[quote=Batalov;208989]The "3 k's left" message was already an update. The originals was above it:
Some PHP or perlcgi based automation could do wonders to your (already wonderful) webpages. Don't you see that you turn yourself into a humanpowerdriven CGI? And from that CGIlike 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 {RieselSierp} base [...] from n= [1default] to n=[25000value]. [Submit]. [I]=> return a fourdigit reservation "code"[/I] Release {RieselSierp} base [...]. Release code: [user can insert old [I]"code"[/I] here to prevent poaching] {RieselSierp} 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/chischmichsunscreencolumn,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 powersof2 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), computergenerated 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
1 Attachment(s)
The conjectured k is 958.
106 k have trivial factors. 351 k have primes with 140*821^244421 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^n1 n=0 mod 2 factors due to 2^2 9*74^n1 n=0 mod 2 factors due to 3^2 49*74^n1 n=0 mod 2 factors due to 7^2 64*74^n1 n=0 mod 2 factors due to 8^2 64*74^n1 n=0 mod 3 factors due to 4^3 144*74^n1 n=0 mod 2 factors due to 12^2 169*74^n1 n=0 mod 2 factors due to 13^2 289*74^n1 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^n1 n=0 mod 2 factors due to 39^2 1728*928^n1 n=0 mod 3 factors due to 12^3 1521*928^112731 and 1728*928^127961 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 kvalue. 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 nvalues from a sieve; not to tell you whether a k can be eliminated completely from testing. Sometimes it will have you remove all remaining nvalues 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^n1 n=0 mod 2 factors due to 2^2
9*74^n1 n=0 mod 2 factors due to 3^2 49*74^n1 n=0 mod 2 factors due to 7^2 64*74^n1 n=0 mod 2 factors due to 8^2 64*74^n1 n=0 mod 3 factors due to 4^3 144*74^n1 n=0 mod 2 factors due to 12^2 169*74^n1 n=0 mod 2 factors due to 13^2 289*74^n1 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*821^244421 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=10K25K; 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 email 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 email 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^n1 100*504^n1 116*504^n1 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^n1 614*319^n1 626*319^n1 1244*319^n1 1266*319^n1 1356*319^n1 1496*319^n1 1506*319^n1 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^n1 100*504^n1 116*504^n1 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^q1)*(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 
1 Attachment(s)
R637 is proven, conj. k=144 (largest prime 32*637^180961)

Riesel base 911, k=20
Primes: 2*911^141 4*911^11 10*911^11 12*911^21 18*911^21 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*587^261 4*587^11 6*587^21 k=8 proven composite (have factors 3 or 7) Base proven. 
Riesel bases 545 and 671
Primes found:
2*545^841 4*545^11 6*545^41 2*671^21 4*671^11 The other k have trivial factors (including 6*671^n1). 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*587^261 4*587^11 6*587^21 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*593^41 4*593^11 6*593^11 8*593^21 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*566^41 3*566^11 4*566^238731 5*566^21 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 
1 Attachment(s)
Riesel base 800, k=88
Primes n>10000: 53*800^143461 23*800^204521 5*800^205081 Remaining k's: 4*800^n1 8*800^n1 25*800^n1 Are there any algebraic factorizations? 
Some for each of them, but no 'deadly' eliminations, just flesh wounds.
n=02: square for 4*800^n1 03 2^3 8*800^n1 12 80^2 8*800^n1 02 5^2 25*800^n1 45 50^5 25*800^n1 So, 4*800^n1: odd n are alive and still need work, 8*800^n1: n=2,4(mod 6) survive and need work, 25*800^n1: n=1,3,5,7(mod 10) survive and need work. 
Riesel base 928 update
Primes found:
[code] 489*928^115871 662*928^124271 885*928^100671 1367*928^108741 1521*928^112731 1728*928^127961 1851*928^116331 2286*928^145831 2522*928^109621 3908*928^113881 4005*928^137231 4293*928^148171 4458*928^121921 4983*928^104961 5342*928^102231 5364*928^100321 5979*928^107271 6038*928^130381 6122*928^112681 6143*928^116611 6516*928^112111 6563*928^124981 6818*928^108741 6972*928^110151 7914*928^112561 8006*928^130731 8171*928^102991 8750*928^123471 8858*928^118981 8948*928^138201 9647*928^148151 10887*928^125881 11903*928^100681 12026*928^107351 12149*928^119561 12189*928^105871 12561*928^118471 12942*928^127631 12978*928^132561 13080*928^143441 13116*928^101951 13154*928^112091 13274*928^123351 13517*928^111861 13572*928^123641 13997*928^114071 14001*928^128661 14897*928^123521 15149*928^112281 15248*928^128011 15353*928^108441 15689*928^103041 16107*928^100951 16397*928^134281 16692*928^107711 17193*928^141201 17420*928^125701 17616*928^131171 17802*928^107961 17991*928^121991 19175*928^106681 19202*928^121511 19853*928^138561 20253*928^114651 20282*928^131751 20793*928^122201 20936*928^119131 22227*928^101401 22790*928^113851 23081*928^145531 23193*928^120811 23501*928^111391 23552*928^102181 23697*928^138751 24060*928^100101 24645*928^105351 25841*928^129211 26055*928^118301 26991*928^102221 27341*928^134941 27567*928^109161 27666*928^104461 27908*928^144361 28257*928^143901 29153*928^111201 29421*928^115171 30471*928^146431 30501*928^123381 30831*928^138101 31292*928^111831 31439*928^103521 31458*928^110131 31739*928^128561 32022*928^149831 32288*928^120341 [/code] Tested to n=15000 and continuing. 
[quote=unconnected;210521]Riesel base 800, k=88
Primes n>10000: 53*800^143461 23*800^204521 5*800^205081 Remaining k's: 4*800^n1 8*800^n1 25*800^n1 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 allcomplex FFT length 48K on 12*736^49762+1 12*736^49762+1 is composite: RES64: [AC939B6DF751B4C0] (486.2651s+0.0077s) Special modular reduction using allcomplex FFT length 48K on 12*736^49838+1 12*736^49838+1 is composite: RES64: [9B89781FA2896439] (486.2233s+0.0078s) Special modular reduction using allcomplex FFT length 48K on 12*736^49878+1 12*736^49878+1 is composite: RES64: [413237B012FC9095] (487.6378s+0.0077s) Special modular reduction using allcomplex FFT length 48K on 12*736^49930+1 12*736^49930+1 is composite: RES64: [4932E6E3709B79DD] (488.2011s+0.0080s) Special modular reduction using allcomplex 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 heavyweight 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^n1 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^n1 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^n1 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^n1 96 5035 98 6 100 19 102 1 104 1 106 3 108 2 110 4 112 1 114 4 116 26 118*987^n1 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*626^81 3*626^11 4*626^11 5*626^1101 7*626^91 8*626^201 9*626^51 2*725^1021 4*725^31 6*725^11 8*725^21 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*928^115871 662*928^124271 885*928^100671 (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 stoponprime 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 stoponprime 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
1 Attachment(s)
Tested to 100000 and released. No primes found. I have attached residues.

