Why doesn't it?
"If we go by that logic, I only have to validate one more example than you and claim a world record."
Yes. You can argue that it's not difficult enough or interesting enough, but you can't argue that N+1 result is not a world record.
Here's one:
4*10^18 + 7*10^13 + 1.
Boom! New world record. Now add 1 and you've got another. Try it. Keep going. World records like this will be surpassed by someone else in milliseconds.
Honestly, this is the first time I've heard "world record" used for NOT finding a counterexample. The whole thing feels absurd. You can keep checking numbers forever, calling each one a record? It's silly, to be honest. Never heard anyone calling these world records, before today.
OP has a nice project. But the wording is so deceptive and so silly that it harms the credibility of the project more than it helps.
I.e. not only is this an extremely small increment but the original work did not have to be repeated. Nothing about the state of computing in 2012 would have prevented going the extra amount here, they just decided to stop. The original record even states (on https://sweet.ua.pt/tos/goldbach.html):
> On a single core of a 3.3GHz core i3 processor, testing an interval of 10^12 integers near 10^18 takes close to 48 minutes
So the additional work here in 2025 was the equivalent of running a single core of a 2012 i3 for ~70 more hours.
All this is a shame as the project itself actually seems much more interesting than leading claims.
You've never heard of the world record for calculating digits of pi?
https://www.livescience.com/physics-mathematics/mathematics/...
With Goldbach, claiming a "world record" just means checking one more number and seeing if it is still NOT a counterexample. It's easy. Contrast that with computing a new digit of pi - something you can't achieve by simply incrementing a value and running a check.
Finding each new digit of pi (the ones very far out) is not a trivial task. The computational effort increases by a lot as you go deeper. Something like O(n (log n)^k) for some k (usually k = 3).
Take it up with the rules.
And yes, mathematically it's uninteresting. But that's not what is being showed off here.
I don't dispute that. If you read my comment carefully, you'll find that I'm calling them "world records" too. My point is that nobody in the math community uses "world record" for finding trivial non-counterexamples like this. There are infinitely many such "world records" and each one is trivial to surpass in under a second.
Compare that to something like the finding a new Mersenne prime or calculating more digits of pi. Those records hold weight because they're difficult to achieve and stand for years.
This post could've been one of the infinite, uninteresting "world records" if the OP had applied more rigor in the implementation. But due to gaps in verification, this post is not a world record of any kind because the correctness of the results can't be confirmed. The OP has no way to confirm the correctness of their data. You'd get better context by reading the full thread. This has already been discussed at length.
Like imagine there was a record for longest novel published, and what you did was take the previous longest novel and add the word "hello" to the end of it. Does the person who added "hello" get the record?