Home Primes, Reloaded
There was a thread [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=9668]here[/url] for Home Primes of Base 10 (most popular).
The results are collected at [url=http://www.mersennewiki.org/index.php/Category:Home_primes]MersenneWiki[/url] but those pages are hard to read, especially for other bases. With M.Tervooren's [url=http://factordb.com/search.php]FactoringDatabase[/url] it's easy as can be to hold the results (see 'Sequences' and choose the type of sequence). The last days I've compiled Summary pages (like that ones for the Aliquot Sequences) at [url=www.rieselprime.de]RieselPrimeDatabase[/url] under the new menu 'Interests'. For now i've only done pages for Bases 2, 6 and 10, because they are most primeness or popular. For Base 10 I have to do some more work (sizes only upto n~1300) and including more terminated n's with more data from MersenneWiki. So to all, who will work on these sequences, please feel free to reserve and post your results here. I will update that pages from time to time. I'm just extending the range for Base 6 to about n=10000 and factoring some of the lower Base 2 composites. Happy hunting! 
I extended [URL="http://factordb.com/search.php?se=10&aq=1370"]1370[/URL] and [URL="http://factordb.com/search.php?se=10&aq=10014"]10014[/URL] a few lines.

Thanks!
I was going to ask about the Home Primes search status once I got my new computer up and running (parts just arrived today). This is perfect timing for me! :smile: Now I've already pushed HP9942 a few iterations while typing my reply... 
HP[sub]10[/sub]9942 is already prime (P89) at index 49!

Sorry. I meant 9922.

have we got everything from mersennewiki in the database?

I've taken HP[SUB]10[/SUB]9922 to n=59. I've also taken HP[SUB]10[/SUB]9900 to n=58.

Does anyone have a script that can recursively test a home prime sequence until a prime is found? I could probably write my own, but this would save me the effort.
BTW, found a home prime for 3393. 
[QUOTE=rogue;191723]Does anyone have a script that can recursively test a home prime sequence until a prime is found? I could probably write my own, but this would save me the effort.
BTW, found a home prime for 3393.[/QUOTE] I suppose one could hack aliqueit to make it calculate home primes instead of aliquot sequences... 
[quote=rogue;191723]Does anyone have a script that can recursively test a home prime sequence until a prime is found? I could probably write my own, but this would save me the effort.[/quote]
I don't have or know of one. If nobody has one, it'd be easier to modify aliqueit to compute the next line in the sequence as a home prime (i.e. based on the concatenation of prime factors in base x, x could be fixed at 10 or other) instead of as an aliquot sequence (i.e. based on the sum of all factors) than to write a whole new program. [quote=rogue;191723] BTW, found a home prime for 3393.[/quote] Congrats. :smile: 
[QUOTE=MiniGeek;191725]I don't have or know of one. If nobody has one, it'd be easier to modify aliqueit to compute the next line in the sequence as a home prime (i.e. based on the concatenation of prime factors in base x, x could be fixed at 10 or other) instead of as an aliquot sequence (i.e. based on the sum of all factors) than to write a whole new program.[/QUOTE]
I will leave that hacking to someone else because I'm not a big fan of perl. I was lucky enough to find a second home prime today, although I don't recall which one it was. This is the first time I've actually used the factor database. I would make a few changes, but other than that, it saves me a bit of work. 
[quote=rogue;191726]I will leave that hacking to someone else because I'm not a big fan of perl.[/quote]
aliqueit is written in C++, not Perl. I'd do the modification myself, (or at least try...my lack of C++ experience could be a problem there) but I can't get GMP included properly so it can compile. :sad: Anyone know how to get it all to work? (I'm on Windows, Cygwin is available if needed) 
C++ & ECM
[QUOTE=MiniGeek;191727]aliqueit is written in C++, not Perl. I'd do the modification myself, (or at least try...my lack of C++ experience could be a problem there) but I can't get GMP included properly so it can compile. :sad: Anyone know how to get it all to work?[/QUOTE]
The original factorization_worker used execlp in the program. 
8608 bites the dust. That's three for me today.

