Thursday, 25 June 2026

Reverse Engineering Part 3

In my previous post, Reverse Engineering Part 2, I ended up being quite satisfied with the reverse engineering that created as output an homogenous linear recurrence relation of order 3 after input of any positive integer greater than 9. I used 28206 and 28207 as examples to illustrate the process.

This got me thinking about creating as output an homogenous linear recurrence relation of order 2 after input of any positive integer greater than 9. I explained in my post Reverse Engineering Part 1 that Gemini's algorithm had failed when attempting this. I was trying to get Gemini to create the following:$$ \begin{align} &\text{a}(n)=p \times \text{a}(n-1)+q \times \text{a}(n-2) \\ &\text{where} -9 \leq p,q \leq 9 \text{ with } p \neq 0 \text{ and } q \neq 0 \\ &\text{ and } 0 \leq \text{a}(n-1), \text{a}(n-2) \leq 9 \end{align}$$So I asked Gemini to relax the conditions by specifying that \( |p + q|\) should be as small as possible. When applied to 28207 this produced values \(p=39\) and \(q=-38\). Not quite what I wanted. So in the end I specified that \(|p^2+q^2+a(0)^2+a(1)^2|\) should be as small as possible. Applied to 28206, this was the result (permalink):

Target Number: 28206
--------------------------------------------------
Constants found: p = 13, q = 1
Constraint check: Minimum p^2 + q^2 + a(0)^2 + a(1)^2 = 395
Seed numbers:    a(0) = 9, a(1) = 12
--------------------------------------------------
Sequence progression:
  a(0) = 9
  a(1) = 12
  a(2) = 165
  a(3) = 2157
  a(4) = 28206
--------------------------------------------------
Comma-separated sequence:
9, 12, 165, 2157, 28206

Applied to 28207, this was the result (permalink):

 Target Number: 28207

--------------------------------------------------
Constants found: p = 6, q = 5
Constraint check: Minimum p^2 + q^2 + a(0)^2 + a(1)^2 = 231
Seed numbers:    a(0) = 11, a(1) = 7
--------------------------------------------------
Sequence progression:
  a(0) = 11
  a(1) = 7
  a(2) = 97
  a(3) = 617
  a(4) = 4187
  a(5) = 28207
--------------------------------------------------
Comma-separated sequence:
11, 7, 97, 617, 4187, 28207

Overall I'm quite happy with these sequences. All terms are positive, the coefficients and seed values are not large and the terms increase steadily toward their targets, avoiding any wild gyrations. I have incorporated this program into my daily number analysis. 

Reverse Engineering Part 2

In my previous post Reverse Engineering Part 1, I had specified to Gemini that I wanted \(p + q + r \) to be the minimum possible within the specifications that each of these coefficients were to be between -9 and -9 inclusive. I was thinking in terms of the sum getting as close to zero as possible forgetting that the minimum possible sum would be -27. That's why I was getting coefficients in the output that were all negative. The algorithm was doing what I'd asked of it! What I should have instructed Gemini to do was to take the absolute value of \(p+q+r\). So to summarise, our starting point is:$$ \begin{align} &\text{a}(n)=p \times \text{a}(n-1)+q \times \text{a}(n-2) + r \times \text{a}(n-2)\\ &\text{with } -9 \leq p,q,r \leq 9, 0 \leq \text{a}(2), \text{a}(1),\text{a}(0) \leq 9 \\ &\text{and } |p+q+r| \text{ as close to zero as possible} \end{align}$$Having gotten Gemini to modify the algorithm, the result for 28206 becomes :$$ \begin{align} &\text{a}(n)=5 \times \text{a}(n-1)-7 \times \text{a}(n-2) + 2 \times \text{a}(n-2)\\ &a(0) = 2, a(1) = 2, a(2) = 6\end{align}$$The full details are (permalink):

Target Number: 28206
------------------------------
Constants found: p = 5, q = -7, r = 2
Constraint check: Minimum |p + q + r| = 0 (Actual Sum = 0)
Seed numbers:    a(0) = 2, a(1) = 2, a(2) = 6
------------------------------
Sequence progression:
  a(0) = 2
  a(1) = 2
  a(2) = 6
  a(3) = 20
  a(4) = 62
  a(5) = 182
  a(6) = 516
  a(7) = 1430
  a(8) = 3902
  a(9) = 10532
  a(10) = 28206
------------------------------
Comma-separated sequence:
2, 2, 6, 20, 62, 182, 516, 1430, 3902, 10532, 28206

This is a longer sequence than previously (2, 4, 2, -48, 408, -3390, 28206) but it has no negative members and is free of the wild gyrations that characterise the former. Similarly for 28207, we have (permalink):$$ \begin{align} &\text{a}(n)=5 \times \text{a}(n-1)+4 \times \text{a}(n-2) -8 \times \text{a}(n-2)\\ &a(0) = 1, a(1) = 1, a(2) = 7\end{align}$$The full results are (permalink):

Target Number: 28207
------------------------------
Constants found: p = 5, q = 4, r = -8
Constraint check: Minimum |p + q + r| = 1 (Actual Sum = 1)
Seed numbers:    a(0) = 1, a(1) = 1, a(2) = 7
------------------------------
Sequence progression:
  a(0) = 1
  a(1) = 1
  a(2) = 7
  a(3) = 31
  a(4) = 175
  a(5) = 943
  a(6) = 5167
  a(7) = 28207
------------------------------
Comma-separated sequence:
1, 1, 7, 31, 175, 943, 5167, 28207

This is shorter than the previously calculated sequence (3, 5, 1, -73, 243, -323, -311, 2207, -3445, -3595, 27729, -51001, -16797, 304365, -658279, 28207) and again it has no negative members and is free of the wild gyrations that characterise the former. So, a lesson learned. I've modified my daily number analysis algorithm accordingly. 

Wednesday, 24 June 2026

Reverse Engineering Part 1

I have a sub-program in my daily number analysis program that will work backwards to find Fibonacci seed numbers that will generate a sequence of terms that leads to my daily number. For example, today I am 28206 days old, and my sub-program generates the following output:

Fibonacci Sequence: Smallest Starting Pair for Target 28206
Starting numbers: a = 126, b = 118
Sequence length to target: 13
Full sequence: [126, 118, 244, 362, 606, 968, 1574, 2542, 4116, 6658, 10774, 17432, 28206]

This can be expressed as:$$ \begin{align} \text{a}(n)=\text{a}(n-1) + \text{a}(n-2)  \\ \text{where } \text{a}(0)=126 \text{ and } \text{a}(1)=118 \end{align}$$These large initial values disturbed me and I wondered if the addition of coefficients \(p\) and \(q\) might reduce the size of the seed numbers required.

