In a footnote to the list of known Mersenne prime numbers which can be found here, we read that the "ranking" therein is a provisional one since not all possible exponents between $37 \, 156 \, 667$ and $77 \, 232 \, 917$ have been eliminated/tested.

If we may infer from this that the individual(s) who recently found the largest known prime number had not previously discarded (quite understandably!) the possible compositeness of the $\pi(77 \, 232 \, 917)-\pi(74 \, 207 \, 281) - 1 = 166 \, 801$ members of the set $$\{M_{p} \colon p \in (74 \, 207 \, 281, 77 \, 232 \, 917), p \mbox{ is a prime number}\},$$ do we know what it was that prompted them to try their hand at establishing the primality of the very specific Mersenne number $M_{77 \, 232 \, 917}$ ?

Clearly enough, an analogous question can be formulated regarding the discovery of the 46th, 47th, 48th, and 49th known Mersenne prime numbers. If you know the answer to any of those allied questions, do not hesitate to enter it below (it might shed light on the case of the 50th known Mersenne prime).

Thanks in advance for your knowledgeable replies.

In a footnote to the list of known Mersenne prime numbers which can be found here, we read that the "ranking" therein is a provisional one since not all possible exponents between $57 \, 885 \, 161$ and $136 \, 279 \, 841$ have been eliminated/tested.

If we may infer from this that the individual(s) who recently found the largest known prime number had not previously discarded (quite understandably!) the possible compositeness of the $\pi(136 \, 279 \, 841)-\pi(57 \, 885 \, 161) - 1 = 4 \, 269 \, 685$ members of the set $$\{M_{p} \colon p \in (57 \, 885 \, 161, 136 \, 279 \, 841), \quad p \mbox{ is a prime number}\},$$ do we know what it was that prompted them to try their hand at establishing the primality of the very specific Mersenne number $M_{136 \, 279 \, 841}$ ?

Clearly enough, an analogous question can be formulated regarding the discovery of the 49th, 50th, and 51st known Mersenne prime numbers. If you know the answer to any of those allied questions, do not hesitate to enter it below (it might shed light on the case of the 52nd known Mersenne prime).

Thanks in advance for your knowledgeable replies.

In a footnote to the list of known Mersenne prime numbers which can be found here, we read that the "ranking" therein is a provisional one since not all possible exponents between $37 \, 156 \, 667$ and $77 \, 232 \, 917$ have been eliminated/tested.

If we may infer from this that the individual(s) who recently found the largest known prime number had not previously discarded (quite understandably!) the possible compositeness of the $\pi(77 \, 232 \, 917)-\pi(74 \, 207 \, 281) - 1 \approx 166 \, 801$ members of the set $$\{M_{p} \colon p \in (74 \, 207 \, 281, 77 \, 232 \, 917), p \mbox{ is a prime number}\},$$ do we know what it was that prompted them to try their hand at establishing the primality of the very specific Mersenne number $M_{77 \, 232 \, 917}$ ?

Clearly enough, an analogous question can be formulated regarding the discovery of the 46th, 47th, 48th, and 49th known Mersenne prime numbers. If you know the answer to any of those allied questions, do not hesitate to enter it below (it might shed light on the case of the 50th known Mersenne prime).

Thanks in advance for your knowledgeable replies.

In a footnote to the list of known Mersenne prime numbers which can be found here, we read that the "ranking" therein is a provisional one since not all possible exponents between $37 \, 156 \, 667$ and $77 \, 232 \, 917$ have been eliminated/tested.

If we may infer from this that the individual(s) who recently found the largest known prime number had not previously discarded (quite understandably!) the possible compositeness of the $\pi(77 \, 232 \, 917)-\pi(74 \, 207 \, 281) - 1 = 166 \, 801$ members of the set $$\{M_{p} \colon p \in (74 \, 207 \, 281, 77 \, 232 \, 917), p \mbox{ is a prime number}\},$$ do we know what it was that prompted them to try their hand at establishing the primality of the very specific Mersenne number $M_{77 \, 232 \, 917}$ ?

Clearly enough, an analogous question can be formulated regarding the discovery of the 46th, 47th, 48th, and 49th known Mersenne prime numbers. If you know the answer to any of those allied questions, do not hesitate to enter it below (it might shed light on the case of the 50th known Mersenne prime).

Thanks in advance for your knowledgeable replies.

In a footnote to the list of known Mersenne prime numbers which can be found here, we read that the "ranking" therein is a provisional one since not all possible exponents between $37 \, 156 \, 667$ and $77 \, 232 \, 917$ have been eliminated/tested.

If we may infer from this that the individual(s) who recently found the largest known prime number had not previously discarded (quite understandably!) the possible compositeness of the $\pi(77 \, 232 \, 917)-\pi(74 \, 207 \, 281) - 1 \approx 166 \, 801$ members of the set $$\{M_{p} \colon p \in (74 \, 207 \, 281, 77 \, 232 \, 917), p \mbox{ is a prime number}\},$$ do we know what it was that prompted them to try their hand at establishing the primality of the very specific Mersenne number $M_{77 \, 232 \, 917}$ ?

Clearly enough, an analogous question can be formulated regarding the discovery of the 46th, 47th, 48th, and 49th known Mersenne prime numbers. If you know the answer to any of the corresponding questions, do not hesitate to enter it below.

Thanks in advance for your knowledgeable replies.

In a footnote to the list of known Mersenne prime numbers which can be found here, we read that the "ranking" therein is a provisional one since not all possible exponents between $37 \, 156 \, 667$ and $77 \, 232 \, 917$ have been eliminated/tested.

If we may infer from this that the individual(s) who recently found the largest known prime number had not previously discarded (quite understandably!) the possible compositeness of the $\pi(77 \, 232 \, 917)-\pi(74 \, 207 \, 281) - 1 \approx 166 \, 801$ members of the set $$\{M_{p} \colon p \in (74 \, 207 \, 281, 77 \, 232 \, 917), p \mbox{ is a prime number}\},$$ do we know what it was that prompted them to try their hand at establishing the primality of the very specific Mersenne number $M_{77 \, 232 \, 917}$ ?

Clearly enough, an analogous question can be formulated regarding the discovery of the 46th, 47th, 48th, and 49th known Mersenne prime numbers. If you know the answer to any of those allied questions, do not hesitate to enter it below (it might shed light on the case of the 50th known Mersenne prime).

Thanks in advance for your knowledgeable replies.