mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   Riesel Prime Search (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=59)
-   -   Low weight stats page. (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=2934)

 Cruelty 2020-04-04 00:22

status report

k=6883 tested till n= 10.7M

 storm5510 2020-05-12 14:13

10207*2^980053-1 is prime! (295030 decimal digits).

 storm5510 2020-06-10 18:03

Over the past few months, the following k's were tested to 1M:

10079, 22783, 20057, 10207, 81089, 100087, and 100207.

k = 100045 was tested to 1,045,000.
k = 90119 was tested to 1M. I have a sieve to continue this to 1.2M

k = 100211 is in process and k = 100213 is in my queue with a sieve to 3T.

There is a problem with k = 10001. I reserved it in the [I]Wiki[/I] on April 6. At that time, it had been tested to 20K. I tested it to 935K. Other data was added later which caused me to stop. 10001*2^3075602-1 is prime. It is now listed a having a [U]missing range[/U]. Whoever tested it to 3,075,602 had to cover this range. This needs to be corrected.

 Happy5214 2020-06-11 10:03

[QUOTE=storm5510;547628]There is a problem with k = 10001. I reserved it in the [I]Wiki[/I] on April 6. At that time, it had been tested to 20K. I tested it to 935K. Other data was added later which caused me to stop. 10001*2^3075602-1 is prime. It is now listed a having a [U]missing range[/U]. [b]Whoever tested it to 3,075,602 had to cover this range.[/b] This needs to be corrected.[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily. There are plenty of known Riesel primes at high [I]n[/I] values that we cannot say with certainty were tested completely below said [I]n[/I] values. In fact, there are many that we know have [I]not[/I] been tested completely. It doesn't appear the person who found the new prime (which was discovered before you reserved it) posted a reservation or any progress reports in this forum, so who knows how much work he did. Continued work on this [I]k[/I] is useful, even if it's only a double-check, until we can actually verify that the entire range below that [I]n[/I] has been tested.

 kar_bon 2020-06-11 11:29

I've got an e-mail from R.Eckhard about his work done on the Riesel side.

Included in the Wiki now all n-Max values and his found primes for k=10001 to 10009 in 2018/2019.

The range k<10000 is currently in progress by PrimeGrid, so those were the first k-values not reserved officially.
Those k-values weren't reserved in this forum, either as I know, so nothing done wrong by R.Eckhard. There's no duty to post your reservation in this forum, but this makes it harder to avoid doublechecks.

Another point for such Wiki: everyone can reserve their own k-values and results can be found easily.

 storm5510 2020-06-12 01:19

[QUOTE=Happy5214;547691]...Continued work on this [I]k[/I] is useful, even if it's only a double-check, until we can actually verify that the entire range below that [I]n[/I] has been tested.[/QUOTE]

I performed a double-check on this particular [I]n[/I]:

[QUOTE]10001*2^3075602-1 is prime! (925853 decimal digits)[/QUOTE]Verification of this entire range, from where I stopped to the [I]n[/I] above, could take some time, even on a powerful CPU. I take it from this that it may be possible someone started testing at 3M, for example, and did not test everything below?

 kar_bon 2020-06-12 06:08

[QUOTE=storm5510;547763](...)
I take it from this that it may be possible someone started testing at 3M, for example, and did not test everything below?[/QUOTE]

Read the post above and see the history for Riesel k=10001 in the Wiki.

 storm5510 2020-06-12 17:58

[QUOTE=kar_bon;547770]Read the post above and see the history for Riesel k=10001 in the Wiki.[/QUOTE]

I have looked at it more than a few times. The reason being is that before I log in, it shows as still being assigned to me. After signing in, it is no longer there. This is on my "Person" page.

 Happy5214 2020-06-12 19:36

Based on my experience with Wikipedia, the caching for logged-in users is different than for anonymous users, so that probably explains the difference. I purged your person page, which should clear the cache for anons.

 storm5510 2020-06-13 22:56

[QUOTE=Happy5214;547828]Based on my experience with Wikipedia, the caching for logged-in users is different than for anonymous users, so that probably explains the difference. I purged your person page, which should clear the cache for anons.[/QUOTE]

Thank you! I just came from there. I am considering sieving the difference for this [I]k[/I] and attaching the sieve file to its page. Perhaps "P" to 3e12 or 35e11. I have done a couple to 4e12.

 Happy5214 2020-06-14 10:44

[QUOTE=storm5510;547916]Thank you! I just came from there. I am considering sieving the difference for this [I]k[/I] and attaching the sieve file to its page. Perhaps "P" to 3e12 or 35e11. I have done a couple to 4e12.[/QUOTE]
What difference? Karsten implicitly said the whole range below [I]n[/I]=3440042 was already fully tested, as described on that [I]k[/I]'s page on the wiki. Unless you want to DC the whole range from where you stopped to [I]n[/I]=3440042, doing another sieve would be a waste of resources.

All times are UTC. The time now is 07:34.