I asked Gemini the following:

I would like you to write a program in SageMath that will accept any positive integer \(n > 9\) as input and work backwards to find two seed numbers \( \text{a}(0) \text{ and } \text{a}(1)\) that, combined with constants \(p\) and \(q\), will lead to \(n\) via a Fibonacci-like sequence generated by \( \text{a}(n) = p \times \text{a}(n-1) + q \times \text{a}(n-2)\). The restrictions are that the seed numbers must be between 1 and 9 and the constants \(p\) and \(q\) must also be between -9 and 9.  In the case of more than one combination of constants and seed numbers being found, the criterion is that \(p + q\) should be the minimum possible. The default value for n can be taken as 28206. The program should run in SageMathCell and a Jupyter notebook. The output should show the sequence as it progresses from its starting seed numbers to the final number n. The members of the sequence should also be displayed as comma-separated values.

Unfortunately these restraints proved too restrictive and so I turned to Tribonacci numbers looking for three seed numbers, each between 0 and 9, and three constants \(p, q, r\), each lying between -9 and 9 so that:$$\text{a}(n) = p \times \text{a}(n-1) + q \times \text{a}(n-2) + r \times \text{a}(n-3) $$This proved more productive with Gemini creating the program and producing the following output (permalink):

Target Number: 28206
------------------------------
Constants found: p = -9, q = -6, r = -3
Constraint check: Minimum p + q + r = -18
Seed numbers:    a(0) = 2, a(1) = 4, a(2) = 2
------------------------------
Sequence progression:
  a(0) = 2
  a(1) = 4
  a(2) = 2
  a(3) = -48
  a(4) = 408
  a(5) = -3390
  a(6) = 28206
------------------------------
Comma-separated sequence:
2, 4, 2, -48, 408, -3390, 28206

For me, this is a more satisfactory output with the recursion looking like this: $$ \begin{align} &\text{a}(n) = -9 \times \text{a}(n-1) -6 \times \text{a}(n-2) -3 \times \text{a}(n-3) \\ &\text{with } \text{a}(0)=2, \text{a}(1)=4, \text{a}(2)=2 \end{align}$$What we have here is an homogenous linear recurrence relation of order 3 with coefficients and boundary conditions (seed values) as shown. The sequence is defined by two tuples: the coefficient tuple C and initial value tuple I and written as (C, I). In the example just shown, the representation would be:$$((-9, -6, -3), (2,4,2))$$Let's look at the next number 28207 characterised by ((-4, -9, -8), (3, 5, 1)):

Target Number for Reverse Tribonacci: 28207
------------------------------
Constants found: p = -4, q = -9, r = -8
Constraint check: Minimum p + q + r = -21
Seed numbers:    a(0) = 3, a(1) = 5, a(2) = 1
------------------------------
Sequence progression:
  a(0) = 3
  a(1) = 5
  a(2) = 1
  a(3) = -73
  a(4) = 243
  a(5) = -323
  a(6) = -311
  a(7) = 2207
  a(8) = -3445
  a(9) = -3595
  a(10) = 27729
  a(11) = -51001
  a(12) = -16797
  a(13) = 304365
  a(14) = -658279
  a(15) = 28207
------------------------------
Comma-separated sequence:
3, 5, 1, -73, 243, -323, -311, 2207, -3445, -3595, 27729, -51001, -16797, 304365, -658279, 28207

Figure 1 shows the trajectory of the sequence which begins to fluctuate wildly but the negative by negative multiplication quickly homes in on the target number (28207).

Figure 1

I've now incorporated this information into my daily number analysis.

The Standard Cipher

I like the Standard or English Extended Cipher because of its similarity those of the ancient languages. Here I've applied it to my name leaving out my middle name which is rarely used except in official documents:


Source

This number (\( \textbf{761}\)) is prime with the following properties:

  • it is an emirp because \(167\) is prime
  • it is a 4\(k\)+1 prime such that \(761=19^2+20^2\)
  • it is a Sophie Germain prime since \(761 \times 2 + 1 = 1523\) is prime
  • it is the \(20\)th-centered square number
  • it can be rendered as a digit equation: \(7 = 6+1\)

My birth name is also prime (\( \textbf{733}\)) with the following properties:

  • it is an emirp because \(337\) is prime
  • it is a 4\(k\)+1 prime such that \(733 = 2^2 + 27^2\)
  • it is a balanced prime because it is an equal distance from the previous prime \(727\) and the next prime \(739\)
  • it is a right truncatable prime since \(733 \rightarrow 73 \rightarrow 7 \)


Source

John Reeves was my name for the first 25 years of my life but from age 26 onwards I was known as Sean Reeves. These two personal primes, \( \textbf{733}\) and \( \textbf{761}\), can be added to the two other personal primes of mine related to my date of birth. These are \( \textbf{3449} \) (3rd of the 4th 49 is what I would say back in the day when asked for my date of birth) and the condensed form of this number: \( \textbf{349}\).

I've written about this topic, Gematria, in two earlier posts, specifically:

Number Base Permutations

There are some numbers that have the same digits but in a different order when converted to another number base. Take 10144 as an example:$$10144_{10}= 41401_7$$The five digit numbers from 10000 to 40000 with this property are as follows (permalink):

10144, 10235, 10342, 10453, 10542, 11425, 11750, 12415, 12450, 12564, 12651, 13045, 13245, 13260, 13402, 13534, 13620, 14610, 15226, 15643, 15680, 16121, 16255, 16273, 16546, 16633, 18291, 19463, 19730, 21322, 21753, 21763, 21835, 23146, 23568, 24871, 25061, 25169, 26804, 26931, 29103, 29610, 30189, 30576, 31112, 31457, 31481, 32321, 32348, 34179, 34582, 35001, 35024, 35081, 35228, 35731, 36417, 37465, 38276

The table below shows the full details for the above numbers. As can be seen, they are not that frequent in the given range.

