Print[DateString[]];
c=0; While[c++; PrimeQ[IntegerReverse[r=RandomPrime[{10^1999,2*10^1999}]]]==False];
Print[{DateString[], c}]; r
Mon 23 Mar 2026 16:19:04
{Mon 23 Mar 2026 18:37:09, 305}
IntegerReverse[r]
status: PRP / PRP
Print[DateString[]];
c=0; While[c++; PrimeQ[IntegerReverse[r=RandomPrime[{10^1999,2*10^1999}]]]==False];
Print[{DateString[], c}]; r
Mon 23 Mar 2026 16:19:04
{Mon 23 Mar 2026 18:37:09, 305}
IntegerReverse[r]
status: PRP / PRP
One might think from my previous post that large base-ten emirps congregate near — or at least involve — powers of ten. Well, record ones certainly do but that is surely an artifact of the convenience of searching for such integers in those locations, expressing them without having to show all of their digits, and even proving their primality.
I recently found that Mathematica has a RandomPrime function which can be configured to generate primes with a specific number of digits. By repeated application of it and checking each against the primality (most often lack-of-primality) of the integer created by reversing its decimal digits, I can now create random emirps.
While[PrimeQ[IntegerReverse[r = RandomPrime[{10^999, 10^1000}]]] == False]; r
The reverse of this is:
I did not think that I would be able to prove their primality, but factordb (click on either number to see its evaluation there) apparently has some "elves" who download the smallest probable primes in the database and run deterministic tests on them. I guess I got lucky.
After watching Matt Parker's February 16th Numberphile video on Stephan Schöler's largest currently known emirp, I wondered of course if any of the primes that are the sum of four distinct powers of ten (A157711, on which I have been working now for nine months) were emirps. It turns out there were a healthy number and I decided to create two new OEIS sequences for them: A393530 and A393531.
While more than half (533) of the first 1000 digit-lengths had no solutions, the others had anywhere from 1 to 7 (digit-length 41) solutions. Moreover, the accumulation of emirp-pair counts showed a steady rise, giving me hope that this would continue for larger digit-lengths:
![]() |
| emirp-pair count accumulations for the first 1036 digit-lengths (click to enlarge) |
![]() |
| click to enlarge |