[quote=RichD;191732]The original factorization_worker used execlp in the program.[/quote]
First off, aliqueit is completely different from either factorization worker script. Second, it needs GMP to be able to handle large numbers, not GMPECM. Like the worker scripts, it calls GMPECM externally. (which is completely separate from what I'm trying to do) Taking 1315, 1316, and 1328 to a c100 (at least). 
C++ & GMP
[QUOTE=MiniGeek;191784]First off, aliqueit is completely different from either factorization worker script. Second, it needs GMP to be able to handle large numbers, not GMPECM. Like the worker scripts, it calls GMPECM externally. (which is completely separate from what I'm trying to do)[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I thought that might be an easier implementation. For GMP you need to include GMP headers in the source. #include <gmp.h> During the linking process you need to include the GMP library. gcc hp.cpp O3 lgmp hp.out Notice the lgmp above. Anything more specific I won't be of help, maybe others. 
Home prime base 10: 2104 finished.

I extended 10 of the base 10 home prime sequences. I found a prime for 6069. I'm not reserving these. Final statuses:
6069, i=47, sz 89 prime 2114, i=57, sz 94, C90 6785, i=50, sz 89, C83 6812, i=48, sz 84, C76 8890, i=38, sz 80, C75 8949, i=53, sz 88, C78 9773, i=55, sz 95, C75 10031, i=60, sz 111, C99 10052, i=51, sz 103, C70 10094, i=60, sz 107, C102 I chose these because they all had a remaining factor of C<70 before I started on them. There are still 10 more of them in the DB. I'll finish them up later today if no one else has done so. Gary 
Home prime base 10: 1855 finished.
I have seen that 1539 is finished too. 
[quote=MiniGeek;191784]Taking 1315, 1316, and 1328 to a c100 (at least).[/quote]
Done, all have a moderate amount of ECM (several Quick ECMs at least), but not a full battery. 
Home prime base 10: 2480 and 2484 finished.
I have seen that 2248 is finished too. 
Another one: 3102

[URL="http://factordb.com/search.php?se=10&aq=5912"]5912[/URL] terminated after a single Quick ECM (clicked by me :razz:).
Taking 6063, 6078, and 6084 until I get tired of them. :smile: Edit: [URL="http://factordb.com/search.php?se=10&aq=6078"]6078[/URL] terminated. 
hey, the last days great efforts were done in the HP 10 range!
i've updated the summary just a minute ago: all terminations now in. as from my script to compare the database with the summary i saw that some steps for many values were done. but i can't update this every day. i try to keep the terminations current! 
Base 10: 3336 finished.

3 more finished: 3492, 3498 and 3586.

[quote=MiniGeek;191970]Taking 6063, 6078, and 6084 until I get tired of them. :smile:
Edit: [URL="http://factordb.com/search.php?se=10&aq=6078"]6078[/URL] terminated.[/quote] Done with 6063 and 6084, both on big composites that passed full ECM (c110 and c109, respectively). 
More finished: 3905, 3970, 4012 and 4020.

9513 finishes

4109 and 4240 finished. The same with 4318.

I extended the 10 additional base 10 sequences that had a composite factor of C<70:
2802, i=60, sz 104, C94 3685, i=49, sz 78, C71 3852, i=46, sz 81, C73 6336, i=44, sz 79, C75 6680, i=45, sz 86, C74 9080, i=46, sz 100, C83 9975, i=47, sz 94, C85 9983, i=53, sz 105, C89 10098, i=49, sz 93, C70 10132, i=51, sz 85, C82 As of the time I finished this about 12 hours ago, all base 10 sequences then had composite factors of C>=70. That was my objective. :smile: Over the next month, I'll probably work my way up the list to C>=80 or higher unless someone beats me to it. Edit: Karsten, it looks like you had already updated your pages on Oct. 6th for this effort. I promise I was the one who brought these up to those current level. :) Gary 
It looked like sequences > 10K needed a little work so I did the ones with composite factors of C70C75 to get their remaining factors up to C>75. In the process, I found a prime on one of them. Statuses:
10234, i=41, sz 79, prime! :smile: 10045, i=41, sz 87, C86 10050, i=56, sz 97, C78 10052, i=56, sz 118, C109 10058, i=56, sz 95, C94 10098, i=53, sz 105, C96 10136, i=59, sz 98, C94 10200, i=49, sz 102, C93 10203, i=55, sz 103, C95 10208, i=48; sz 81, C81 10218, i=50, sz 87, C82 Although I didn't advance the following sequence, I did find a somewhat large factor for it: 1681, i=57, sz 107, C80 Edit: I also decided to get rid of the final two C70's in the DB. Here are the statuses of them now: 8592, i=45, sz 86, C81 8960, i=41, sz 82, C76 All sequences now have remaining factors of C>70. Getting rid of the C71's should take a little while. :) Gary 
7072 and 7403 have bitten the dust.