Results for range: 10000 to 40000
Decimal Number     | Base b Representation  | Base
-------------------------------------------------------
10144              | 41401                  | 7
10235              | 15032                  | 9
10342              | 42103                  | 7
10453              | 15304                  | 9
10542              | 42510                  | 7
11425              | 45211                  | 7
11750              | 17105                  | 9
12415              | 51124                  | 7
12450              | 51204                  | 7
12564              | 51426                  | 7
12651              | 51612                  | 7
13045              | 53014                  | 7
13245              | 53421                  | 7
13260              | 20163                  | 9
13402              | 20341                  | 9
13534              | 54313                  | 7
13620              | 20613                  | 9
14610              | 60411                  | 7
15226              | 62251                  | 7
15643              | 63415                  | 7
15680              | 10865                  | 11
16121              | 11126                  | 11
16255              | 65251                  | 7
16273              | 37621                  | 8
16546              | 66145                  | 7
16633              | 66331                  | 7
18291              | 12819                  | 11
19463              | 13694                  | 11
19730              | 13907                  | 11
21322              | 32221                  | 9
21753              | 52371                  | 8
21763              | 32761                  | 9
21835              | 32851                  | 9
23146              | 16432                  | 11
23568              | 35286                  | 9
24871              | 12487                  | 12
25061              | 12605                  | 12
25169              | 12695                  | 12
26804              | 40682                  | 9
26931              | 19263                  | 11
29103              | 10329                  | 13
29610              | 10629                  | 13
30189              | 10983                  | 13
30576              | 73560                  | 8
31112              | 11213                  | 13
31457              | 75341                  | 8
31481              | 11438                  | 13
32321              | 22313                  | 11
32348              | 48332                  | 9
34179              | 17943                  | 12
34582              | 52384                  | 9
35001              | 53010                  | 9
35024              | 24350                  | 11
35081              | 53108                  | 9
35228              | 53282                  | 9
35731              | 13357                  | 13
36417              | 13764                  | 13
37465              | 56347                  | 9
38276              | 26837                  | 11

Note that the bases range from 7 to 13. While this sequence does not occur in the OEIS, some subsets do. For example, OEIS  A037440:


 A037440: positive numbers having the same set of digits in bases 7 and 10.

Sunday, 21 June 2026

Numbers Within Numbers

Let's formalise the concept of internal digits. Take a number like 28211. It's prime but we remove the leftmost digits (2) and the rightmost digit (1), we are left with the number 821. This the number within a number and it happens to be also prime. It is thus a member of OEIS A069686:


 A069686: primes whose internal digits form a prime.

The members of this sequence from 28000 to 40000 are (permalink):

28097, 28099, 28111, 28211, 28219, 28277, 28279, 28297, 28393, 28537, 28571, 28573, 28579, 28591, 28597, 28631, 28771, 28813, 28817, 28837, 28871, 28879, 29077, 29191, 29297, 29411, 29473, 29531, 29537, 29671, 29717, 29833, 29837, 29917, 30029, 30059, 30071, 30113, 30119, 30133, 30137, 30139, 30197, 30293, 30313, 30319, 30431, 30539, 30593, 30671, 30677, 30713, 30839, 30893, 30971, 30977, 31013, 31019, 31033, 31039, 31079, 31091, 31139, 31271, 31277, 31319, 31379, 31391, 31393, 31397, 31511, 31513, 31517, 31573, 31793, 31799, 31817, 31973, 31991, 32117, 32119, 32233, 32237, 32297, 32299, 32411, 32413, 32573, 32579, 32633, 32693, 32713, 32717, 32719, 32771, 32779, 32831, 32833, 32839, 32933, 32939, 33071, 33073, 33113, 33119, 33179, 33311, 33317, 33377, 33479, 33493, 33533, 33599, 33679, 33739, 33791, 33797, 33893, 34019, 34211, 34213, 34217, 34313, 34319, 34337, 34439, 34499, 34613, 34631, 34673, 34679, 34871, 34877, 34913, 34919, 35099, 35419, 35573, 35771, 35879, 35933, 35993, 35999, 36011, 36013, 36017, 36073, 36131, 36137, 36191, 36313, 36319, 36433, 36473, 36479, 36599, 36739, 36779, 36833, 36913, 36919, 37013, 37019, 37097, 37199, 37273, 37277, 37337, 37339, 37397, 37511, 37517, 37571, 37573, 37579, 37619, 37691, 37693, 37699, 37871, 37879, 38113, 38119, 38219, 38231, 38237, 38239, 38273, 38299, 38393, 38593, 38639, 38833, 38839, 38873, 39079, 39113, 39119, 39191, 39199, 39293, 39371, 39373, 39419, 39671, 39679, 39719, 39779, 39839, 39971, 39979

We can modify the algorithm to search for square numbers within square numbers. For example, \(144 = 12^2\) and its internal digit \(4 = 2^2\) and so it is a member of OEIS A069701:


 A069701: squares with internal digits also forming a square > 0.


The members up to 40000 are few and far between: 

144, 196, 441, 841, 1369, 3364, 4096, 5041, 8649, 10816, 11449, 20164, 38416.

So the takeaway from this is that every \(n\) digit number has an (\(n-2\)) digit number inside of it provided \(n>2\) and sequences can be developed by relating this internal number to the larger number of which it forms a part.

Let's consider numbers that are biprime and whose internal digits also form a biprime. Take 28189 as an example:$$ \begin{align} 28189 &= 7 \times 4027 \\ 818 &= 2 \times 409 \end{align}$$These sorts of numbers are not listed in the OEIS. 

Similarly for triprimes. Take 28055 as an example:$$ \begin{align} 28055 &= 5 \times 31 \times  181\\805 &= 5 \times 7 \times 23 \end{align}$$Of course we could consider numbers within numbers within numbers etc. but given that I'm mainly examining five digit numbers less than 40000, I'll leave off at numbers within numbers. Of course, these relationships between numbers and their respective internal numbers only apply with certainty in the number base under consideration (base 10 so far in this post). Take our earlier example of 28211 and its internal number of 821. Both are prime. Let's change to base 9:$$ \begin{align} 28211_{10} &= 42625_9 \rightarrow 265_9 \text{ as its internal number} \\ 265_9 &= 218_{10} \text{ which is clearly not prime} \end{align} $$Primeness is base independent and if a number is not prime in a certain base then it is not prime in any base. However, the inner number while not prime in base 10 may be prime if regarded as a number in another base. Let's illustrate this with 28019. It is a prime in base 10 where the inner number, 801, is divisible by 3. However, we can note the following:$$ \begin{align} 801_{12} &= 1153_{10} \text{ which is prime}\\801_{15} &= 1801_{10} \text{ which is prime} \end{align} $$I've incorporated the search for the following types of numbers into my number analysis algorithm so that the following types of numbers can be identified:
  • prime number whose internal number is also prime in any base from 2 to 16
  • biprime number whose internal number is also prime using base 10 only
  • triprime number whose internal number is also triprime using base 10 only
  • square number whose internal number is also square using base 10 only

Friday, 19 June 2026

Sierpinski Numbers

I watched this video on YouTube video about Sierpiński numbers. It's quite informative but I thought I'd find out more.


