[quote=Batalov;208989]The "3 k's left" message was already an update. The originals was above it:


Some PHP or perl-cgi based automation could do wonders to your (already wonderful) webpages. Don't you see that you turn yourself into a human-power-driven CGI? And from that CGI-like behaviour stems your frustration when people are not specific enough. I can understand that. Sorry, but the best way to restrict the vocabulary and remove ambiguities is a set of simple forms:
[code]User [......] Email [as a weak authentication + for the followups]

Reserve {Riesel|Sierp} base [...] from n= [1|default] to n=[25000|value]. [Submit]. [I]=> return a four-digit reservation "code"[/I]

Release {Riesel|Sierp} base [...]. Release code: [user can insert old [I]"code"[/I] here to prevent poaching]

{Riesel|Sierp} base [...] is proven. [Browse file=...] [Submit].[/code]
See M.Kamada's site for a prototype. It is not awfully hard. I think manual editing of pages is way harder and [I]'makes[/I] you hard' (quote from the [URL="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-schmich-sunscreen-column,0,4054576.column"]fake Vonnegut's address[/URL] to the class of '97.

Don't get frustrated. Simplify it.

I was going to suggest a very good base, but now I am not sure.
I honor your moratorium. Anything but a new base! :-)

Peace! -Serge[/quote]

BTW, you still haven't clearly told me if R1011 is STILL reserved. Is it or not?

Feel free to suggest a very good base. Assuming it's new, I'd only ask that you/we wait a week to work on it because I now have a lot of time that I need to spend on the NPLB project. It has gone dormant.

I'm in over my head here right now. I fully expected this project to stop at base 100 with some bases that are powers-of-2 up to 256. Since the Riesel and Sierp k listings go up to 1024, I subsequently expected that we would slowly work our way higher. The new bases script was intended for me to be able to easily doublecheck existing bases and allow people to fill in the holes on lower bases and very slowly work our way higher. Instead it has been used to search them everywhere; 10's of them at a time. The fact that the most complex small conjectures are now being searched en mass is what is causing the problem.

I was a legacy programmer for years, completely burned out, and frankly don't want to learn a lot about programming/web design/etc. I know just enough about updating the pages to keep them up to date. I did not know HTML at all prior to 3 years ago. I have no idea what CGI is. I Googled it and got several different things that it could be: CGI programming (i.e. a language), computer-generated imagery, common gateway interface, etc.

If there is anyone out there that can completely design and interface what you are talking about with the pages and has the time to do that, I'll step aside.

One thing that I don't want to get into: A situation like the former PrimeSearch project where they just had an automated reservation system with little communication and expiration of dormant reservations and little checking of ranges to make sure they were correct. That did not work well at all. Automated reservations are great but there has to be communication about statuses, etc.


Gary

R841
 

I agree with you on many of these points. No hard feelings?

1. R1011 is still reserved to 25K.

2. Reserving one last interesting (and surely challenging) base R841 to 10K:
- conjectured [I]k[/I] is 24090, ...[I]but[/I]
- because [I]b[/I]-1 = 2^3*3*5*7, many (6539) trivial eliminations, and that's not counting odds,
- 5364 primes - a [I]very[/I] prime base,
- after the script, at n=1K, there were 138 k's left, of which 10 are squares and eliminated,
- base is 29^2, too (though R29 doesn't help here, because it was a very short conjecture), but testing is faster than neighbors,
- at n~=4300, another 68 k's are eliminated, with only 60 k's remaining (out of 24090!).

I'll email you the report (it's too big for the forum's margins to contain), but I'll give you (and me) a few days to rest, ok?

Have a good weekend!

-Serge

Of course no problem. That is an interesting base.

BTW, the pages are fully up to date now on my end. One minor problem: We just had a server move and there is some port forwarding stuff that needs to be taken care of that I don't deal with. So you'll need to look later today for the updated pages. The pages that can be viewed right now are about a day old.

I have fully updated the 1k thread as well as the untested Riesel and Sierp bases threads. You might check some of your reservations in the 1k thread.

Riesel Base 639
 

Riesel Base 639
Conjectured k = 2136
Covering Set = 5, 7, 19, 499
Trivial Factors k == 1 mod 2(2) and k == 1 mod 11(11) and k == 1 mod 29(29)

Found Primes: 905k's File attached

Remaining k's: 24k's File attached - Tested to n=25K
k=4, 64, 324, 484, 1444, and 1764 proven composite by partial algebraic factors
k=1136 proven composite by a difference of squares

Trivial Factor Eliminations: 131k's

Base Released

Riesel Base 744
 

Riesel Base 744
Conjectured k = 299
Covering Set = 5, 149
Trivial Factors k == 1 mod 743(743)

Found Primes: 278k's File attached

Remaining k's: 11k's File attached - Tested to n=25K

k=4, 9, 49, 64, 144, 169, & 289 proven composite by partial algebraic factors
k=186 proven composite by a difference of squares

Base Released

Riesel Base 821
 

The conjectured k is 958.

106 k have trivial factors.
351 k have primes with 140*821^24442-1 as the largest found (so far).
21 k have no primes.

The hiddenpowers script gave this message:

144*821^n=0 mod 2 factors due to 12^2

Clearly that removes k=144 when n is even, but uncertain about when n is odd.

This base is searched to n=25000 and is released.

[QUOTE=MyDogBuster;209158]
k=4, 9, 49, 64, 144, 169, & 289 proven composite by partial algebraic factors
[/QUOTE]

Am I missing something here? Based upon the hiddenpowers.pl perl script, I see

4*74^n-1 n=0 mod 2 factors due to 2^2
9*74^n-1 n=0 mod 2 factors due to 3^2
49*74^n-1 n=0 mod 2 factors due to 7^2
64*74^n-1 n=0 mod 2 factors due to 8^2
64*74^n-1 n=0 mod 3 factors due to 4^3
144*74^n-1 n=0 mod 2 factors due to 12^2
169*74^n-1 n=0 mod 2 factors due to 13^2
289*74^n-1 n=0 mod 2 factors due to 17^2

What about n=1 mod 2? There is no albegraic factorization for it. These k are not always composite.

