# How far is the list of known primes known to be complete?

So there is always the search for the next "biggest known prime number". The last result that came out of GIMPS was $2^{74\,207\,281} - 1$, with over twenty million digits. Wikipedia also lists the twenty highest known prime numbers, only the four smallest on that list have fewer than three million digits.

For some while now, I have been wondering about the smaller prime numbers we haven't found. How far up is the list of known primes known to be complete? Since $500$ to $1000$ digit primes are considered safe for the RSA algorithm, I'd assume that it's well below that. How far along the number line have we checked that there are no more primes to be found? How fast is this boundary moving forward, currently? Have we, for instance, checked the primality of all numbers below $10^{100}$, or are we stuck somewhere south of $10^{20}$?

• Just as a start, here is First fifty million primes Jul 7, 2016 at 10:49
• @YuriyS I don't want the list. I want to know how long the (longest) list (we can currently make) is. Jul 7, 2016 at 10:51
• @barakmanos According to wiki (the list I linked in the question) it is $19249×2^{13\,018\,586} + 1$, which is just shy of $4$ million digits, and there are $11$ known Mersenne primes that are larger. Jul 7, 2016 at 10:55
• @Arthur, here is exactly your question considered Jul 7, 2016 at 10:57
• @joriki: I agree, but I can only delete mine, which would leave this thread kind of enigmatic, so if you have the privilege of doing it, then please go ahead, I will not bare a grudge for that :) Jul 7, 2016 at 11:05

The maximum of such list is far smaller than mentioned 500-digits. Due to the prime number theorem $\pi(x) \approx x/\log(x)$ so one could estimate that the list of prime numbers up to $x$ would require at the order of $x$ digits to represent.

So by using the sieve of Atkin the complexity is $O(x)$ for both time consumption and memory consumption. And all memory available is small enough to be feasible to traverse. This means that the memory available for storing such a list is what should be the limiting factor.

Basically this boils down to that the largest such list is as large as anybody have place (and need) for.

Now the total global storage is estimated to be at the order of $10^{21}$ bytes which means that the upper bound of such a prime number list is there. So there exist no complete list with primenumbers up to more than about twenty digits (and not even that since not all storage is devoted to store prime numbers).

• Excellent line of reasoning. If you can't store it, you can't (continue to) know it. Astonishing remindee of the power of exponents... Jul 8, 2016 at 1:28
• Suppose someone with extremely many huge hard disks kept a list of all prime numbers with at most 21 decimal digits. It would be extremely easy to come up with a continuation of that list. For example the first prime over $10^{21}$ (i.e. 22 digits) is $1{,}000{,}000{,}000{,}000{,}000{,}000{,}117$. It takes a few milliseconds to find and prove with standard math software (I used PARI/GP). Jul 8, 2016 at 8:26

This may be a somewhat unsatisfying answer, but no-one's really keeping a complete list of known primes (to the best of my knowledge). Moreover, it's fairly easy to come up with large primes, and it's fairly easy to "guarantee" (guarantee being a slippery term), that a given large number is prime.

The Miller-Rabin primality test is an algorithm that takes a number $n$, and a "certainty" parameter $m$, and (in layman's terms) if $n$ is prime, it will return "PRIME". If $n$ is composite, it will almost certainly (again, a slippery term) return "COMPOSITE", but there's a small probability $(\frac{1}{4^m})$ that it will return "PRIME".

However, by setting $m$ high enough, to, say, something greater than 40, then it essentially means the probability of a composite number being declared prime is smaller than you winning the jackpot in the lottery twice in one week. Thus, for almost ALL practical purposes, it suffices to work with primes that pass the Miller-Rabin test to a high degree of certainty. Henri Cohen famously called such numbers "Industrial Grade Primes".

If you're still interested in having "proof" that a number is prime, may I suggest reading up on prime certificates. I haven't ever personally come across a situation in which you'd prefer a certified prime to an industrial grade prime however.

Finally, as a quick example, Mathematica can generate very large primes easily. The Mathematica command "RandomPrime[{10^1000, 10^1001}]" generates a random 1000 digit prime in 0.40625 seconds on my five year old desktop machine. This should give you some indication as to why mathematicians generally don't keep long lists of all known primes.

• so RSA uses "Industrial Grade Primes" right ? Jul 7, 2016 at 11:31
• @skyking Best two I know of are: 1) the elliptic curve primality test, which is $O((\log(n))^6)$, on the condition that certain (probably true) conjectures are true, and 2) Miller's test, upon which the Miller-Rabin test is based, which is a deterministic test. It only works under the assumption of GRH, but it works in $O((\log(n))^4 \log^k((\log(n))^4)$, for some integer $k$. Jul 7, 2016 at 14:23
• "I haven't ever personally come across a situation in which you'd prefer a certified prime to an industrial grade prime"; one case might be if you're generating a prime for a long term DH group (e.g. IKE group 14) or EC curve (e.g. P256 or Curve25519); since such a group/curve might be used literally billions of times, it might make sense to go to the extra effort of doing the full certification. Jul 7, 2016 at 16:54
• Are there any Industrial Grade Primes that are known to be composite? Jul 7, 2016 at 18:10
• @MadMonty The AKS primality test is deterministic, its correctness is proven unconditionally, and a variant of it has running time roughly $O((\log n)^6)$. Jul 7, 2016 at 21:21

It seems that this link, provided by Yuriy S in the comments above more or less addresses my question. It states that prime gap searches have checked the primality (but not stored the primes) for all numbers up to about 20 digits (the exact bound is always changing, since the numbers are relatively small).