I asked Gemini to find out more. Here is its report:

The Sierpiński Problem: An Exhaustive Analysis of Covering Systems, Primality, and Distributed Computational Number Theory

The intersection of abstract Diophantine number theory and large-scale computational mathematics has produced some of the most rigorous and collaborative problem-solving efforts in modern scientific history. At the center of this nexus lies the Sierpiński problem, a profound question that challenges mathematicians to determine the smallest odd natural number $k$ for which the expression $k \cdot 2^n + 1$ never yields a prime number for any positive integer $n$. Such numbers, known formally as Sierpiński numbers, represent a striking anomaly in the asymptotic distribution of primes, guaranteeing an infinite sequence of composite integers.

This comprehensive report explores the mathematical properties of SierpiÅ„ski numbers, the life and theoretical contributions of their discoverer WacÅ‚aw SierpiÅ„ski, the foundational proof mechanisms involving cyclotomic covering sets, and the ongoing, decades-long distributed computing efforts—most notably the "Seventeen or Bust" initiative—that seek to resolve the SierpiÅ„ski problem and its associated mathematical variants.

Historical Context: The Life and Legacy of Wacław Sierpiński

To fully grasp the significance of SierpiÅ„ski numbers, it is essential to examine the historical and intellectual environment of their namesake, WacÅ‚aw Franciszek SierpiÅ„ski (1882–1969). An eminent Polish mathematician, SierpiÅ„ski made outstanding and foundational contributions to set theory, point set topology, the theory of functions of a real variable, and number theory [cite: 1, 2, 3].

Born in Warsaw during the Russian Empire's occupation of Poland, SierpiÅ„ski’s early education was severely constrained by the systematic suppression of Polish culture [cite: 4, 5]. Following sweeping educational mandates implemented between 1869 and 1874, the Russian authorities forced all secondary schools and universities in the territory to operate entirely in the Russian language [cite: 3, 6]. The implicit geopolitical aim was to suppress Polish intellectual advancement; however, this hostile environment inadvertently forged SierpiÅ„ski's resilience and fierce intellectual independence [cite: 5].

Despite these formidable barriers, Sierpiński enrolled in the Department of Mathematics and Physics at the Czar's University (the official, Russian-controlled iteration of the University of Warsaw) in 1899 [cite: 1, 7]. His prodigious talent in number theory was recognized almost immediately. In 1903, the department announced a competition for an essay on the number theory contributions of the distinguished Russian mathematician Georgy Voronoy [cite: 3]. Sierpiński submitted a dissertation that won the university's gold medal in 1904 [cite: 1, 7].

His prize-winning work significantly advanced the famous Gauss circle problem. Specifically, if $R(r)$ denotes the number of integer lattice points $(m, n)$ contained within a circle of radius $r$ centered at the origin, there exists a constant $C$ and a number $k$ such that the error term is bounded by $|R(r) - \pi r^2| < C r^k$ [cite: 1, 7]. Carl Friedrich Gauss had originally proved in 1837 that the minimal value $d$ for $k$ is $d \le 1$. Sierpiński's major contribution was proving that this inequality could be tightened to $d \le 2/3$ [cite: 1, 7]. In 1913, the prominent German mathematician Edmund Landau shortened Sierpiński's proof, publicly describing the underlying mathematics as exceptionally profound [cite: 1, 7].

Despite his academic triumph, SierpiÅ„ski's Polish nationalism led him to withdraw his gold-medal essay from the university's Russian-language Izvestia journal, choosing instead to publish it years later in a Polish mathematical magazine [cite: 7]. Following his graduation in 1904, his academic journey pivoted toward set theory and topology. He became deeply fascinated by the continuum hypothesis, the axiom of choice, and fractal curves, eventually introducing geometric concepts that bear his name, such as the SierpiÅ„ski triangle (or gasket), the SierpiÅ„ski carpet, and the SierpiÅ„ski space-filling curve [cite: 4]. He was also the first to provide a concrete example of an absolutely normal number in 1916—a number whose digits occur with equal asymptotic frequency in any given base [cite: 6].

During World War II, Sierpiński courageously continued his academic work within the "Underground Warsaw University" while officially employed as a municipal clerk, smuggling his mathematical papers out of occupied Poland to be published in Italy [cite: 1]. However, his enduring fascination with the structural properties of integers eventually led his focus back to pure number theory. In 1960, utilizing advanced techniques in modular congruences, Sierpiński published a seminal proof establishing the existence of the numbers that now bear his name [cite: 8, 9, 10].

Mathematical Foundations and Polignac's Conjecture

The expression $k \cdot 2^n + 1$, where $k$ is an odd positive integer and $n$ is a positive integer, generates a specific class of integers. When the exponentiated term overtakes the multiplier (specifically, when $2^n > k$), the resulting integer is known as a Proth number, named after the 19th-century French mathematician François Proth [cite: 1, 3]. Proth numbers are highly significant in computational number theory because their primality can be tested with exceptional algorithmic efficiency using Proth's theorem, circumventing the need for exhaustive trial division [cite: 1, 11].

A Sierpiński number is defined specifically as an odd natural number $k$ such that the Proth expression $k \cdot 2^n + 1$ is composite for every integer $n \ge 1$ [cite: 10, 12]. For the vast majority of $k$ values, evaluating successive values of $n$ quickly yields a prime number. For instance, if $k = 3$, setting $n = 2$ produces $3 \cdot 2^2 + 1 = 13$, which is prime; thus, 3 is immediately disqualified as a Sierpiński number [cite: 2, 3]. The core mathematical anomaly of a Sierpiński number is that its sequence completely evades the infinitely many prime numbers scattered throughout the integers.

The conceptual architecture of Sierpiński's 1960 proof relies heavily on addressing a flawed hypothesis known as Polignac's conjecture. In 1849, the French mathematician Alphonse de Polignac conjectured that every odd integer greater than 1 could be expressed as the sum of a prime number and a power of two (i.e., $p + 2^k$) [cite: 13, 14]. While Leonhard Euler had previously noted isolated counterexamples like 127 and 959, Polignac's conjecture remained a subject of intense debate until 1950 [cite: 14].