Riesel bases 791 and 890
Primes found:
2*791^41 4*791^11 8*791^41 2*890^4281 3*890^1381 4*890^11 5*890^21 6*890^21 7*890^11 9*890^11 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^n1 86*889^n1 194*889^n1 216*889^n1 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^n1 59*894^n1 79*894^n1 151*894^n1 179*894^n1 184*894^n1 216*894^n1 220*894^n1 225*894^n1 276*894^n1 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 nvalue to show on the pages, which can be quickly tweaked to sort ascending by kvalue. 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*827^21 4*827^11 6*827^91 10*827^11 12*827^11 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*608^21 3*608^11 4*608^831 5*608^261 6*608^61 With a conjectured k of 8, k=7 remains and has been tested to n=25000. Primes found: 2*956^181 3*956^1431 4*956^11 5*956^1921 7*956^11 8*956^41 9*956^3091 With a conjectured k of 10, this conjecture is proven. 
1 Attachment(s)
[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*752^39581 66*752^42821 29*752^95801 68*752^120001 remaining: 8*752^n1 11*752^n1 22*752^n1 58*752^n1 59*752^n1 64*752^n1 65*752^n1 95*752^n1 97*752^n1 all remaining ks tested to 30k and unreserved 
[quote=henryzz;210852]primes since 2.5k:
53*752^39581 66*752^42821 29*752^95801 68*752^120001 remaining: 8*752^n1 11*752^n1 22*752^n1 58*752^n1 59*752^n1 64*752^n1 65*752^n1 95*752^n1 97*752^n1 all remaining ks tested to 30k and unreserved[/quote] David, could you send me the n=250030K sieve file you used for this range? I'll need it to process the PRPnetformatted results and verify that everything's there. 
1 Attachment(s)
[quote=mdettweiler;210855]David, could you send me the n=250030K sieve file you used for this range? I'll need it to process the PRPnetformatted 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^n1 194*883^n1 222*883^n1 224*883^n1 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*752^39581 66*752^42821 29*752^95801 68*752^120001 remaining: 8*752^n1 11*752^n1 22*752^n1 58*752^n1 59*752^n1 64*752^n1 65*752^n1 95*752^n1 97*752^n1 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. 
1 Attachment(s)
[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^n1 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. 
1 Attachment(s)
Riesel base 888, k=69
Tested to n=25K, will continue to 50K. Remaining k's: 34*888^n1 64*888^n1 Trivially factors: k=1 Primes attached. 
Riesel bases 650 and 692
Primes found:
2*650^21 3*650^11 5*650^21 6*650^61 7*650^11 k = 4 remains. AFAICT, there is a partial algebraic factorization, but it doesn't cover all n. 2*692^81 3*692^61 4*692^11 5*692^21 7*692^10411 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 onesthat could work, though it would add another step to my alreadycomplex 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 LLRformatted 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 onesthat could work, though it would add another step to my alreadycomplex 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 LLRformatted 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 afterthefact after realizing they had algebraic factors. Just a simple conversion, one file (or perhaps 2 if a large nrange), none of the matchup and none of the primed/noprimed 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=25K100K will be quite a bit less than n=5K25K. n=25K100K would also probably take 5075 times longer to search than n=5K25K. :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 afterthefact after realizing they had algebraic factors. Just a simple conversion, one file (or perhaps 2 if a large nrange), none of the matchup and none of the primed/noprimed 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 slipup, 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 nonautomated 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 NPLBlike 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 wantLLR, 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 wrongthat'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 nonprimed 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 nvalue or a algebraic value.
Primes are (still) not predictable like: 'Oh, a low kvalue... 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 nvalue or a algebraic value.
Primes are (still) not predictable like: 'Oh, a low kvalue... 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=25K100K will be quite a bit less than n=5K25K. n=25K100K would also probably take 5075 times longer to search than n=5K25K. :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 slipup, 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 nonautomated 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 NPLBlike 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 wantLLR, 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 wrongthat'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 nonprimed 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.

All times are UTC. The time now is 08:00. 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000  2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.