• Should've probably posted as an answer, since you got upvoted. Not that I mind though, glad I helped Jul 7, 2016 at 12:39
• I'm not familiar with the algorithms used by the maximal prime gap project; however I'd think that if you're searching for a prime gap $> k$, you wouldn't need to check the primality of each integer. Instead, if you're at the verified prime $p$, the next integer you check is not $p+2$, but instead $p+k$ (and if that's not prime, work your way backwards). If you verify that (say) $p+k-6$ is prime, you don't need to check the primality of the other integers in the range... Jul 7, 2016 at 17:01
• I wish someone know, just an order of magnitude, how many primes there are with less than 20 digits. this QA is remarkably unmathematical :) Everyone's just saying "there's a lot!" and "there's a hell of a lot!" Geesh! Jul 7, 2016 at 20:18
• @JoeBlow: according to the prime number theorem, there are approximately $10^{20} / \log 10^{20} \approx 2,171,472,409,516,259,138$ primes in that range. While this is just an approximation (and the lower dozen digits are almost certainly wrong), this is certainly within an order of magnitude. Jul 7, 2016 at 20:23
• @poncho People also counted the exact number of primes below $10^{20}$, it is $2{,}220{,}819{,}602{,}560{,}918{,}840$, see this Wikipedia subsection. That number divided by your number is about $1.02$ according to that table. This fraction tends to $1$ by the prime number theorem. Jul 8, 2016 at 8:59

Listing primes in order is a fairly trivial problem — in fact, I believe we have programs that can compute lists of primes faster than they can be written to disk, let alone displayed in any human readable format.

The thing is, there are a lot of primes. The entire internet put together probably couldn't store the list of all 20 digit primes.

But that's okay, because we don't need lists of primes — whenever we need primes, we can just generate them.

First, what is a "list of primes"? It's some fixed storage in a format that would allow me to know all members of an arbitrary set S of integers, for the special case that S is a subrange of the set of primes. For example "11, 13, 17, 19" is a list of primes. Given this list (and if you trust me) you can know four consecutive primes.

You can store a list of primes in a quite compact way. For example, just store the first prime in the list, followed by the differences between each prime and the next prime, compressed with a good compression algorithm. In my example, "11,2,4,2" would represent 11, 11+2 = 13, 13+4 = 17, 17+2 = 19. I would estimate that you can store a large list of primes using about 1 byte per prime.

Now I just bought a 4TB hard drive for about £70. So at a cost of £70 I can store a list of about 4 trillion primes. If I wanted to store the largest list I'd spend £100,000 (my wife would kill me) for 1,400 such hard drives and store a list of almost 6 quadrillion bytes. And that would probably be the largest complete list of known primes because ...

... because nobody in their right mind would do that! If you wanted the first billion primes greater than one quadrillion, I wouldn't read my list from one of these hard drives. I would create a prime sieve in the memory of my computer and calculate it on the spot. Cheaper and faster than reading a list.

You will find lists of special primes. Say "complete list of known primes of the form $$2^n-1$$ for some integer n ≥ 1". But storing a list of all primes is just nonsense.

PS. These 6 quadrillion bytes at a cost of £100,000, at about 1 byte per prime due to compression, could store a list of primes up to $$120 \cdot 10^{15}$$. I'd be willing to send you a list of primes up to $$80 \cdot 10^{12}$$ on a large hard drive for say $500, which would pay for some of the cost creating the list. PPS. A "list" of known primes would have to be recorded. A number x that has at some point be determined to be a prime is not a "known prime" if it is not recorded. (Given a list of known primes, I can determine whether x is prime or not by checking that it would be in the list if it was prime due to the list size, and then checking whether it is on the list. If nobody recorded that x is prime then I cannot do this). And nobody records large lists of known primes because it is pointless. You wouldn't use a list to determine if x is prime. • A good point. And it addresses the question in the title (albeit in an indirect way), but not the more specific questions in the actual post itself. Like, for instance, the question "How far along the number line have we checked that there are no more primes to be found?" One could also argue that the fact that I said the list of known primes, I meant the more abstract list of all the natural numbers that we humans, through pen-and-paper calculation or computer algorithms or anything in-between have actually confirmed to be prime. Jan 4 at 12:28 • Certainly, this list changes all the time, but I would argue that the (also changing) "lowest prime not on that list" is still a quantity that can be reasoned about, at least in approximate terms. Such as how large it is (is it closer to$10^{20}$or$10^{100}\$?), and how quickly it grows (does it increase by an order of magnitude per year, slower, or faster?) Jan 4 at 12:31
• Nice answer , apart from the financial details in the PS Jan 18 at 10:43