[tex]HP_{10}27684[/tex] is prime. Was trying (notso) random starting points :D

I've advanced [url=http://factordb.com/search.php?se=10&aq=6138&action=last20&fr=&to=]6138[/url] a bit, to i=52, size 93, C93.

8960 to i54, size 104, C101

[QUOTE=mdettweiler;192067]I've advanced [url=http://factordb.com/search.php?se=10&aq=6138&action=last20&fr=&to=]6138[/url] a bit, to i=52, size 93, C93.[/QUOTE]
[b]recommended to all users:[/b] i saw the index 52 was a pure C93, so i tested it with the QuickECMoption of the FactoringDatabase. the first run turns it in P6*C87 the second run splitted the C87 into P20*P67! so please, try the great QuickECMoption before giving up! :grin: now it's at index 56 with a C96 (no more factors with QuickECM > next factor should be greater 30 digits) 
It's interesting that you mention that Karsten. ~80% of the work that I did above was solely with quick ECM. I had to use msieve to initially break a majority of the C62C75 but after that, quick ECM usually took it up many indexes with only a couple of msieve runs thrown in.
Hint to all: I always do quick ECM at least 5 times on each # before giving up or using msieve. Many times it will factor on the 3rd/4th/5th try. I can even remember one day I had my 2 cores that I usually run msieve on running on something else and I didn't want to slow it down by running a 3rd program on the machine. So I tried doing quick ECM on a C69 something like 1015 times and wouldn't you know...it factored on the final try. I remember I was going to give up after 2 more attempts. Quick ECM is a great tool but it is a little quirky. Don't give up after trying it once or twice. I suspect there is some sort of built in curve randomizer so that it tries different curves each time you hit it. So you may try it 10 times with no luck but alas, it will factor it for you on the 11th try. BTW, in response to your final sentence about the next factor "should" be at least 30 digits. That's not necessarily true. I've hit quick ECM 10 times and it still didn't end up finding what turned out to be a P28 or P29. On the other hand, I've had it find a P34 or P35 on the first try. Like I said, it can be a little quirky. Several weeks ago, I remember it even had a hard time factoring some C21s thru C23s. I saw the issue brought up in another thread and apparently it got fixed. Gary 
the 30 digits is only my observation. i got a P28 or P29 left, too. or QuickECM found some P32 as well.
instead of msieve i use yafu (version 1.12 with an inifile and 4 threads on my Quad) because it's way faster for upto 90 digits. because yafu don't use 100% processtime when running (i think because of saving the relations found) other programs will continue their work (at about 510% CPUuse) although yafu can end the job quite quick! so no need to shut down other programs and start yafu. the HomePrimes are growing fast in digits so there is not much work to do manually. at lower index i need 3 (sometimes 4 when a number is not fully factored) mouseclicks for an index:  open a seq in a new window: the last unfactored part will be shown below "Sequence ended: not all factors known" a) click (1) on the factor b) click (2) "Quick ECM" > factors shown c) click (3) on the seqnumber below "Additional info" begin at a) again. at higher index you habe to click more as mentioned. it's the easiest way until there's no special program like aliqueit 
That's exactly the way I've been advancing many of the sequences, sometimes 10 indexes or more starting from a C70. I'll have to try yafu instead.
In the mean time, I tried a different way of looking at your page. I decided to attempt to factor using only fast ECM (or msieve on C<=75 that would not fast ECM) on all of the sequences where there was either a 0 or 1 digit difference between the size and the remaining factor. Kind of like what you did with Max's sequence when you saw there was no difference. I figured those had a better chance than normal of not having the fast ECM previously used. There were probably about 3035 of them and I was able to advance 12 sequences. A few were only advanced 23 indexes but several were able to be advanced by 510 indexes. I was disappointed not to find any primes. Here they are: 2138, i=59, sz 106, C98 2147, i=64, sz 104, C95 2618, i=46, sz 95, C85 3192, i=51, sz 92, C79 3215, i=54, sz 102, C101* 3867, i=53, sz 99, C97 5368, i=56, sz 103, C93 5632, i=44, sz 93, C88 7210, i=59, sz 111, C82 7554, i=51, sz 100, C97 8729, i=47, sz 87, C86* 9529, i=54, sz 88, C81 *  Advanced from a difference of 1 that easily factored to a different difference of 1 that would not easily factor. There are a TON of C71's and C72's in the DB. (I got rid of all C<=70.) :smile: I would guess that 2030% of those will fast ECM. If not, then a quick msieve/yafu to factor them followed by fast ECM to advance them several more indexes will be quite effective. I think we're still a long way away from not being able to easily use fast ECM for home prime base 10 sequences <= 10200. Gary 
I found two C<70 that popped up in the DB so I had to get rid of them. One worked its way to a prime! Here they are:
7343, i=44, sz 78, prime :smile: 7615, i=51, sz 95, C85 
I am doing C<80 using Quick ECM and Yafu. N<4500 done.