In 1950, the prolific Hungarian mathematician Paul ErdÅ‘s and the Dutch mathematician J. G. van der Corput independently disproved Polignac's conjecture with rigorous finality [cite: 15]. ErdÅ‘s proved that there exists an infinite arithmetic progression of odd numbers that cannot under any circumstances be represented as a sum of a prime and a power of two [cite: 9]. To achieve this, ErdÅ‘s utilized a mathematical construct known as a "covering set" (or covering system) of congruences [cite: 13]. ErdÅ‘s observed that by carefully selecting a finite set of prime numbers—specifically $\{3, 5, 7, 13, 17, 241\}$—one could create a modular interlocking system where every possible exponent $n$ aligns with a modulus that forces the resulting expression to be divisible by at least one of those selected primes [cite: 9, 16].

SierpiÅ„ski’s 1960 Proof and the Mechanics of Covering Sets

Building directly upon Erdős's foundational concept of covering systems, Sierpiński proved his eponymous theorem: there exist infinitely many odd positive integers $k$ such that $k \cdot 2^n + 1$ is strictly composite for all positive integers $n$ [cite: 17].

The proof mechanism relies on a finite covering set of congruences. A covering set $P = \{p_1, p_2, \dots, p_m\}$ is a finite set of prime numbers constructed so that for every positive integer $n$, the expression $k \cdot 2^n + 1$ is divisible by at least one $p_i \in P$ [cite: 18, 19]. Sierpiński constructed a precise covering of exponents $n$ using the moduli $\{2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64\}$. This specific covering ensures that every integer $n$ satisfies at least one modular condition, triggering divisibility by a corresponding prime.

The mechanics of SierpiÅ„ski’s 1960 proof can be modeled by mapping the exponent conditions to their required prime divisors and the resulting congruences for $k$.

Index | Modulus for n | Exponent Congruence | Prime Divisor (p_i) | Required Congruence for k
1 | 2 | n = 1 mod 2 | 3 | k = 1 mod 3
2 | 4 | n = 2 mod 4 | 5 | k = 1 mod 5
3 | 8 | n = 4 mod 8 | 17 | k = 1 mod 17
4 | 16 | n = 8 mod 16 | 257 | k = 1 mod 257
5 | 32 | n = 16 mod 32 | 65537 | k = 1 mod 65537
6 | 64 | n = 32 mod 64 | 641 | k = 1 mod 641
7 | 64 | n = 0 mod 64 | 6700417 | k = -1 mod 6700417

Table 1: The covering system utilized in Wacław Sierpiński's 1960 proof [cite: 18].

The primes $\{3, 5, 17, 257, 641, 65537, 6700417\}$ form the covering set $C$ [cite: 1]. This specific set is highly delicate and demonstrates a deep structural connectivity to Fermat numbers. It functions explicitly because the fifth Fermat number, $F_5 = 2^{32} + 1$, factors cleanly into two distinct prime divisors: 641 and 6,700,417 [cite: 1].

By invoking the Chinese Remainder Theorem, SierpiÅ„ski proved that there exists a simultaneous solution $k$ to all the modular constraints listed in Table 1 [cite: 1]. Furthermore, because the prime moduli are pairwise coprime, the solutions for $k$ repeat periodically, forming an infinite arithmetic progression [cite: 1]. Any $k$ falling within this progression ensures that $k \cdot 2^n + 1$ is divisible by at least one prime in the covering set $C$ for any conceivable $n$, thus guaranteeing absolute compositeness [cite: 17, 19]. Solving this system of congruences yields the smallest $k$ native to SierpiÅ„ski's original method—an unwieldy 20-digit integer: 15,511,380,746,462,593,381 [cite: 17, 20].

John Selfridge and the Formulation of the Sierpiński Problem

While SierpiÅ„ski brilliantly proved the existence of these infinite progressions, he did not attempt to hunt for the absolute smallest example of such a number. In 1962, the American mathematician John Selfridge—renowned for his work on Fermat numbers, primality testing, and his proof alongside ErdÅ‘s that the product of consecutive integers is never a power—addressed this gap [cite: 8, 21].

Selfridge discovered a far more elegant and numerically compact covering set [cite: 1, 22]. He demonstrated that $k = 78557$ is a Sierpiński number by employing a covering set consisting of only seven small primes: $\{3, 5, 7, 13, 19, 37, 73\}$ [cite: 3, 8]. For $k = 78557$, the covering functions beautifully over the modulus 36 [cite: 19]. Selfridge proved that every number of the form $78557 \cdot 2^n + 1$ is perfectly divisible by at least one prime in this covering set, thereby ensuring that no prime number can ever be generated by the sequence [cite: 8, 18, 21].

A critical nuance in the definition of a Sierpiński number is the strict requirement that $k$ must be an odd integer [cite: 8]. If this constraint were removed, the number $k = 65536$ ($2^{16}$) would likely be a smaller candidate [cite: 23]. For $k = 65536$, the expression becomes $2^{16} \cdot 2^n + 1 = 2^{n+16} + 1$ [cite: 24]. This sequence only yields primes if $n+16$ is a power of 2, generating Fermat numbers. Since it is widely believed (though unproven) that $2^{16} + 1$ is the largest prime Fermat number, $65536 \cdot 2^n + 1$ would technically be composite for all $n > 0$ [cite: 23, 25]. To avoid entangling the Sierpiński problem with the unproven finiteness of Fermat primes, the definition strictly excludes even numbers, solidifying 78,557 as the premier candidate [cite: 3, 24].

Following his discovery, Selfridge engaged in private correspondence with Paul Erdős, conjecturing that 78,557 was not merely a Sierpiński number, but the absolute smallest possible Sierpiński number [cite: 8, 26]. Determining the mathematical truth of this conjecture is known as the Sierpiński Problem [cite: 8, 10].

Algebraic Compositeness: Aurifeuillean Factorizations

While covering sets represent the dominant mathematical paradigm for proving that a number is a Sierpiński number, they are not the sole mechanism. In 1995, the mathematician A. S. Izotov demonstrated that certain fourth powers could be proven to be Sierpiński numbers without establishing a comprehensive covering set for all possible values of $n$ [cite: 8, 27].

Izotov's proof relied on an advanced algebraic identity known as Aurifeuillean factorization [cite: 1]. He showed that expressions of the form $t^4 \cdot 2^{4m+2} + 1$ can be factored purely algebraically, independent of modular prime divisibility:

$$t^4 \cdot 2^{4m+2} + 1 = (t^2 \cdot 2^{2m+1} + t \cdot 2^{m+1} + 1) \cdot (t^2 \cdot 2^{2m+1} - t \cdot 2^{m+1} + 1)$$ [cite: 1, 28].