For example, I see these with Riesel base 928:

1521*928^n-1 n=0 mod 2 factors due to 39^2
1728*928^n-1 n=0 mod 3 factors due to 12^3

1521*928^11273-1 and 1728*928^12796-1 are prime. These cases are no different than yours, so I don't see how you can eliminate all of those k.

[quote]
These k are not always composite.
[/quote]

They are if n==(1 mod 2) always has a factor of 5, which they do for R744. :-)

[quote]
These cases are no different than yours,
[/quote]

They are different. See the "generalizing algebriac factors for Riesel bases" thread. n==(1 mod 2) always has a factor of 5 if the following 2 conditions are BOTH met:

1. The base is b==(4 mod 5).
2. k=m^2 and m==(2 or 3 mod 5), i.e. k=2^2, 3^2, 7^2, 8^2, etc.

R928 is b==(3 mod 5) so does not have such factorization.

There are other conditions where n==(1 mod 2) has a factor of 13, 41, 53, etc. that allow k's to be eliminated but a factor of 5 is by far the most common.

Sorry, R928 is just plain a tough base. There are no k's that I'm personally aware of that can be eliminated due to partial algebraic factorization unless something new comes out that we haven't observed yet.

The script written by Serge (or Tim; I'm not sure), while helpful and useful, can be misleading. It will tell you the partial (or full) algebraic factorization of a k-value. It will not necessarily tell you whether the k can be eliminated or not. To be eliminated, the "other side", i.e. odd n in this case, has to always have a covering set or single factor; most of the time the latter.

The main value of the script is to allow you to manually remove n-values from a sieve; not to tell you whether a k can be eliminated completely from testing. Sometimes it will have you remove all remaining n-values from the sieve (as would happen in the above situation for base 744 and would allow you to remove the k from testing) but much more frequently, it will not (as would be the case for base 928).

BTW, one last thing: Although logically it makes no difference, you used base 74 but it was Ian's base 744 testing that you were referring to. That is why I refer to base 744 here. It makes no logical difference because if base 74 had a higher conjecture than k=4, the same situation would apply since it is also b==(4 mod 5).


Gary

[QUOTE]4*74^n-1 n=0 mod 2 factors due to 2^2
9*74^n-1 n=0 mod 2 factors due to 3^2
49*74^n-1 n=0 mod 2 factors due to 7^2
64*74^n-1 n=0 mod 2 factors due to 8^2
64*74^n-1 n=0 mod 3 factors due to 4^3
144*74^n-1 n=0 mod 2 factors due to 12^2
169*74^n-1 n=0 mod 2 factors due to 13^2
289*74^n-1 n=0 mod 2 factors due to 17^2[/QUOTE]

I ran base 744 not 74

[quote=rogue;209162]The conjectured k is 958.

106 k have trivial factors.
351 k have primes with 140*821^24442-1 as the largest found (so far).
21 k have no primes.

The hiddenpowers script gave this message:

144*821^n=0 mod 2 factors due to 12^2

Clearly that removes k=144 when n is even, but uncertain about when n is odd.

This base is searched to n=25000 and is released.[/quote]

k=144 still remains. There is no single factor or covering set for odd n.

[QUOTE=MyDogBuster;209221]I ran base 744 not 74[/QUOTE]

Oops. A typo on my part. When I have a chance I'll look again at the correct base. :redface:

And yes, I continue to test n for k=144 for R928, although I was able to use the script to identify values with algebraic factorizations and then removed them from my local PRPNet server.

R999 is complete to n=25K; 13 primes found for n=10K-25K; 73 k's remaining; base released

Sierpinski Base 713
 

Primes found:

2*713^1+1
4*713^26+1
6*713^9+1

With a conjectured k of 8, this one is proven.

I'll take 2*1004^n+1 to 100K.

KEP is releasing bases R900 and S955.

Sierpinski Bases 965 and 923
 

Primes found:

2*965^1+1
4*965^62+1
6*965^1+1

2*923^1+1
4*923^10+1
6*923^41+1

Both have a conjectured k of 8, these conjectures are proven.

Riesel base 548
 

Riesel base 548 has one k remaining at n = 25,000. I won't pursue this.
k n
2 4
3 14
4 45
5 8
6 2
7 k > 25000
8 2
9 1
10 1
11 2
12 14
13 Conjecture

Willem.

Sierpinski Base 581
 

Primes found:

[code]
2*581^1+1
6*581^2+1
8*581^1+1
10*581^2+1
12*581^2+1
16*581^24+1
18*581^1+1
20*581^1+1
22*581^54+1
26*581^1+1
30*581^1+1
32*581^1+1
36*581^8+1
38*581^1+1
40*581^4+1
42*581^2+1
46*581^120+1
48*581^37+1
50*581^533+1
52*581^4+1
56*581^1+1
58*581^8+1
60*581^2+1
62*581^5+1
66*581^12+1
68*581^1+1
70*581^6+1
72*581^2+1
76*581^48+1
78*581^1+1
80*581^3+1
82*581^1494+1
88*581^30+1
90*581^1+1
92*581^1+1
96*581^3+1
[/code]

The other k have trivial factors. With a conjectured k of 98, this conjecture is proven.

Riesel base 812
 

These are the primes I found for Riesel base 812:
2 10
3 3
4 k > 25000
5 50
6 1
7 1
8 8
9 1
10 1575
11 2
12 1
13 Conjecture.

as you can see there is one k remaining with n > 25,000. I won't take this further.
Willem.

Reserving R319 & R504 as new to n=25K

Reserving following 30 Sierpinski bases to n=100K (as new):

272, 278, 293, 335, 356, 398, 437, 440, 473, 482, 503, 545, 566, 587, 608, 632, 650, 668, 671, 692, 722, 755, 776, 797, 818, 827, 860, 863, 881, 902

+ Sierpinski base (as old)

230 to n=100K

Hopes this evens out the balance between untested Riesel and Sierpinski conjectures :smile:

Many of them is already started and proven on my Dual Core, so I think that it will be a great contribution to complete the remaining untested k=8 and the previously started k=8 conjectures to n=100K.

