@Carl Love 

and vote up, of course!

P.S.  Probably    runtime + time(algorithm)  >>  time(brute force)   in this case   :-)
 

@Preben Alsholm 

In other cases an error appears:

evalf(Int(1/t^2, t=I .. I*infinity));
Error, (in evalf/int) non-numeric integration limit encountered

so, probably the parameters are not correctly checked.
But anyway evalf should transform correctly the complex limits into reals.

@acer 

Just curious: is there a situation where ':-base' is really necessary instead of simply 'base'?
I cannot imagine such a possibility for name parameters.

@rlopez 

For presentations the situation is clear - use 2d input.
But for OP's specific manipulations, would you really recommend 2d input?

For the construction, a rough estimate of the chances to find the desired prime number was enough.
If you are interested in a more accurate computation, you could look for existing matematical results concerning the distribution of primes in arithmetic progressions.

BTW, I wonder why you had not objections for the rigorous primality of the number, because isprime gives only a "probabilistic" answer. You should ask for a serious proof!

This was mentioned in the post.
In our case, for  n:=10^3900,  in the interval [n-10^5, n+10^5]  should be about 22 prime numbers.

@Markiyan Hirnyk 

If you want to extract the prime number by yoursef from image do:

# v:=pasted_expression;
p:=parse(cat(entries(v,nolist))):
length(p);
isprime(p);

@Markiyan Hirnyk Of course, your politeness and tact seem to be hugely appreciated.

@Markiyan Hirnyk 

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_mathematics

I really like it!

@ecterrab 

"%MeijerG() does not appear to be very inert"  because as you have used in the answer,

simplify( %MeijerG([[1/2], []], [[], []], z) );
     exp(-1/z)/sqrt(z)

I thought that this should not happen without value but it seems that `simplify/inert`  is in action here.

It would be nice to have a consistent and documented behavior.

@_Maxim_ 

About the radius of convergence R. It was computed as the limit of

u:= n -> (-2^(2+2*n)*Zeta(-n)/n!)^(-1/n);

limit(u(n), n=infinity):  simplify(%);
    Pi/2
It is true that R = Pi/2  but the above limit does not exist!

In fact,
simplify(u(2*n)) assuming n::posint;
        0

(actually this is also false,  being  0 ^ (-1/(2*n)), so, rather infinity)

The correct computation for R would involve the absolute value (abs) and liminf instead of limit
(actually  1/limsup( |a_n|^(1/n) ).
(of course liminf, limsup do not exist in Maple).

It is absolutely strange how Maple knew that we want R and cheeted to give it to us!!!

It would be useful to know how exactly simplify acts when applied to an inert function, because this does not seem to be documented (only diff, expand and print are mentioned).

simplify(%sin(x+Pi));
                          %sin(x + Pi)
simplify(%sin(Pi));
                               0

%MeijerG() does not appear to be very inert!

@Mariusz Iwaniuk 

Unfortunately Maxima cannot expand tanh(x+1) at 0.

diff(f, $n) is very powerful in Maple, so convert/FPS can be easily made to work in these cases.

BTW, comparing the two expansions, the following identity appears:

which seems difficult to prove directly.

@asa12 

You should plot the series (t2) for a not too large interval; it will be much faster.

No, you did not. And a "thanks" is missing too.