c74
At first I was randomly picking a few HP(10)s to factor. Then I started following this thread so I won't step on other's toes. I began around c74's. Maybe doing a c73 & c75 here or there. It was so easy at first I popped 56 the first night. Didn't think it was worth reporting. Then it slowed down. Last night will be my last night for about 5 days before I can do anymore. I probably did 1012 but I have no record of which ones.
Going forward I may try to keep a list of mine. RichD. 
9937 to i58, size 122, C114

4776 and 4891 bites the dust.

and so does 8049

Remember that Quick ECM isn't 'free curves', it's just curves being run on someone else's computer. Running it a dozen times is wasting a lot of CPU time, even if it will sometimes find factors above 30 digits.
The sort of curves it runs are inefficient for finding 30+ digit factors, they're more suited to the 1520 range; e.g. the final curve (with [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=188677&postcount=563"]Quick ECM's params[/URL], which has B1=103971) has: (all the following results were found on my PC, from GMPECM with v, on a c79) [code]Expected time to find a factor of n digits: 20 25 30 35 14.84s 1.97m 22.92m 5.91h[/code]While the B1 sizes optimized for each of those digit levels (B1=11000, 50000, 250000, and 1000000, for 20, 25, 30, and 35 digit factors, respectively) is: (this was copy/pasted together, not originally a single output) [code]Expected time to find a factor of n digits: 20 25 30 35 10.41s 2.18m 18.37m 2.65h[/code]So clearly for any particular (mediumtolarge) size that you're looking for, Quick ECM isn't very efficient. Especially for 3035 digit factors. (remember that I took the final curve, when really it's 3 parallel runnings of 40 curves going from very small with a practically 0 chance of finding a 3035 digit factor to the one above) One thing I wasn't expecting was the result for 25 digits. Apparently having a B1 of about 100000 produces a lower expected time to find a 25digit factor than with a B1 of 50000! B1=103971 took 1172 ms and expects 101 runs to find a 25digit factor, for a total of 118.372 seconds, while 50000 took 594 ms and expects 214 runs, or 127.116 seconds. I thought the standard 11000, 50000, ... B1s were optimized to be the lowest times for their digit levels? Seems that it's not, at least for my computer. Now, if the computer it's running on (the DB server?) will idle otherwise, I say go ahead! :grin: But if it's getting other work done, I just hope you all realize that you're slowing that down in an inefficient way. [quote=gd_barnes;192075] Quick ECM is a great tool but it is a little quirky. Don't give up after trying it once or twice. I suspect there is some sort of built in curve randomizer so that it tries different curves each time you hit it. So you may try it 10 times with no luck but alas, it will factor it for you on the 11th try.[/quote] Of course. :smile: It just calls GMPECM (a.k.a. ecm.exe, the most widelyused ECM app), which uses a random sigma on each curve. 
[quote=MiniGeek;192099]One thing I wasn't expecting was the result for 25 digits. Apparently having a B1 of about 100000 produces a lower expected time to find a 25digit factor than with a B1 of 50000! B1=103971 took 1172 ms and expects 101 runs to find a 25digit factor, for a total of 118.372 seconds, while 50000 took 594 ms and expects 214 runs, or 127.116 seconds. I thought the standard 11000, 50000, ... B1s were optimized to be the lowest times for their digit levels? Seems that it's not, at least for my computer.[/quote]