Because this polynomial factorization always splits the expression into two distinct integers strictly greater than 1, it proves that any exponent of the form $n \equiv 2 \pmod 4$ natively gives rise to a composite number [cite: 8]. Therefore, a covering set is only required to eliminate the remaining exponent classes: $n \equiv 0, 1, \text{ and } 3 \pmod 4$ [cite: 8]. Izotov's technique provides a profound second-order insight: the compositeness of the $k \cdot 2^n + 1$ sequence can arise from inherent algebraic geometry and polynomial expansion, rather than relying solely on the cyclical, interlocking gears of prime modular arithmetic.

The Distributed Computation Era: Solving the Sierpiński Problem

To rigorously prove Selfridge's conjecture that 78,557 is indeed the smallest Sierpiński number, mathematicians face a daunting task of exhaustive elimination. They must prove that every single odd integer $k < 78557$ is not a Sierpiński number [cite: 3, 8]. A candidate $k$ is successfully eliminated if and only if a positive integer $n$ can be found such that $k \cdot 2^n + 1$ is prime [cite: 8].

Pre-Internet Computational Efforts

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, testing these numbers was an arduous process constrained by the hardware limitations of early academic mainframes. By 1983, computational searches had determined that there were 70 values of $k < 78557$ for which no prime had been found for exponents $n \le 8000$ [cite: 10, 16]. Over the subsequent 14 years, targeted algorithmic testing slowly eliminated 48 of those multipliers [cite: 10].

A major paradigm shift occurred in August 1997 with the introduction of the Proth.exe software developed by Yves Gallot [cite: 2]. This program heavily optimized Proth's theorem for standard consumer personal computers, allowing amateur mathematicians to participate in the search. Utilizing Proth.exe, a decentralized group of enthusiasts (including Lew Baxter, Marc Thibeault, and Janusz Szmidt) systematically eliminated more candidates [cite: 22]. By the end of 2001, the list of unsolved multipliers below 78,557 had been reduced to exactly 17 [cite: 1, 10].

The "Seventeen or Bust" Project (2002–2016)

Recognizing that the exponent $n$ required to find a prime for the remaining 17 values was reaching into the hundreds of thousands—necessitating vast, decentralized amounts of computational power—two college undergraduates, Louis Helm and David Norris, along with Michael Garrison, conceived the distributed computing project "Seventeen or Bust" in March 2002 [cite: 16, 29]. The project's public client was released on April 1, 2002, allowing volunteers worldwide to donate their idle CPU cycles to test specific $k$ and $n$ pairings [cite: 29, 30].

The project was immensely successful and heralded the golden era of crowdsourced mathematics. Within its first year, it eliminated five $k$ values. Over its 14-year lifespan as an independent project, Seventeen or Bust found massive primes that eliminated 11 of the 17 candidates [cite: 16]. The primes discovered were mathematically significant; for instance, the prime found for $k = 19249$ by Konstantin Agafonov in 2007 contained nearly 4 million digits, making it the largest known non-Mersenne prime at the time [cite: 2, 30].

In 2010, the global volunteer platform PrimeGrid officially partnered with Seventeen or Bust to accelerate the search using the BOINC (Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing) infrastructure [cite: 31, 32]. Unfortunately, in April 2016, the Seventeen or Bust project suffered a catastrophic datacenter failure resulting in the loss of critical un-backed-up data [cite: 10, 33]. Consequently, PrimeGrid assumed full administration of the project and absorbed its mission [cite: 16, 29, 33].

Shortly after this transition, PrimeGrid facilitated the discovery of a 12th prime, eliminating $k = 10223$. Discovered by Szabolcs Péter of Hungary on October 31, 2016, the prime $10223 \cdot 2^{31172165} + 1$ contains a staggering 9,383,761 decimal digits [cite: 1, 16, 33]. The calculation required nearly 9 days of continuous processing on an Intel i7 CPU [cite: 16, 33]. At the time of its discovery, it was the 7th largest known prime overall, the largest known Proth prime, and the largest known Colbert number [cite: 16, 33, 34].

k Value | Exponent (n) | Decimal Digits | Date Discovered | Discoverer
46157 | 698207 | 210186 | Nov 27, 2002 | Stephen Gibson
65567 | 1013803 | 305190 | Dec 2, 2002 | James Burt
44131 | 995972 | 299823 | Dec 5, 2002 | Anonymous
69109 | 1157446 | 348431 | Dec 6, 2002 | Sean DiMichele
54767 | 1337287 | 402569 | Dec 23, 2002 | Peter Coels
5359 | 5054502 | 1521561 | Dec 6, 2003 | Randy Sundquist
28433 | 7830457 | 2357207 | Dec 30, 2004 | Team Prime Rib
27653 | 9167433 | 2759677 | Jun 8, 2005 | Derek Gordon
4847 | 3321063 | 999744 | Oct 15, 2005 | Richard Hassler
19249 | 13018586 | 3918990 | Mar 26, 2007 | Konstantin Agafonov
33661 | 7031232 | 2116617 | Oct 17, 2007 | Sturle Sunde
10223 | 31172165 | 9383761 | Oct 31, 2016 | Szabolcs Péter

Table 2: The 12 mega-primes discovered by the Seventeen or Bust and PrimeGrid collaborations, successfully eliminating their respective $k$ values from the Sierpiński problem [cite: 31, 32].

Current Status: "Five or Bust"

As of the mid-2020s, decades of concerted computational effort have distilled the original Sierpiński problem down to exactly five remaining unproven multipliers [cite: 8, 35]. While the project name could accurately be updated to "Five or Bust," PrimeGrid retains the original moniker for historical continuity [cite: 29, 35].

To definitively prove that 78,557 is the smallest Sierpiński number, a prime must be found for each of the following $k$ values:

Remaining Candidates for the Sierpinski Problem
k = 21181
k = 22699
k = 24737
k = 55459
k = 67607

Table 3: The five remaining odd multipliers below 78,557 [cite: 8, 10, 35].

Computational Infrastructure and Hardware Dynamics

The search continues under PrimeGrid utilizing a global network of hundreds of thousands of volunteers, supplying thousands of TeraFLOPS of processing power to test exceedingly large exponents [cite: 31]. The search space has long surpassed $n = 36420000$, venturing into algorithmic territory where any prime discovered will be well over 10 million decimal digits long [cite: 10, 30].

The underlying mathematics of the search relies on Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) algorithms to multiply ultra-large integers efficiently. Applications like LLR (Lucas-Lehmer-Riesel), PRST, and Genefer are heavily optimized for both CPU and GPU execution [cite: 16, 35, 36]. The workflow is strictly bifurcated into two phases: sieving and primality testing. Sieving acts as a highly efficient filter, removing candidate exponents that have small algebraic factors. However, the deeper the sieve goes, the slower the rate of candidate removal becomes, eventually hitting an "optimal depth" where sieving takes just as much computational time as running a full primality test [cite: 28, 37].