KEP

Ps. Plans to hand over each conjecture on e-mail as they completes completes to n=100K :smile:

[quote=KEP;209640]Reserving following 30 Sierpinski bases to n=100K (as new):

272, 278, 293, 335, 356, 398, 437, 440, 473, 482, 503, 545, 566, 587, 608, 632, 650, 668, 671, 692, 722, 755, 776, 797, 818, 827, 860, 863, 881, 902

+ Sierpinski base (as old)

230 to n=100K

Hopes this evens out the balance between untested Riesel and Sierpinski conjectures :smile:

Many of them is already started and proven on my Dual Core, so I think that it will be a great contribution to complete the remaining untested k=8 and the previously started k=8 conjectures to n=100K.

KEP

Ps. Plans to hand over each conjecture on e-mail as they completes completes to n=100K :smile:[/quote]


2 bases at a time please KEP. I've kindly been asking that of everyone that so that others have an opportunity at new bases and so that I'm not innundated with these things.

I'll reserve the 2 lowest bases for you for now. Please stick with testing only those first. Then migrate on to the next 2. Don't worry, there will still be plenty available when you're done with the first 2. Testing 2 bases to n=100K will take quite a bit of time if there are any k's remaining at n=25K.

Thank you,
Gary

Riesel Base 504
Conjectured k = 201
Covering Set = 5, 101
Trivial Factors k == 1 mod 503(503)

Found Primes: 188k's - File attached

Remaining k's: 3k's - Tested to n=25K
94*504^n-1
100*504^n-1
116*504^n-1

k=4, 9, 49, 64, 144, 169 proven composite by partial algebraic factors
k=56 and 126 proven composite by a difference of squares

Base Released

Riesel Base 319
 

Riesel Base 319
Conjectured k = 1526
Covering Set = 5, 17, 41
Trivial Factors k == 1 mod 2(2) and k = 1 mod 3(3) and k == 1 mod 53(53)

Found Primes: 488k's - File attached

Remaining: 8k's - Tested to n=25K
276*319^n-1
614*319^n-1
626*319^n-1
1244*319^n-1
1266*319^n-1
1356*319^n-1
1496*319^n-1
1506*319^n-1

k=144 & 324 proven composite by partial algebraic factors

Trivial Factor Eliminations: 263 k's

MOB Eliminations:
638

Base Released

[quote=MyDogBuster;209710]Riesel Base 504
Conjectured k = 201
Covering Set = 5, 101
Trivial Factors k == 1 mod 503(503)

Found Primes: 188k's - File attached

Remaining k's: 3k's - Tested to n=25K
94*504^n-1
100*504^n-1
116*504^n-1

k=4, 9, 49, 64, 144, 169 proven composite by partial algebraic factors
k=56 and 126 proven composite by a difference of squares

Base Released[/quote]


Well...

Wouldn't you know it. Right when you think you have it all figured out, something new comes along. We have our first factor of 101 that combines with partial algebraic factors to make a full covering set for k=100.

Conditions:
b==(100 mod 101)
all k = m^2
m==(10 or 91 mod 101)

for even n, let k=m^2 and n=2q
factors to:
(m*504^q-1)*(m*504^q+1)
for odd n:
factor of 101


This is one of the rare bases that we've found that have 3 different "kinds" of algebraic factors and I missed the final one when showing them on the pages after the reservation. We have the "old" standby for a factor of 5 on odd n and the "new" kind with a factor of 5 on even n. I showed those. But we now have the "old" kind but with a brand new factor of 101 on odd n. I missed that one, which knocks out k=100 in this case.

This is pretty amazing. There are now only 2 k's remaining after having a total of 9 k's knocked out by the 3 different kinds of algebraic factors.


Gary

R637 is proven, conj. k=144 (largest prime 32*637^18096-1)

Riesel base 911, k=20
Primes:
2*911^14-1
4*911^1-1
10*911^1-1
12*911^2-1
18*911^2-1

Trivially factors: 6,8,14,16
Base proven.

Reserving Sierp 829 and 851 as new to n=25K

Sierp Base 829
 

Sierp Base 829
Conjectured k = 84
Covering Set =
Trivial Factors: k == 1 mod 2(2) and k == 2 mod 3(3) and k == 22 mod 23(23)

Found Primes: 26k's - File attached

Trivial Factor Eliminations: 15k's

Conjecture Proven

Sierp Base 851
 

Sierp Base 851
Conjectured k = 70
Covering Set = 3, 71
Trivial Factors k == 1 mod 2(2) and k == 4 mod 5(5) and k == 16 mod 17(17)

Found Primes: 25k's - File attached

Trivial Factor Eliminations: 9k's

Conjecture Proven

Riesel base 587, k=8
Primes:
2*587^26-1
4*587^1-1
6*587^2-1

k=8 proven composite (have factors 3 or 7)
Base proven.

Riesel bases 545 and 671
 

Primes found:

2*545^84-1
4*545^1-1
6*545^4-1

2*671^2-1
4*671^1-1

The other k have trivial factors (including 6*671^n-1). With a conjectured k of 8, these conjectures are proven.

Riesel base 566
 

I'm reserving this base. I will report results another day as this one is more stubborn than the others.

[quote=unconnected;210168]Riesel base 587, k=10
Primes:
2*587^26-1
4*587^1-1
6*587^2-1

k=8 proven composite (have factors 3 or 7)
Base proven.[/quote]

The conjecture is k=8 so it did not need to be tested.

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;210213]The conjecture is k=8 so it did not need to be tested.[/QUOTE]

Ehh, I've got an understanding problem now.. How can this one be composite, when it is the conjecture?

Edit:
Doh, forget it, sorry. Should think before posting..

Reserving Riesel 835 and Sierp 727 as new to n=25K

S503 and S545 k=8 conjectures proven and added to the pages.

Riesel Base 835
 

Riesel Base 835
Conjectured k = 56
Covering Set = 11, 19
Trivial Factors k == 1 mod 2(2) and k == 1 mod 3(3) and k == 1 mod 139(139)

Found Primes: 18k's - File attached

Trivial Factor Eliminations: 9k's

Conjecture Proven

Sierp Base 727
 

Sierp Base 727
Conjectured k = 64
Covering Set = 7, 13
Trivial Factors k == 1 mod 2(2) and k == 2 mod 3(3) and k == 10 mod 11(11)

Found Primes: 18k's - File attached

Trivial Factor Eliminations: 13k's

Conjecture Proven

Reserving Riesel 870 and 922 as new to n=25K

Riesel base 593
 

Primes found:

2*593^4-1
4*593^1-1
6*593^1-1
8*593^2-1

The other k have trivial factors. With a conjectured k of 10, this conjecture is proven.