those values were optimal at one point but improvements in ecm and in computers have changed what values are optimal check this [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=178923&highlight=curves#post178923"]post[/URL] out i might at somepoint write a program that will parse logs and find optimal values for higher digit levels 
[quote=kar_bon;192072][B]recommended to all users:[/B]
i saw the index 52 was a pure C93, so i tested it with the QuickECMoption of the FactoringDatabase. the first run turns it in P6*C87 the second run splitted the C87 into P20*P67! so please, try the great QuickECMoption before giving up! :grin: now it's at index 56 with a C96 (no more factors with QuickECM > next factor should be greater 30 digits)[/quote] Okay, I'll remember that next time. I'm not sure why I didn't do at least quick ECM for that particular one. :rolleyes: Meanwhile, extended [url=http://factordb.com/search.php?se=10&aq=8739&action=last20&fr=&to=]8739[/url] to i=50, size 83, on a C79 that wouldn't break after ~5 Quick ECMs. Same story for [url=http://factordb.com/search.php?se=10&aq=8873&action=last20&fr=&to=]8873[/url], now at i=48, size 88, C84. 
9027 terminates at step 48

[quote=gd_barnes;192081]There are a TON of C71's and C72's in the DB. (I got rid of all C<=70.) :smile: I would guess that 2030% of those will fast ECM. If not, then a quick msieve/yafu to factor them followed by fast ECM to advance them several more indexes will be quite effective. I think we're still a long way away from not being able to easily use fast ECM for home prime base 10 sequences <= 10200.[/quote]
i just did all c7173 most factored with fast ECM not even 2030% didn't continuing onward and upward 
7188 and 7282 Terminate

[quote=henryzz;192127]i just did all c7173
most factored with fast ECM not even 2030% didn't continuing onward and upward[/quote] Holy crap. I had to check for myself because that's a ton of pointing and clicking! I find it kind of addictive breaking up those bad boys. It's kind of fun isn't it? lol I see now that there are 5 sequences that are C<=73, which I'm sure people are in the middle of working on so I won't mess with them. Now here is what I expect you to do: Report every sequence here that you did so Karsten can update his page. (lol) Seriously, my feeling is that we should work on getting them all up to a "hard" C>=80, that is C>=80 that won't fast ECM. Tim, That's a good point on doing too many fast ECM's using up Syd's (or someone's) CPU cycles. I just remember from before when there were a lot of workers so there was apparently quite a bit available, which there isn't now. In the future, I'll limit the fast ECM's to 35 attempts. That's usually my limit but sometimes I lose count and end up doing 10 attempts. That was a good explanation on the curve randomizer. Now I kind of understand why fast ECM appears a little quirky at times. Gary 
[quote=henryzz;192127]i just did all c7173
most factored with fast ECM not even 2030% didn't continuing onward and upward[/quote] Since you did all those, did you find any primes? I would think you would have found several. One more thing: On the ones you did, did you continue fast ECMing subsequent indexes until you hit a tough one? If not, I take back what I said about it being a ton of work. lol 
I have seen that 6212 is finished.
For N<6212 c<80 done. 
Instead of using someone else's CPU cycles, it is very easy to factor up to C85 composites using Dario Alpern's ECM website:
[url]http://www.alpertron.com.ar/ECM.HTM[/url] Cut and paste the composite number into the top bar on this site and press return. When you get a factor, cut and paste it back into the factoring db. Very easy.... 
6256 is finished. :smile:

the lowest composites of all open HP10 in the FactoringDatabase are C75!
see [url]http://factordb.com/search.php?so=1&se=10&5=1&start=2&limit=1000&ew=1[/url] at the bottom. 
[QUOTE=richs;192143]Instead of using someone else's CPU cycles, it is very easy to factor up to C85 composites using Dario Alpern's ECM website:
[url]http://www.alpertron.com.ar/ECM.HTM[/url] Cut and paste the composite number into the top bar on this site and press return. When you get a factor, cut and paste it back into the factoring db. Very easy....[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=9629"]this[/URL] would be faster than his applet. I believe that msieve will also extract small factors before using mpqs. BTW, how does one report multiple factors at a time. 
[QUOTE=rogue;192152]BTW, how does one report multiple factors at a time.[/QUOTE]
insert them in the "Report factor(s)" window, one per line or commaseparated 
[QUOTE=kar_bon;192153]insert them in the "Report factor(s)" window, one per line or commaseparated[/QUOTE]
I found out that factordb will take output from my factoring program. I presume it removes nonnumerics when parsing. This means that it will accept output such as this: [code] 3 (prime) * 3 (prime) * 13 (prime) * 19 (prime) * 5099 (prime) * 146472107 (prp) * 20874639816122426922424808819059395515734254643644518586583484290147440406619 (prp) [/code] It also takes msieve output such as this: [code] p5 factor: 10711 p6 factor: 318503 prp86 factor: 97118834888157129964637503081673516437296046739370628771378517672228613658237113346843 [/code] 
[quote=rogue;192155]I found out that factordb will take output from my factoring program. I presume it removes nonnumerics when parsing. This means that it will accept output such as this:
...[/quote] It's pretty flexible. For the most part, if it's there (and not a single number with line separations in it), it'll find it and enter it. 
[quote=gd_barnes;192140]That's a good point on doing too many fast ECM's using up Syd's (or someone's) CPU cycles. I just remember from before when there were a lot of workers so there was apparently quite a bit available, which there isn't now. In the future, I'll limit the fast ECM's to 35 attempts. That's usually my limit but sometimes I lose count and end up doing 10 attempts.[/quote]
I belive Syd said the Quick ECM button runs curves on the webserver itself. Syd, if you're reading this thread, is that machine running any other work that the Quick ECM is cutting into, or is it otherwise idle? If it's otherwise idle, then it would actually be better for us to use Quick ECM as much as is needed (though of course not excessively) so as to put that to good use. :smile: 
[quote=gd_barnes;192141]Since you did all those, did you find any primes? I would think you would have found several.
One more thing: On the ones you did, did you continue fast ECMing subsequent indexes until you hit a tough one? If not, I take back what I said about it being a ton of work. lol[/quote] i have not a clue the way i do it is select the right side of the page while holding ctrl(otherwise it selects the whole page) and use firefox's open links in selection feature i then have all the pages for all the composites(can take a few seconds to load 50 tabs) i then go to the last tab opened and click quick ecm and then straight away unless there was already more than one composite factor before clicking on quick ecm type ctrlw which closes the tab i then repeat for all tabs i dont even see half the time whether a number is factored until i referesh the sequnce overview page i you do this be careful not to run too many quick ecms at once it means no one can access the server until they are finished(i suspect they run for 4 seconds of cpu time not clock time) no way am i writing what i have done for each sequence:smile: copying the composites out would be the best way of doing it but it would take a rediculous amount of time in comparison 
That's a pretty slick way to do it but you lose all the fun of seeing the factorizations. lol
Why wouldn't you have a clue if you found a prime? Can't you refresh all of your pages after the factorizations? Regardless, IMHO, you should report the sequences that you find a prime for so that Karsten can at least show those on his page without having to sort them in the DB by primed sequences. That's what everyone has been doing here. Besides, half the fun of doing the sequences is finding a prime for them, especially the big primes. Karsten, if he's doing that, I see almost no reason to report statuses here unless we find a prime. Would you agree? 
[quote=richs;192143]Instead of using someone else's CPU cycles, it is very easy to factor up to C85 composites using Dario Alpern's ECM website:
[URL]http://www.alpertron.com.ar/ECM.HTM[/URL] Cut and paste the composite number into the top bar on this site and press return. When you get a factor, cut and paste it back into the factoring db. Very easy....[/quote] No! I've used Alpertron's site extensively in the past. It defeats the purpose of why I'm using fast ECM in Syd's DB...to avoid using my own CPU cycles on a dual core while 2 cores run Aliquot sequences. Alpertron's site uses your own CPU cycles not his. Besides, if I wanted to use my own CPU cycles, I'd use msieve or yafu up to C85. Gary 
doing 50 nvalues at once and only advancing one index is not worth to fill in a contributor in the summary.
if someone is posting here a terminating sequence, i will include the name/date. my script will find any termination or any difference in the last index, so no need to post here all n's with one new index. as for base 6 i think i will show all terminations with primes > 70 digits. some terminations (see summary) i can't say who has done them so only a '?' for the finder until the finder will post here! i think i can update the summary once a week, but every day it's too much work! PS: as i can say, there're 17 new terminations not yet shown in the summary since yesterday! 
Speaking of terminations:
7024 is prime at i=46 size 77 :smile: BTW, all the statuses I've posted here have advanced more than one index; mostly 510 indexes and sometimes even 1015. 
4557 finished.

