered distributed-computing group responsible for finding most of the largest known primes (a prime number is divisible only by 1 and itself), both are larger than any other known primes: one clocks in at nearly 13 million digits in length and the other at a slightly smaller 11.2 million digits.

That’s good news for Edson Smith, a computing resource manager in the math department at the University of California, Los Angeles: It was his machine that stumbled upon the larger prime (243,112,609 - 1 in shorthand), so he's in to claim the $100,000 prize offered by the Electronic Frontier Foundation for the discoverer of the first 10-million-plus-digit prime. (The smaller of the new primes, turned up by a German GIMPS member, would also have qualified for the prize but was discovered two weeks later.) Under a prize-sharing agreement implemented by GIMPS, Smith or his institution would receive half the prize, with $25,000 going to charity, $5,000 going to GIMPS to cover expenses, and the balance going to past GIMPS volunteers who discovered lesser primes.

Reached at his office, Smith called the discovery “quite unexpected.” He says he installed the software needed to participate in GIMPS in the fall of 2007 in all 75 or so machines in his computer lab. “We thought it would be a good thing to use to get undergraduates interested in computational mathematics,” he says. (Little did he know that it would bring about the thing that gets undergraduates’ attention best—cash.) “It’s been sort of off my radar for quite some time, because frankly it’s such well-written software that it doesn’t need any maintenance. And in my business, you put something in, and if it doesn’t require any maintenance you just let it go.”

Asked if he was on pins and needles as the record-setting prime underwent verification on various other member computers around the world, Smith demurred. “I would like to tell you that," he says, "but school’s starting in less than two weeks for us, and this is the height of my busy season. In the time I’ve had to think about it, it’s been really exciting.”

 

 


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe