The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Megaprime. Titanic prime is not included in this nomination. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gigantic prime[edit]

Gigantic prime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage. The origin of the term is a 1992 paper in the Journal of Recreational Mathematics, and it got included in a glossary in the website PrimePages and a one-sentence mention in MathWorld. In other places, sometimes prime numbers are described with the adjective "gigantic", but in the general sense of being very large rather than some specific threshold. Adumbrativus (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Adumbrativus (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No mathematical or other lasting significance to this arbitrary cutoff. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no significance shown that warrants a stand-alone article. Heart ^(talk) 05:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no meaningful coverage in sources, and no basis to hope for anything substantial or encyclopedic to say about the topic in the future. Basically it's just an old neologism for a nonnotable concept. (I have also prodded the sister article Titanic prime.) --JBL (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmmm. As a standalone article probably fails notability. But it is sort of interesting to see (1) that it's feasible to identify for sure the smallest prime in this interval, and (2) about how far it is from the cutoff, which can make the prime number theorem concrete in readers' minds. I wonder if there's anywhere that content might be merged? Unfortunately in a longer article people will probably never see it. --Trovatore (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Titanic prime, a more notable term coined by the same person. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Megaprime. Both gigantic prime and titanic prime seem to have fallen into disuse once the GIMPS project started to find million digit primes, but megaprime, the term for these, does seem to have seen sustained use since then. The use before 2000 of both 'gigantic prime' and 'titanic prime' was slight enough, and the principled mathematical interest as David Eppstein notes is not there, that I don't think either justifies a Wikipedia article. If we decide to do without a standalone article for this concept, 'titanic prime' should be next. — Charles Stewart (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gigantic primes are much closer connected to titanic primes than to megaprimes in etymology, history, size and prime searching. And gigantic primes are a form of titanic primes but not of megaprimes. There is still interest in titanic and gigantic primes among people who search special types and patterns of primes. For example, the prime septuplet record, meaning 7 large primes as closely together as possible, was increased from 527 to 1002 digits this year [1] even though it looks hundreds of times harder than a small improvement would have been. The announcement said First titanic septuplet. I have broken the prime septuplet record several times but a titanic septuplet is far beyond my resources. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not find the idea that Titanic prime is a notable concept persuasive. In MathSciNet, searching for "titanic" produces three relevant publications: the original Yates paper, a collection of papers in recreational math that reprinted the Yates paper (but the reviewer didn't think it was worth commenting on), and one other paper from a year or two after the Yates paper. That's a really extreme failure to catch on outside of the tiny circle of people who do large-prime computations recreationally. (The article Megaprime is superficially better, but when one starts looking at where all those footnotes actually lead, one discovers that it suffers from the same problem. For contrast, compare with Largest known prime number, a definitely notable thing.) --JBL (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar finds more: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22titanic+primes%22. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The usage definitely was a thing, but with the passage of time I do not think it supports an independent article. If I restrict your search to articles after 2000 that have at least one citation, I only find the term appearing in description of older literature and, in one case, a history section. I think it makes much more sense to document these two usages in the history section of Megaprime, a term that does see ongoing usage. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect both titanic prime and gigantic prime to megaprime. The concepts are neither notable nor relevant; they are already mentioned in the article megaprime, and a mention is all they deserve. Tercer (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to megaprime. The term never had widespread adoption within mathematics; it's not just an arbitrary cutoff, but an arbitrary cutoff that failed to resonate with people. XOR'easter (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• What about Mersenne primes and Generalized Fermat primes as redirect candidates ? As a prime number classification, it attracts more interest to me. --SilverMatsu (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Currently the lead text on this page seems to indicate that the title of this page is ambiguous. Also is it possible to move the Largest known prime number to this page?--SilverMatsu (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to megaprime, along with titanic prime; there isn't really a good reason for these to have separate articles, and if there is, they can be split back out. jp×g 06:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.