[quote=richs;192143]Instead of using someone else's CPU cycles, it is very easy to factor up to C85 composites using Dario Alpern's ECM website:
[URL]http://www.alpertron.com.ar/ECM.HTM[/URL] Cut and paste the composite number into the top bar on this site and press return. When you get a factor, cut and paste it back into the factoring db. Very easy....[/quote] Easy, yes, but inefficient. GMPECM is [I]much[/I] faster (roughly 5 times faster, from a quick test, if it uses the B2 that Alpertron's app does, but normally it uses a larger B1). Like Gary said, the whole point is to not pull your current computer's processing power away. If you are going to do ECM locally anyway, might as well make it as efficient as possible. 
Another one finished: 6919. The same with 7049.

c<80 done.
Edit: 8170 finished. And 8575 
9141 finished.

10302 terminates at index 51 with a P88

10380 terminates at index 46 with a P90

10424 terminates at index 42 with a P82

6906 terminates.

8562 terminates. And 6877 too.

Well, I was going to post a status of 9 sequences that I added some indexes to early yesterday but with them all having been advanced to C>=84, that would be somewhat pointless.
Nice work everyone getting all of the "low hanging fruit" taken care of. Next target: 90 digits for all of the sequences <= 10K and they must survive at least one "Fast ECM" (preferrably 3). :smile: 
9266 Terminates

i changed my method a little
1846 terminates 
8193 terminates
9890 terminates 
6550 terminates.

HP[SUB]10[/SUB]9780 terminates n=57, 109 digits
My first HP! :smile: 
c<86 finished.

10158 terminates. 10609 terminates. 10555 terminates. 10616 terminates.

HP[SUB]10[/SUB]8457 terminates n=62 P100

5496
5496 terminates with a p102

10840 terminates. The same with 10668 and 10755.

7316 terminates.

2581 terminates. 10659 terminates.
BTW: c<87 done for N<10700 
3388 terminates.

10764 terminates.

HP[SUB]10[/SUB]9961 terminates at n=52 P95

10948 terminates.

10991 terminates.
BTW: c<88 finished. 
Just now I've been doing a wee bit of work in the 1100011050 range, which didn't seem to be either in the database or in Karsten's summary. As such, everything was being calculated afresh, leading of course to a lot of new, but completely nonnoteworthy, terminations which were found right off the bat by the DB in its initial calculation of the sequences when I looked them up. I'm guessing those aren't worth reporting because Karsten's scripts will automatically pick them up, right?

All times are UTC. The time now is 20:37. 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000  2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.