Posted 12/16/2008 at 07:46:27am

#205 says that the new Mersenne Prime is 243,112,609-1. This is not the new Mersenne Prime -- it's not even a prime number (after all, it ends in 8). Likewise, the article says Mersenne Primes are of the form 2n-1, which is incorrect. Most primes are of the form 2n-1, and this is not interesting.

 The corrected versions of both statements require exponents. The new Mersenne Prime is 2^{43,112,609}-1 and Mersenne Primes are those of the form 2^n-1. Don't feel too bad, though; Time Magazine made the same typographical error, as found at http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1852747_1854195_1854157,00.html .

 Kate, Ph.D. Candidate in Mathematics