Because computing large $n$ values requires intense, uninterrupted CPU time, multithreading is frequently employed. A single task running on one CPU core can take upwards of two to four weeks on older machines, making the tuning of parameters like max cpus critical for participants [cite: 35]. Interestingly, deep hardware analysis indicates that hyperthreading (or SMT) frequently decreases overall throughput for LLR primality testing. This negative performance scaling occurs because FFT calculations rely heavily on cache continuity and memory bandwidth rather than instruction pipeline multiplexing, prompting project organizers to advise volunteers to disable hyperthreading for LLR tasks [cite: 35, 38].

PrimeGrid also conducts rigorous "double checking" of legacy data. Because Seventeen or Bust suffered data loss, PrimeGrid systematically retests specific ranges of $n$ (comparing mathematical residues) to ensure no primes were missed due to hardware calculation errors or incomplete validation [cite: 30, 39, 40]. Two of the original twelve primes (for $k = 4847$ and $k = 33661$) were discovered exclusively because volunteers were double-checking previously computed ranges, highlighting the necessity of cryptographic-level verification in these searches [cite: 29, 39].

Generalizations and Extended Number Theory Problems

The theoretical proofs and computational methodologies developed for the Sierpiński problem have laid the groundwork for an entire taxonomy of associated mathematical conjectures. By altering the parameters, constraints, or signs of the $k \cdot 2^n + 1$ sequence, number theorists have generated a suite of derivative problems.

The Prime Sierpiński Problem

In 1976, Nathan Mendelsohn proved that $k = 271129$ is a Sierpiński number, utilizing the covering set $\{3, 5, 7, 13, 17, 241\}$ [cite: 1, 2]. Because 271,129 is itself a prime number, this discovery initiated the Prime Sierpiński Problem: determining the smallest Sierpiński number that is also a prime [cite: 8, 22].

To establish 271,129 as the smallest prime Sierpiński number, all prime integers less than 271,129 must be tested. Currently, there are nine prime multipliers for which no prime of the form $k \cdot 2^n + 1$ has been found: 22699, 67607, 79309, 79817, 152267, 156511, 222113, 225931, and 237019 [cite: 8, 22]. Notably, the first two values (22,699 and 67,607) are less than 78,557, meaning they are shared candidates with the original Seventeen or Bust project [cite: 10, 28]. PrimeGrid operates the "Prime Sierpinski Problem" (PSP) subproject specifically to eliminate these remaining values [cite: 3, 8, 28].

The Extended Sierpiński Problem

Assuming Selfridge's conjecture holds and 78,557 is the absolute smallest Sierpiński number, and assuming Mendelsohn's 271,129 is the smallest prime Sierpiński number, a structural gap exists. The Extended Sierpiński Problem asks: Is 271,129 the second smallest Sierpiński number overall? [cite: 8, 22].

Answering this requires searching the interval $78557 < k < 271129$ for any composite Sierpiński numbers [cite: 8, 22]. Eliminating the candidates in this range requires finding a prime for each composite $k$. As of the most recent computational updates, 11 composite multipliers remain in this interval: 21181, 24737, 55459, 91549, 131179, 163187, 200749, 209611, 227723, 229673, and 238411 [cite: 22]. (Again, 21181, 24737, and 55459 are shared with the original Five or Bust list, demonstrating the interwoven nature of these conjectures [cite: 22].)

Riesel Numbers and Dual Compositeness

The algebraic inverse of the SierpiÅ„ski function is the sequence $k \cdot 2^n - 1$. An odd natural number $k$ for which this expression is composite for all positive integers $n$ is known as a Riesel number [cite: 13, 15]. In 1956—four years prior to SierpiÅ„ski's proof—the Swedish mathematician Hans Riesel proved the existence of such numbers and demonstrated that $k = 509203$ is a Riesel number [cite: 15, 41].

Like Sierpiński numbers, Riesel numbers rely heavily on covering systems. However, the required primes often differ significantly due to the $-1$ altering the cyclotomic properties and algebraic factorization geometry [cite: 13, 19]. Unlike the $+1$ form, which allows flexible use of small primes like 5 and 7, Riesel coverings often require more complex congruences to avoid overlapping failures [cite: 8]. The quest to prove 509,203 is the absolute smallest Riesel number continues through PrimeGrid's "The Riesel Problem" subproject [cite: 6, 11].

Brier Numbers: Simultaneously Sierpiński and Riesel

A profound synthesis of these two sequences was theorized by Eric Brier, who asked whether an integer could be simultaneously a Sierpiński number and a Riesel number [cite: 8, 23, 42]. Such an integer, now known as a Brier number, must satisfy the condition that both $k \cdot 2^n + 1$ and $k \cdot 2^n - 1$ are composite for all positive integers $n$ [cite: 8, 17, 43].

Because a Brier number must satisfy the congruences of two independent covering sets simultaneously, the values of $k$ escalate dramatically. The smallest known Brier number, discovered by Christophe Clavier in 2013, is a 41-digit behemoth: 3,316,923,598,096,294,713,661 [cite: 1, 19, 24]. By leveraging a theorem of D. Shiu on the distribution of primes in arithmetic progressions, it has been mathematically proven that for every positive integer $r$, there exist $r$ consecutive primes that are also Brier numbers, hinting at the deeply patterned, yet elusive, nature of prime distributions [cite: 23, 42]. A 2021 Dartmouth College study by Pomerance et al. further proved that infinitely many numbers are simultaneously Sierpiński, Riesel, and Carmichael numbers, creating an intersection of pseudo-primality and forced compositeness [cite: 1].

Base Extensions, Repdigits, and the First Kind

While the standard definition operates in Base 2, the mathematics generalizes readily to any integer Base $b \ge 2$, where one searches for $k$ such that $k \cdot b^n + 1$ is composite for all $n$ [cite: 25, 44]. PrimeGrid operates projects like the Sierpinski/Riesel Base 5 problem to eliminate candidates where $b=5$ [cite: 6, 44]. In 2025, PrimeGrid successfully eliminated $k = 67612$ in Base 5 by discovering a 3.8-million-digit prime (which took only 1 hour and 24 minutes of PRP testing on an AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX), bringing the remaining Base 5 candidates down to 27 [cite: 6, 36].

