mersenneforum.org

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 2007-07-19 09:38

Are you still working on it? If yes then, what about k=70079?
I see you are sieving [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=110378&postcount=182"]70079 and some others[/URL] too.
What about those?[quote]3343 - Done to 1000k no new primes
3817 - Done to 1000k no new primes
4813 - Done to 1000k no new primes[/quote]

kar_bon 2007-07-19 13:28

SB2 and 10949
 
to Cruelty:
that's what i wanted to avoid: i think you saw the ooooooold low weight stats page under [url]www.15k.org[/url] menu ([url]http://www.15k.org/lowweight.htm[/url])!!!
there is 10949 tested to 481k by Joss!
this page is not updated anymore because i included all low-weight k's in the new summary-pages. Kosmaj wanted to have this page available for all who are interested only in low weights.
perhaps a reason to delete this link in the menu.
Karsten

Cruelty 2007-07-19 14:51

Well,
both pages actually include mostly the same information concerning low-weight "k", and both suffer from lack of update. I know that several people are involved in updating 15k pages, but IMO it would be more efficient if anyone who is working on a given "k" and has login+password could update information on this pages. Right now we are posting our progress on this forum and then someone has to transfer it to 15k.org.
What do you think?

gd_barnes 2007-07-19 15:26

SB2, can you check and see where you started your testing on your k=239857, 248047, 306251, 320107, 334147, and 808477? I know you started where someone else left off at. It's just that I don't know where that point is.

I'd really appreciate it. It'd save me from duplicate checking of past efforts for low primes.


Thanks,
Gary

gd_barnes 2007-07-19 15:50

Primes on top-5000 site for low-weight k's
 
In my verification efforts looking for missing small primes on low-weight k's on our summary site, I did a search of the top-5000 site on ALL low-weight k's from k=10K to 1M, since some of those are 'kind of' small by today's standards. I found the below primes that are not shown on our site. Perhaps this will keep someone from searching ranges that have already been searched. The last time I checked, only one of the k's was reserved.

Prime / date found
236377*2^19693-1; 10/1998
278077*2^56913-1; 12/1998
370421*2^201442-1; 11/2000
464909*2^73740-1; 2/1999
487811*2^42478-1; 11/1998


In my verifications, in order to keep them from having a gap in searching, I have now completed searching all of the above k's up to n=100K and found no additional primes. So Karsten, in addition to adding the primes, you can show them all searched up to 100K with no gaps with the exception of k=370421. On k=370421, I'm searching up to the prime to completely fill the gap. That is still in process. I should be done with that in the new few days, long before you do another summary update. So hopefully none will have gaps at that time. I'll let you know the outcome of that search when I'm done with it.

Note that I am not reserving these k's. This is a verification effort only for small primes and the top-5000 site assisted in that effort. Hopefully I didn't step on any toes here.


Gary

SB2 2007-07-19 16:50

[QUOTE=Cruelty;110709]Are you still working on it? If yes then, what about k=70079?
I see you are sieving [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=110378&postcount=182"]70079 and some others[/URL] too.
What about those?[/QUOTE]

I should have marked 3343, 3817, 4813 as unreserved. 70079 is now being LLR'ed.

284579 has now also been tested to 1000k with the following primes; 56, 4736. unreserving this one too.

[QUOTE]SB2, can you check and see where you started your testing on your k=239857, 248047, 306251, 320107, 334147, and 808477? I know you started where someone else left off at. It's just that I don't know where that point is.[/QUOTE]

As soon as I can make time, most likely this weekend.

Cruelty 2007-07-19 19:00

[QUOTE=SB2;110751]I should have marked 3343, 3817, 4813 as unreserved. 70079 is now being LLR'ed.[/QUOTE] OK, then I wish to reserve 3343 from n=1M :smile:

kar_bon 2007-07-20 05:37

reserved low weight k=613 from n=260k.
613*2^335655-1 is prime (llr at 340k)

gd_barnes 2007-07-29 21:12

Starting points in testing
 
[quote=SB2;110751]

As soon as I can make time, most likely this weekend.[/quote]


SB2, were you able to come up with those starting points in your testing for the 6 k's that I asked about?


Gary

gd_barnes 2007-07-31 14:52

SB2, me fill low gaps on 2 of your k's ?
 
SB2,

There are some gaps in testing at low values of n on 2 k's where the summary site shows that you have them reserved. But in looking at the thread here, I couldn't tell if you had intended to fill them or not. Being the 'official gap filler' here :smile:, I'd like a chance to fill those gaps if you are OK with it. Here are the particulars:

k=306251; gap from only known prime at n=22 up to n=300K

k=464353; gap below only known prime at n=371279


I would just test in the gapped range only. That would save you some LLR searching at low ranges.