Riesel Base 566
 

This base has been tested to n=25000.

Primes found:
2*566^4-1
3*566^1-1
4*566^23873-1
5*566^2-1

k=1 and k=6 have trivial factors. k=7 remains. This base is released. I was pleasantly surprised that k=4 has a prime because I was wondering if I missed an algebraic factorization.

Yes Gary, I know that I have submitted three results today and have one reservation. Fortunately none of these bases have any algebraic factorizations for you to worry about. I won't be posting any results tomorrow.

reserving riesel 752
there are 13 ks remaining at n=2500 which i think is high for a conjecture of ~100

Riesel base 800, k=88
Primes n>10000:
53*800^14346-1
23*800^20452-1
5*800^20508-1

Remaining k's:
4*800^n-1
8*800^n-1
25*800^n-1

Are there any algebraic factorizations?

Some for each of them, but no 'deadly' eliminations, just flesh wounds.

n=0|2: square for 4*800^n-1

0|3 2^3 8*800^n-1
1|2 80^2 8*800^n-1

0|2 5^2 25*800^n-1
4|5 50^5 25*800^n-1

So, 4*800^n-1: odd n are alive and still need work,
8*800^n-1: n=2,4(mod 6) survive and need work,
25*800^n-1: n=1,3,5,7(mod 10) survive and need work.

Riesel base 928 update
 

Primes found:

[code]
489*928^11587-1
662*928^12427-1
885*928^10067-1
1367*928^10874-1
1521*928^11273-1
1728*928^12796-1
1851*928^11633-1
2286*928^14583-1
2522*928^10962-1
3908*928^11388-1
4005*928^13723-1
4293*928^14817-1
4458*928^12192-1
4983*928^10496-1
5342*928^10223-1
5364*928^10032-1
5979*928^10727-1
6038*928^13038-1
6122*928^11268-1
6143*928^11661-1
6516*928^11211-1
6563*928^12498-1
6818*928^10874-1
6972*928^11015-1
7914*928^11256-1
8006*928^13073-1
8171*928^10299-1
8750*928^12347-1
8858*928^11898-1
8948*928^13820-1
9647*928^14815-1
10887*928^12588-1
11903*928^10068-1
12026*928^10735-1
12149*928^11956-1
12189*928^10587-1
12561*928^11847-1
12942*928^12763-1
12978*928^13256-1
13080*928^14344-1
13116*928^10195-1
13154*928^11209-1
13274*928^12335-1
13517*928^11186-1
13572*928^12364-1
13997*928^11407-1
14001*928^12866-1
14897*928^12352-1
15149*928^11228-1
15248*928^12801-1
15353*928^10844-1
15689*928^10304-1
16107*928^10095-1
16397*928^13428-1
16692*928^10771-1
17193*928^14120-1
17420*928^12570-1
17616*928^13117-1
17802*928^10796-1
17991*928^12199-1
19175*928^10668-1
19202*928^12151-1
19853*928^13856-1
20253*928^11465-1
20282*928^13175-1
20793*928^12220-1
20936*928^11913-1
22227*928^10140-1
22790*928^11385-1
23081*928^14553-1
23193*928^12081-1
23501*928^11139-1
23552*928^10218-1
23697*928^13875-1
24060*928^10010-1
24645*928^10535-1
25841*928^12921-1
26055*928^11830-1
26991*928^10222-1
27341*928^13494-1
27567*928^10916-1
27666*928^10446-1
27908*928^14436-1
28257*928^14390-1
29153*928^11120-1
29421*928^11517-1
30471*928^14643-1
30501*928^12338-1
30831*928^13810-1
31292*928^11183-1
31439*928^10352-1
31458*928^11013-1
31739*928^12856-1
32022*928^14983-1
32288*928^12034-1
[/code]

Tested to n=15000 and continuing.

[quote=unconnected;210521]Riesel base 800, k=88
Primes n>10000:
53*800^14346-1
23*800^20452-1
5*800^20508-1

Remaining k's:
4*800^n-1
8*800^n-1
25*800^n-1

Are there any algebraic factorizations?[/quote]

Unconnected,

Is your search limit n=25K on this? I assume you are releasing the base. Is that correct?


Gary

Serge just reported in an Email that he is working on S736 and has only 1 k remaining, possibly searched to n=50K.

Serge, I'll just show the base as reserved by you for now and will await more details before showing anything else.


Gary

Here's the bottom of the file:
[FONT=Arial Narrow]Special modular reduction using all-complex FFT length 48K on 12*736^49762+1
12*736^49762+1 is composite: RES64: [AC939B6DF751B4C0] (486.2651s+0.0077s)
Special modular reduction using all-complex FFT length 48K on 12*736^49838+1
12*736^49838+1 is composite: RES64: [9B89781FA2896439] (486.2233s+0.0078s)
Special modular reduction using all-complex FFT length 48K on 12*736^49878+1
12*736^49878+1 is composite: RES64: [413237B012FC9095] (487.6378s+0.0077s)
Special modular reduction using all-complex FFT length 48K on 12*736^49930+1
12*736^49930+1 is composite: RES64: [4932E6E3709B79DD] (488.2011s+0.0080s)
Special modular reduction using all-complex FFT length 48K on 12*736^49942+1
12*736^49942+1 is composite: RES64: [D67226A6C349F805] (487.2219s+0.0077s)[/FONT]

I'll send you the complete set by email. Only [I]k[/I]=12 remains at 50K and the base is released (I have too many reserved; I will try to round them up.)

OK, I got it. For public reference, here are the statuses reported in the Email:

S736 is complete to n=50K; only k=12 remaining; base released.

R931 is complete to n=30K; 4 k's remaining; base released.

With a CK of 3960, R931 is yet another remarkably heavy-weight b==(1 mod 30) base.

[quote=rogue;210439]Yes Gary, I know that I have submitted three results today and have one reservation. Fortunately none of these bases have any algebraic factorizations for you to worry about. I won't be posting any results tomorrow.[/quote]

lol No prob. Weekends are my busy time. It's slow on Monday's. Almost everything will be updated here in a little while. A couple of remaining stragglers will be taken care of late afternoon.

Her's a clarification that I may not have been clear on before: I don't care how many statuses you report on existing reservations as long as I've had time to show the bases as reserved on the pages. Those are completely separate from starting new bases. I only ask that no more than 2 new bases be reserved per day. It's their initial listing on the pages that takes a while.

I could be shooting myself in the foot here. I suppose people could take that as far as they want and reserve 2 new bases per day for 10 days straight and never report a status on them. Then on day 11, report the status of the 20 total bases. Of course I wouldn't prefer that but the fact does remain that it's a lot faster if I already have a base listed and I just have to plug some primes and k's remaining into it and possibly change/remove a reservation.

Here, since you already had base 566 reserved, it looks like you had 2 new bases and a status on an existing base. That fits.

Based on this, if you have some bases right now that you know you are going to work on that have 1 or 2 or so k's remaining at some nominal limit and you have no other proven new bases for the day that you are going to post, go ahead and reserve them. Once you have them reserved and I have them listed, you can report statuses on quite a few of them at once later on. You might find that less time consuming in the long run.

I hope this clarifies for everyone. My apologies if I appeared to restrict things a lot more than I intended.

Reserving Riesel 889 & 894 as new to n=25K

[quote=gd_barnes;210608]Unconnected,

Is your search limit n=25K on this? I assume you are releasing the base. Is that correct?


Gary[/quote]

Correct. Maybe one day I'll continue my search to 50K or even 100K.

S566 and S668 k=8 conjectures proven and added to the pages.

Riesel base 617
 

Hi folks,

here are the stats on Riesel base 617, i've taken it to n = 25,000, but I won't go further. k = 14, 44 are remaining.
[code]
2 2
4 1
6 1
8 trivial
10 5
12 trivial
14*617^n-1
16 1
18 2
20 2
22 trivial
24 9
26 2
28 3
30 8
32 8
34 trivial
36 trivial
38 2110
40 3
42 1
44*617^n-1
46 3
48 2
50 trivial
52 1
54 1
56 trivial
58 87
60 1
62 2
64 trivial
66 3
68 2
70 1
72 14
74 16
76 3
78 trivial
80 1902
82 1
84 1
86 2
88 23
90 1
92 trivial
94 3
96 83
98 2
100 trivial
102 2
104 Conjecture
[/code]

Willem.

Riesel base 987
 

Hi folks,

here are the stats on Riesel base 987. There are three k's remaining at n = 25,000, all yours now. k = 58, 94, 118
[code]
2 1
4 1
6 5
8 2
10 2
12 2
14 3
16 1
20 1
22 1
24 1
26 9
28 3
32 1
34 5
36 1
38 4
40 9
42 1
44 1
46 7
48 4
50 3
54 7
56 2
58*987^n-1
60 1
62 70
64 square
66 1
68 10
70 2
72 4
74 1
76 1
78 2
80 26
82 1
84 7
90 6
92 1
94*987^n-1
96 5035
98 6
100 19
102 1
104 1
106 3
108 2
110 4
112 1
114 4
116 26
118*987^n-1
122 1
124 1
126 10
128 3
130 3
132 2
134 1
136 2
138 2
140 1
142 2
144 15
148 23
150 24
152 2
156 10
158 1988
160 3
162 32
164 8
166 1
168 2
170 Conjecture
[/code]

Willem.

Riesel Bases 626 and 725
 

Primes found:
2*626^8-1
3*626^1-1
4*626^1-1
5*626^110-1
7*626^9-1
8*626^20-1
9*626^5-1

2*725^102-1
4*725^3-1
6*725^1-1
8*725^2-1

The other k have trivial factors. With a conjectured k of 10, these conjectures are proven.

Riesel Base 870
 

Riesel Base 870
Conjectured k = 66
Covering Set = 13, 67
Trivial Factors k == 1 mod 11(11)m and k == 1 mod 79(79)

Found Primes: 57k's - File attached

Remaining k's:

k=25, 64 proven composite by partial algebraic factors

Trivial Factor Eliminations: 5k's

Conjecture Proven

Riesel Base 922
 

Riesel Base 922
Conjectured k = 27
Covering Set = 5, 13, 73
Trivial Factors k == 1 mod 3(3) and k == 1 mod 307(307)

Found Primes: 17k's - File attached

Trivial Factor Eliminations: 8k's

Conjecture Proven

Reserving Riesel 754 and 883 as new to n=25K

[quote=rogue;210581]Primes found:

[code]
489*928^11587-1
662*928^12427-1
885*928^10067-1
(etc.)[/code]

Tested to n=15000 and continuing.[/quote]

Mark,

k=28257 already had a prime at n=9968. So this makes 94 k's with primes and 740 k's remaining at n=15K. Is that stop-on-prime option working correctly? :-)

Also, you might want to check your sorting. I resorted it but you had it sorted in a left to right alphanumeric sort, which caused k's like k=1234, 12345, etc. to sort before k's like k=134, 145, etc.


Gary

S671 and S692 k=8 conjectures proven and added to the pages.

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;210706]Mark,

k=28257 already had a prime at n=9968. So this makes 94 k's with primes and 740 k's remaining at n=15K. Is that stop-on-prime option working correctly? :-)

Also, you might want to check your sorting. I resorted it but you had it sorted in a left to right alphanumeric sort, which caused k's like k=1234, 12345, etc. to sort before k's like k=134, 145, etc.
[/QUOTE]

:smile: I have been using PRPNet. I loaded a new server with a sieve file, but since I had started sieving weeks before I started testing the range I must not have removed that k before putting the sieve file into the new server.

I don't recall if I had any particular sorting criteria when I selected the primes. I'll remember to sort by k next time, actually sort by cast(k as unsigned) next time.

Riesel base 679
 

Tested to 100000 and released. No primes found. I have attached residues.

Riesel bases 791 and 890
 

Primes found:

2*791^4-1
4*791^1-1
8*791^4-1

2*890^428-1
3*890^138-1
4*890^1-1
5*890^2-1
6*890^2-1
7*890^1-1
9*890^1-1

The other k have trivial factors. With a conjectured k of 10, both of these conjectures are proven.

Riesel Base 889
 

Riesel Base 889
Conjectured k = 266
Covering Set = 5, 89
Trivial Factors k == 1 mod 2(2) k == 1 mod 3(3) and k == 1 mod 37(37)

Found Primes: 80k's - File attached

Remaining k's: 4k's - Tested to n=25K
14*889^n-1
86*889^n-1
194*889^n-1
216*889^n-1

k=144 proven composite by partial algebraic factors

Trivial Factor Eliminations: 47k's

Base Released

Riesel Base 894
 

Riesel Base 894
Conjectured k = 284
Covering Set = 5, 7, 31, 283
Trivial Factors k == 1 mod 19(19) and k == 1 mod 47(47)

Found Primes: 246k's - File attached

Remaining k's: 10k's - Tested to n=25K
6*894^n-1
59*894^n-1
79*894^n-1
151*894^n-1
179*894^n-1
184*894^n-1
216*894^n-1
220*894^n-1
225*894^n-1
276*894^n-1

k=4, 9, 49, 64, 144, 169 proven composite by partial algebraic factors

Trivial Factor Eliminations: 20k's

Base Released

[quote=rogue;210724]:smile: I have been using PRPNet. I loaded a new server with a sieve file, but since I had started sieving weeks before I started testing the range I must not have removed that k before putting the sieve file into the new server.

I don't recall if I had any particular sorting criteria when I selected the primes. I'll remember to sort by k next time, actually sort by cast(k as unsigned) next time.[/quote]

Technically I don't need them sorted, although it looks a little neater if it is. :smile: I have a quick routine that I use to sort them descending by n-value to show on the pages, which can be quickly tweaked to sort ascending by k-value.

One way that it does help is to make it a little easier when referring back to them for historical reference.

More than anything, I just wanted you to make sure you checked any automated selection criteria or sorting routine. It sounds like nothing was amiss there.


Gary

Riesel base 827, k=14

Primes:
2*827^2-1
4*827^1-1
6*827^9-1
10*827^1-1
12*827^1-1

Trivially factors: k=8
Base proven.

S632 and S818 k=8 conjectures proven and added to the pages.

These two took some larger primes to prove them:
7*632^8446+1
4*818^7726+1

Riesel bases 608 and 956
 

Primes found:
2*608^2-1
3*608^1-1
4*608^83-1
5*608^26-1
6*608^6-1

With a conjectured k of 8, k=7 remains and has been tested to n=25000.

Primes found:
2*956^18-1
3*956^143-1
4*956^1-1
5*956^192-1
7*956^1-1
8*956^4-1
9*956^309-1

With a conjectured k of 10, this conjecture is proven.

[quote=henryzz;210519]reserving riesel 752
there are 13 ks remaining at n=2500 which i think is high for a conjecture of ~100[/quote]
primes since 2.5k:
53*752^3958-1
66*752^4282-1
29*752^9580-1
68*752^12000-1

remaining:
8*752^n-1
11*752^n-1
22*752^n-1
58*752^n-1
59*752^n-1
64*752^n-1
65*752^n-1
95*752^n-1
97*752^n-1

all remaining ks tested to 30k and unreserved

[quote=henryzz;210852]primes since 2.5k:
53*752^3958-1
66*752^4282-1
29*752^9580-1
68*752^12000-1

remaining:
8*752^n-1
11*752^n-1
22*752^n-1
58*752^n-1
59*752^n-1
64*752^n-1
65*752^n-1
95*752^n-1
97*752^n-1

all remaining ks tested to 30k and unreserved[/quote]
David, could you send me the n=2500-30K sieve file you used for this range? I'll need it to process the PRPnet-formatted results and verify that everything's there.

[quote=mdettweiler;210855]David, could you send me the n=2500-30K sieve file you used for this range? I'll need it to process the PRPnet-formatted results and verify that everything's there.[/quote]
here it is
i undersieved as i thought i would remove several ks early on and speed up the sieving
this plan failed as i didnt get the flurry of primes i expected early on

Riesel Base 754
 

Riesel Base 754
Conjectured k = 1056
Covering Set = 5, 151
Trivial Factors k == 1 mod 3(3) and k == 1 mod 251(251)

Found Primes: 678k's - File attached

Remaining k's: 18k's - File attached - Tested to n=25K

k=9, 144, 324, 729 proven composite by partial algebraic factors

Trivial Factor Eliminations: 354k's

Base Released

Riesel Base 883
 

Riesel Base 883
Conjectured k = 324
Covering Set = 13, 17
Trivial Factors k == 1 mod 2(2) and k == 1 mod 3(3) and k == 1 mod 7(7)

Found Primes: 88k's - File attached

Remaining k's: 4'ks - Tested to n=25K
188*883^n-1
194*883^n-1
222*883^n-1
224*883^n-1

Trivial Factor Eliminations: 69k's

Base Released

S722 k=8 conjecture proven and added to the pages.

[quote=henryzz;210852]primes since 2.5k:
53*752^3958-1
66*752^4282-1
29*752^9580-1
68*752^12000-1

remaining:
8*752^n-1
11*752^n-1
22*752^n-1
58*752^n-1
59*752^n-1
64*752^n-1
65*752^n-1
95*752^n-1
97*752^n-1

all remaining ks tested to 30k and unreserved[/quote]


David, I need primes n<2500. Can you post those please? With only 4 primes n>2500, I can't show a top 10 on the pages without those.

Max, it would be a lot cleaner to get all of the results in one batch instead of separated by primed and unprimed k's. I try to keep everything somewhat consistent in my file storage. Also, on the primes. I just need only those...the primes. No "is prime" or "time: 0.0" on each line. Doing those two things would make it consistent with a pure PFGW run.


Thanks,
Gary

[quote=MyDogBuster;210895]Riesel Base 754
Conjectured k = 1056
Covering Set = 5, 151
Trivial Factors k == 1 mod 3(3) and k == 1 mod 251(251)

Found Primes: 678k's - File attached

Remaining k's: 18k's - File attached - Tested to n=25K

k=9, 144, 324, 729 proven composite by partial algebraic factors

Trivial Factor Eliminations: 354k's

Base Released[/quote]


The k's remaining did not get attached.