Furthermore, Sierpiński numbers of the first kind refer to primes of the form $k^k + 1$. Sierpiński himself proved that for $k^k + 1$ to be prime for any $k>1$, $k$ must take the highly restrictive form $2^{2^j}$, tying the sequence directly back to Fermat numbers [cite: 45, 46]. Mathematical investigations have also extended to detecting Sierpiński and Riesel numbers among restrictive integer subsets, such as Fibonacci sequences, Lucas numbers, and repdigits (numbers consisting solely of a single repeated digit in a given base) [cite: 15, 47].

Broader Implications and Conjecture Outlook

The quest to resolve the Sierpiński problem acts as a crucible for both pure mathematical theory and applied computer science. At the theoretical level, the existence of Sierpiński numbers directly links to Paul Erdős's combinatorial number theory. Erdős conjectured that for any Sierpiński number $k$, the smallest prime divisor of $k \cdot 2^n + 1$ must be bounded as $n$ approaches infinity [cite: 15, 27]. If this is proven true, it solidifies the hypothesis that all Sierpiński numbers are strictly the product of covering systems, ruling out any undiscovered algebraic anomalies that might cause infinite compositeness without a finite, periodic covering set [cite: 13, 27].

At the applied level, the search drives massive innovations in high-performance computing (HPC). The algorithms used by PrimeGrid to multiply integers spanning millions of digits—relying on discrete Fourier transforms and advanced memory bandwidth management—routinely push the physical boundaries of hardware stability [cite: 31, 35]. The massive prime numbers discovered in these searches are frequently utilized to stress-test modern CPU and GPU architectures, successfully identifying microscopic, silicon-level calculation errors before those processors are deployed in commercial, scientific, or cryptographic environments.

Conclusion

The Sierpiński problem stands as a towering testament to the enduring complexity of prime number distribution. What began in 1960 as a brilliant theoretical proof utilizing interlocking covering sets of prime congruences has evolved into one of the largest, most sustained distributed computing efforts in human history.

John Selfridge’s 1962 discovery of $k = 78557$ established the absolute baseline, and despite decades of aggressive computational searching by thousands of global volunteers, his conjecture that it is the smallest SierpiÅ„ski number remains flawlessly intact. The field has systematically stripped away candidates, transforming the original "Seventeen or Bust" initiative into the current "Five or Bust" reality.

As algorithmic efficiency improves and global computational power scales, the mathematical community steadily marches toward a definitive resolution of the five remaining candidates: 21181, 22699, 24737, 55459, and 67607. Whether a prime is eventually found for each, finally proving Selfridge right, or whether one of these five numbers stubbornly remains composite for all $n$, thereby rewriting number theory textbooks, the journey itself has fundamentally advanced our understanding of prime dynamics, modular coverings, and the very limits of computational mathematics.

References

  • [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierpi%C5%84ski_number
  • [2] http://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=13544
  • [3] https://primegrid.fandom.com/wiki/Extended_Sierpinski_Problem
  • [4] https://www.primegrid.com/
  • [5] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=972
  • [6] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=1647
  • [7] http://www.prothsearch.com/sierp.html
  • [8] https://primegrid.fandom.com/wiki/Prime_Sierpinski_Problem
  • [10] https://t5k.org/glossary/page.php?sort=SierpinskiNumber
  • [11] https://primegrid.fandom.com/wiki/Seventeen_or_Bust
  • [12] https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.07376
  • [13] https://math.colgate.edu/~integers/aa12/aa12.pdf
  • [14] https://math.dartmouth.edu/~carlp/BFLPST_AMS121001.pdf
  • [15] https://www.fq.math.ca/Papers1/49-4/BaczkowskiFasorantiFinch.pdf
  • [16] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=1647
  • [18] http://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=13544
  • [19] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=1750
  • [20] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=972
  • [21] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=1538
  • [22] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=9614
  • [23] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=8360
  • [24] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=13913
  • [27] https://grokipedia.com/page/primegrid
  • [28] https://grokipedia.com/page/Safe_and_Sophie_Germain_primes
  • [30] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=13913
  • [33] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=9614
  • [35] https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/journals/JIS/VOL10/Jones/jones67.pdf
  • [37] https://math.dartmouth.edu/~carlp/BFLPST_AMS121001.pdf
  • [38] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierpi%C5%84ski_number
  • [39] https://grokipedia.com/page/covering_set
  • [40] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Selfridge
  • [41] https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/37744
  • [46] https://boincsynergy.ca/wiki/PrimeGrid
  • [47] https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/journals/JIS/VOL10/Jones/jones67.pdf
  • [48] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierpi%C5%84ski_number
  • [49] https://primegrid.fandom.com/wiki/Seventeen_or_Bust
  • [50] http://www.prothsearch.com/sierp.html
  • [51] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=1647
  • [53] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=972
  • [54] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=8360
  • [55] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=7767
  • [61] https://grokipedia.com/page/primegrid
  • [62] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=13913
  • [63] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=9614
  • [64] http://www.primegrid.com/old_news.php
  • [66] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=1538
  • [67] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=9614
  • [71] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=1538
  • [72] http://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=1304&nowrap=true
  • [78] https://www.epcc.ed.ac.uk/whats-happening/articles/how-do-you-solve-problem-sierpinski
  • [79] http://www.primegrid.com/old_news.php
  • [81] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=7116
  • [82] Unknown Source / Custom Execution
  • [84] https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Sierpinski/
  • [86] https://ns1.almerja.com/more.php?idm=80076
  • [89] https://www.primepuzzles.net/problems/prob_049.htm
  • [92] https://poetcommons.whittier.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=math
  • [94] http://www.prothsearch.com/sierp.html
  • [96] https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/37744
  • [98] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=9614
  • [103] http://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=7356
  • [104] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=8513&nowrap=true&menu=top
  • [108] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=9614
  • [109] https://boincsynergy.ca/wiki/PrimeGrid
  • [111] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=1647
  • [113] https://math.colgate.edu/~integers/aa12/aa12.pdf
  • [116] https://poetcommons.whittier.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=math
  • [117] https://people.math.sc.edu/filaseta/papers/SierpinskiEtCoPap5.pdf
  • [118] https://oeis.org/A121270
  • [119] https://oeis.org/A121270/internal
  • [125] https://scispace.com/pdf/the-mathematics-of-paul-erdos-i-25xah963v8.pdf
  • [126] https://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~kyodo/kokyuroku/contents/pdf/1639-08.pdf
  • [128] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riesel_number
  • [129] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256775044_On_Cullen_numbers_which_are_both_Riesel_and_Sierpinski_numbers
  • [131] https://people.math.sc.edu/filaseta/ConsecutiveWDDBrierNumbers.pdf
  • [132] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.08898