Thanks,
Gary

kar_bon 2007-07-31 23:15

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;110744]
(...)
Prime / date found
236377*2^19693-1; 10/1998
278077*2^56913-1; 12/1998
370421*2^201442-1; 11/2000
464909*2^73740-1; 2/1999
487811*2^42478-1; 11/1998
(...)
[/QUOTE]

hi Gary,
in your post #199 here you mentioned some low primes not in the summary.
i'm just including from TOP5000 id's from 200 to 400, means very first inserted in database. i found many other low primes of k<500000 so this all should be
Riesel numbers with their first prime! look here ([url]http://www.prothsearch.net/rieselprob.html[/url]) and see the text at 'On July 13, 2001, the value of f17 = 35 was established. (...)'
this means there are 35 k's < 509203 with their first prime between 131072 and 262144. other primes you listed could be values from f16, f15,...
so far i found 18 from these 35 k's: 25229, 81517, 105569, 105697, 132071, 132599, 144817, 217807, 285191, 307211, 321043, 331139, 370421, 392737, 393209, 408247, 466783, 485773.
k=466783 i tested in two days upto n=250k and there were only the one prime for n=245839!
to be sure i'm in contact with Wilfrid Keller who searched also these numbers.
(BTW he updated his page k<300 [url]http://www.prothsearch.net/riesel2.html[/url].)
hope i get some infos about all small Riesel numbers.
Karsten

gd_barnes 2007-08-01 05:57

Low-weight k verification status
 
[quote=kar_bon;111450]hi Gary,
in your post #199 here you mentioned some low primes not in the summary.
i'm just including from TOP5000 id's from 200 to 400, means very first inserted in database. i found many other low primes of k<500000 so this all should be
Riesel numbers with their first prime! look here ([URL]http://www.prothsearch.net/rieselprob.html[/URL]) and see the text at 'On July 13, 2001, the value of f17 = 35 was established. (...)'
this means there are 35 k's < 509203 with their first prime between 131072 and 262144. other primes you listed could be values from f16, f15,...
so far i found 18 from these 35 k's: 25229, 81517, 105569, 105697, 132071, 132599, 144817, 217807, 285191, 307211, 321043, 331139, 370421, 392737, 393209, 408247, 466783, 485773.
k=466783 i tested in two days upto n=250k and there were only the one prime for n=245839!
to be sure i'm in contact with Wilfrid Keller who searched also these numbers.
(BTW he updated his page k<300 [URL]http://www.prothsearch.net/riesel2.html[/URL].)
hope i get some infos about all small Riesel numbers.
Karsten[/quote]


Karsten,

3 days ago, I completed an extensive search on 57 low-weight k's shown on our summary site for 200K < k < 1M up to n=100K. I found primes on all k's that are not being searched by Riesel sieve that are less than the 1st true Riesel number at k=509203. That was my main objective of this effort.

I was already aware of the primes shown in the Riesel Sieve effort but I wanted to test them up to at least n=100K or to their first known prime. In some cases, there were multiple primes whereas they only showed the first found prime, for obvious reasons. On most of the ones where we didn't previously post a prime, it's because we hadn't tested them here yet. But on 6 total k's, I found 'truly missing' primes. That is they are shown as tested quite high on our summary site but did not have small primes listed.

I was not so successful finding primes for 509203 < k < 1M and obviously those aren't being tested by Riesel Sieve. There turned out to be 10 k's in that range where I couldn't find a prime up to n=100K so I seached all of those up to n=300K with little success...I only found a prime on ONE of them! So even after all of this testing, there will still be 9 low-weight k's for 509203 < k < 1M that will have no primes found up to n=300K. Most were unreserved but on the couple that were, I confirmed that no primes had been found by anyone else in this thread. So...we have some 'really composite' k's in that range that may be 'more composite' than many of the k's currently being searched by Riesel Sieve, but still not provable as a true Riesel number.

I'm sure there's some overlap in your effort and mine but both are definitely necessary efforts to get everything correct and listed. I'll find some things that you won't and you'll find some things that I won't and where there's overlap, we'll be confirming one another's testing and research.

I'm holding off posting my large list waiting a response from SB2 to my two questions above before posting them all. I'm trying not to step on toes here. There seems to be some inconsistency on whether they are reserved or not by him. On ones that he has only sieved or partially sieved but not yet LLR'd, some are shown as reserved and some aren't. I really hope to get a response from him to my questions in the next few days. Once I do, I may do some additional gap-filling (see below) and then post my entire list. At that point, we should have major fill ins on k's with no current primes shown as well as several gaps filled.

