Talk:Leyland number

The only reference I can find for the term Leyland number is in the Crandall & Pomerance book. But since their book is so highly esteemed, I think the term will stick. PrimeFan 22:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good piece of information. Thanks to all contributors.--Su_hit (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would be Paul Leyland of NFSNET ? Rich Farmbrough, 16:11, 20 August 2009 (U=TC).

Yes. Paul Leyland made http://www.leyland.vispa.com/numth/primes/xyyx.htm and created interest in these numbers. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this page after reading Erotic Review no 100, a Leyland number according to a contributor. Apart from this I have never heard of them. Thus, as the new broom can I suggest an alteration to the definition. Since 1<x≤y implies the possibility of x=y, 2^2 + 2^2 = 8 would be a smaller LN than 17. Thus it should be strictly 1<x<y. Fleapit (talk) 12:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC) I've just done what I should have done before - looked up N. J. A. Sloane. He gives 8 as the smallest Leyland Number. Thus though I prefer my formulation one must go with the flow. The Wikipedia list must be changed. Fleapit (talk) 12:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia already uses the same definition as OEIS and has the same list of Leyland numbers. Perhaps you were looking at the later list of the first prime Leyland numbers. That means Leyland numbers that are also prime numbers. I have added a link to clarify this.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larger Leyland prime found?

As far as I understand, the last entry in this list was proven to be prime on February, and it is far larger than the one proven in 2012 (7e4 vs 3e4 digits approximately).

Do I understand correctly?

If so, I guess the article should mention it, right?

Thanks! E L Yekutiel (talk) 06:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. Thanks! E L Yekutiel (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]