[quote=gd_barnes;210934]David, I need primes n<2500. Can you post those please? With only 4 primes n>2500, I can't show a top 10 on the pages without those.

Max, it would be a lot cleaner to get all of the results in one batch instead of separated by primed and unprimed k's. I try to keep everything somewhat consistent in my file storage. Also, on the primes. I just need only those...the primes. No "is prime" or "time: 0.0" on each line. Doing those two things would make it consistent with a pure PFGW run.


Thanks,
Gary[/quote]
here is the prime file

Riesel base 985
 

Here is Riesel base 985. All the k's are accounted for.
k n
[code]
2 4
4 trivial
6 2
8 1
10 trivial
12 49
14 1
16 trivial
18 1
20 1
22 trivial
24 2
26 1
28 trivial
30 5
32 2
34 trivial
36 721
38 6
40 trivial
42 trivial
44 3
46 trivial
48 1
50 1190
52 trivial
54 1
56 2
58 trivial
60 2
62 4
64 trivial
66 3
68 2248
70 trivial
72 1
74 1
76 trivial
78 1
80 2
82 trivial
84 18
86 Conjecture
[/code]

Willem

Riesel base 908
 

Here is Riesel base 908. It has k = 8 remaining at n = 25,000. I won't pursue this one further.

[code]
2 30
3 2
4 1
5 8
6 7
7 3
8*908^n-1
9 1
10 11
11 2
12 3
13 3793
14 2572
15 1
16 63
17 2
18 5
19 1305
20 8
21 18
22 39
23 28
24 5
25 1
26 354
27 11
28 1
[/code]

Regards, Willem.

Riesel base 888, k=69

Tested to n=25K, will continue to 50K.
Remaining k's:
34*888^n-1
64*888^n-1

Trivially factors: k=1
Primes attached.

Riesel bases 650 and 692
 

Primes found:
2*650^2-1
3*650^1-1
5*650^2-1
6*650^6-1
7*650^1-1

k = 4 remains. AFAICT, there is a partial algebraic factorization, but it doesn't cover all n.


2*692^8-1
3*692^6-1
4*692^1-1
5*692^2-1
7*692^1041-1

k = 6 remains.

Both have been tested to n=25000. I am releasing these bases.

[quote=gd_barnes;210934]Max, it would be a lot cleaner to get all of the results in one batch instead of separated by primed and unprimed k's. I try to keep everything somewhat consistent in my file storage. Also, on the primes. I just need only those...the primes. No "is prime" or "time: 0.0" on each line. Doing those two things would make it consistent with a pure PFGW run.[/quote]
Oh, okay. The reason why I separate by primed and unprimed k's is because that way I can match up just the unprimed k's with the original sieve file, while leaving the primed one's since they're a lot harder to do that with (due to them being stopped midway). I do suppose, however, that I could recombine and resort the results [i]after[/i] checking just the unprimed ones--that could work, though it would add another step to my already-complex process for doing conjecture results.

Regarding the various junk in the primes file: ah, that's because I copy those lines directly over from the LLR-formatted results file. I suppose it wouldn't be too hard to fix that. :smile:

Willem,

If you have primes on more than ~20 k's to report, can you put them in the "code" and "/code" box or post a file of them so that the posts aren't quite so long? Easiest for so many primes is to attach the pl_primes file so that I know there are no typos. Thanks.

S587 and S608 k=8 conjectures proven and added to the pages.

Once again, it took large primes to prove these:
6*587^24119+1
4*608^20706+1

[quote=mdettweiler;211002]Oh, okay. The reason why I separate by primed and unprimed k's is because that way I can match up just the unprimed k's with the original sieve file, while leaving the primed one's since they're a lot harder to do that with (due to them being stopped midway). I do suppose, however, that I could recombine and resort the results [I]after[/I] checking just the unprimed ones--that could work, though it would add another step to my already-complex process for doing conjecture results.

Regarding the various junk in the primes file: ah, that's because I copy those lines directly over from the LLR-formatted results file. I suppose it wouldn't be too hard to fix that. :smile:[/quote]

IMHO, this matchup should not be necessary in the future when we're highly confident in PRPnet. All you'll really need is a conversion process. I feel we're getting just a little too complicated for our own good with it. Reference the 4 results that you got from Tim that weren't in the original sieve because he removed them after-the-fact after realizing they had algebraic factors. Just a simple conversion, one file (or perhaps 2 if a large n-range), none of the matchup and none of the primed/no-primed k's separation complication, is all that will really be needed.

I've gotten various PRPnet results from Mark and some others in various different formats before you started the matchup and conversion. Although I prefer them in the classical PFGW format, I don't mind too much if they're in different formats. I still have many old results in LLR and Phrot format and some in PRPnet format.

I never asked for everyone's original sieve file for matching results, regardless of how they searched their ranges. That would have taken forever. It's difficult enough just getting results. This project isn't like NPLB, which is much more exacting.

My 2 cents anyway.


Gary

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;211019]S587 and S608 k=8 conjectures proven and added to the pages.

Once again, it took large primes to prove these:
6*587^24119+1
4*608^20706+1[/QUOTE]

Look at it this way. Since most of us test to n=25000 instead of a lower value (such as 10000 or 20000), this prevents these conjectures from showing up in the "Conjectures with one k" thread. It makes one wonder how many of those "single k remaining" conjectures will be proven by finding a prime for n<50000 or n<100000.

[quote=rogue;211022]Look at it this way. Since most of us test to n=25000 instead of a lower value (such as 10000 or 20000), this prevents these conjectures from showing up in the "Conjectures with one k" thread. It makes one wonder how many of those "single k remaining" conjectures will be proven by finding a prime for n<50000 or n<100000.[/quote]

Yes, I'm sure quite a few will fall by n=100K. Keep in mind, though, that the k's/bases remaining at n=25K are generally lower weight, sometimes much lower weight, than the ones remaining at n=5K. The percentage of k's/bases found prime for n=25K-100K will be quite a bit less than n=5K-25K. n=25K-100K would also probably take 50-75 times longer to search than n=5K-25K. :smile:

[quote=gd_barnes;211021]IMHO, this matchup should not be necessary in the future when we're highly confident in PRPnet. All you'll really need is a conversion process. I feel we're getting just a little too complicated for our own good with it. Reference the 4 results that you got from Tim that weren't in the original sieve because he removed them after-the-fact after realizing they had algebraic factors. Just a simple conversion, one file (or perhaps 2 if a large n-range), none of the matchup and none of the primed/no-primed k's separation complication, is all that will really be needed.

I've gotten various PRPnet results from Mark and some others in various different formats before you started the matchup and conversion. Although I prefer them in the classical PFGW format, I don't mind too much if they're in different formats. I still have many old results in LLR and Phrot format and some in PRPnet format.

I never asked for everyone's original sieve file for matching results, regardless of how they searched their ranges. That would have taken forever. It's difficult enough just getting results. This project isn't like NPLB, which is much more exacting.

My 2 cents anyway.


Gary[/quote]
Well, it's not so much a matter of confidence in the client/server application (LLRnet, PRPnet, etc.) as in making sure that there was no human error along the way. In almost all instances where I've found results missing from a range, it was due to a human slip-up, not a computer error, and sometimes this has pointed out significant problems in the process used by the person producing the results (Beyond's unstable machine that I caught in results processing comes to mind).

What will help a lot is when I finally get around to piecing together all my processing applications into one big program. The actual process is quite straightforward and rarely requires much non-automated interaction; the main hurdle to full automation is simply the matter of not having the time to code it up. :smile:

Also, at some point we'll hopefully have an NPLB-like stats DB set up for CRUS, which we can just dump all results into indiscriminately; the DB can handle sorting and categorizing the results without a problem, which would make it relatively easy to write code to check with the DB that certain conditions have been met (all tests below a prime on a given k have been tested, all results are present in a completed range, etc.) and then output the results in whatever format we want--LLR, PFGW, LLRnet, you name it.

In the meantime, though, I don't mind the extra work involved in making sure that everything's there. I agree that such precision is not needed for manual results, but for servers, there's many more variables involved and many more things that can go wrong--that's just the nature of their comparatively more complex setup. So therefore I'd rather spend an extra 5 minutes in processing than have, say, a whole range with conflicting duplicate results (a la Beyond's situation that I referenced earlier), or other such undesirable situations. :smile:

So, to sum up: in the future I'll be sure to combine non-primed and primed k's back into one results file at the end of processing to keep that consistent on your end. Never mind how much work it takes on my end to do that; just think of it as extra incentive for me to automate it further. :wink:

'My' R1019 has a CK=4 and the only remaining k=2 is at n=105600 so far (taking about 2200s for one test), so i thought i missed something such a prime at low n-value or a algebraic value.

Primes are (still) not predictable like: 'Oh, a low k-value... I will find a prime for n<25k!'

So for this only one small k and CK it's a tremendous work to do and from time to time, mostly newbies think it's easy to prove such thing.
I'm continuing this and it may take some months to reach 200k (my goal for now).

[QUOTE]'My' R1019 has a CK=4 and the only remaining k=2 is at n=105600 so far (taking about 2200s for one test), so i thought i missed something such a prime at low n-value or a algebraic value.

Primes are (still) not predictable like: 'Oh, a low k-value... I will find a prime for n<25k!'[/QUOTE]

Predictable NOT. I just reported R376 with a CK = 144 and was proven with ALL the primes < n=2500. Go figure.

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;211029]Yes, I'm sure quite a few will fall by n=100K. Keep in mind, though, that the k's/bases remaining at n=25K are generally lower weight, sometimes much lower weight, than the ones remaining at n=5K. The percentage of k's/bases found prime for n=25K-100K will be quite a bit less than n=5K-25K. n=25K-100K would also probably take 50-75 times longer to search than n=5K-25K. :smile:[/QUOTE]

Would it be worth someone's time to compute the weight for each k in the single k conjecture thread? that would give users an idea as to how easy/difficult it might be to prove the conjecture.

[quote=mdettweiler;211034]Well, it's not so much a matter of confidence in the client/server application (LLRnet, PRPnet, etc.) as in making sure that there was no human error along the way. In almost all instances where I've found results missing from a range, it was due to a human slip-up, not a computer error, and sometimes this has pointed out significant problems in the process used by the person producing the results (Beyond's unstable machine that I caught in results processing comes to mind).

What will help a lot is when I finally get around to piecing together all my processing applications into one big program. The actual process is quite straightforward and rarely requires much non-automated interaction; the main hurdle to full automation is simply the matter of not having the time to code it up. :smile:

Also, at some point we'll hopefully have an NPLB-like stats DB set up for CRUS, which we can just dump all results into indiscriminately; the DB can handle sorting and categorizing the results without a problem, which would make it relatively easy to write code to check with the DB that certain conditions have been met (all tests below a prime on a given k have been tested, all results are present in a completed range, etc.) and then output the results in whatever format we want--LLR, PFGW, LLRnet, you name it.

In the meantime, though, I don't mind the extra work involved in making sure that everything's there. I agree that such precision is not needed for manual results, but for servers, there's many more variables involved and many more things that can go wrong--that's just the nature of their comparatively more complex setup. So therefore I'd rather spend an extra 5 minutes in processing than have, say, a whole range with conflicting duplicate results (a la Beyond's situation that I referenced earlier), or other such undesirable situations. :smile:

So, to sum up: in the future I'll be sure to combine non-primed and primed k's back into one results file at the end of processing to keep that consistent on your end. Never mind how much work it takes on my end to do that; just think of it as extra incentive for me to automate it further. :wink:[/quote]

OK, point taken. I know you like working with automating things so have fun with it. Yeah, human error is probably the biggest thing to be checking for when processing results coming from a personal server. They can be so complex to a person using them the first time that it's easy to miss something when setting up or loading them.

Thanks for the coding that you do. :smile:

[quote=rogue;211065]Would it be worth someone's time to compute the weight for each k in the single k conjecture thread? that would give users an idea as to how easy/difficult it might be to prove the conjecture.[/quote]

Yes, that would be VERY useful! Short of just sieving them to some nominal depth like P=100M, which would be a hassle, I'm not sure how it would be done. I'll put a posting there requesting such info. for people who know what program to run.

S755 and S776 k=8 conjectures proven and added to the pages.