On a final note, in order to speed this 'clean up' process along, you may be able to answer the 2 questions that I have for SB2 as follows:

1. Is there a way for you to look back and see where SB2 may have started his testing on k=239857, 248047, 306251, 320107, 334147, and 808477? If you have an old archived copy of a prior summary site, you may be able to tell. If he started at n > 100K on one or more of them, then I may want to do some additional verification.

2. Can you see if he really has k=464353 reserved? It seems obvious that he still has k=306251 reserved. His last status 2-3 weeks ago says he's "Done to 550k no new primes..testing on hold". But on k=464353, I cound not find where that one was ever officially reserved even though it's shown as reserved on the summary site. The last we saw on that one is that he was sieveing it way back on March 18th, 2007 but there has never been in testing and no further status reports on it. I'd really like to knock out the gap on these two as the final part of this effort.



Thanks a bunch,
Gary


-edit-
Additional comment:
Note that I did not do any research or testing on any k's that were not already shown on our summary site so it looks like our efforts are mostly separate from one another. There were already so many k's shown on our site in that range that I didn't want to take on any additional effort at the time. It looks like in your effort, you have discovered many new k's with primes to list from Riesel Sieve. On some of their earlier searches where the prime is relatively low, I suspect that some of them may not be very low weight.

gd_barnes 2007-08-28 07:30

57 low-weights for k=200K-1M missing & addl primes
 
1 Attachment(s)
Karsten,

I've held off waiting on a response from SB2 for long enough now. I posted 3 messages in this thread and sent him a PM over a month ago asking for additional information, all with no response. So it's time for me to post this large verification effort that I did on low-weight k's. It will give everyone a lot of good information.

See the attached list for missing and additional low-weight primes to post. There were 6 'truly missing' primes. What this does is that it gives us at least one prime for every k < 509203 that is listed on our summary site and is not being searched by Riesel-sieve. That and double-checking for low primes were my main objectives of the effort.

All needed details are in the attachment but here is a synopsis of my thinking when doing testing:
1. All low-weight k's for 200K < k < 1M were tested up to n=100K with a few exceptions that already had several primes.
2. If no primes were found for a k in #1, then it was tested up to n=300K.
3. If prior testing had already been done for 100K < n < 375K, then I double-checked the entire testing range and tested a little further.

A secondary objective of the effort was to find very composite k's > 509203 that would be interesting for others to search for larger primes. I found 9 k's with Nash weight > 0 where 509203 < k < 1M had no primes up to at least n=300K. I call these "quasi Riesel #'s". :wink: For everyone's prime-searching pleasure, I'll list them right here. :smile:

low-weight k's for 509203 < k < 1M with Nash weight > 0 that have no primes for n <= 300K:
612509
671413
685183
686711
700057
780427
844559
963643
981493

5 of the 9 k's above are unreserved and the other 4 are showing reserved by SB2, but I don't think anyone really knows for sure. 3 of those 4 show 'sieved to 2000K ready to test' over 6 weeks ago but what does that really mean? Is he going to post the sieve file for others to test or is he going to test them himself? The other one shows "I have stated sieving" over 5 MONTHS ago! But no follow-up was ever given.

If anyone can get a hold of SB2, please let him know that we badly need a status update from him.

The attachment is in an Excel spreadsheet. Let me know if you have any problems reading it.


Gary

humanoverlord 2007-09-08 20:54

Status update: k=56251213 now at n=2.06M and still looking.

gd_barnes 2007-09-18 17:50

Low-weight primes for k=8M-12M up to n=100K
 
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]I decided to give one of my cores a 'break' last night from top-5000 searches and have it do some prime searches for all low-weight k's shown on our site from k=8M to 12M up to n=100K. Below is what I found.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[quote]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]k: n[/FONT][/COLOR]
9096613: 47, 50951
9705763: 49335
9770317: 2205
10013593: 3847
10108837: 33657
10247561: 730
10284899: 868, 2596
10296007: 24305
10346561: 32714
10598947: 3025
10639619: 24
10906603: 23, 2471
10932097: 35045
10943321: 374, 2390
11311003: 3
11553221: 170, 54026
11639819: 12, 5124
11846279: 72
[/quote]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]4 of these primes had already been found and posted but I'm listing them all for completeness here.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]3 of the primes were 'missing'. That is the k had been previously searched past the range of the prime but they had not been posted.[/COLOR][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]If anyone is interested in searching some barren k's, here is a list of them in this range that still have no primes up to n=100K as searched by me or higher as previously searched by others:[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]8376239[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]8922449[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]10453199[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]10463923[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]10544249[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]10671431[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]10813783[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]11223059[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]11319193[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]11468609[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]11658187[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]11716993[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]11741347[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]11847299[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]11932211[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]11955659[/COLOR][/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]Gary[/COLOR][/FONT]

gd_barnes 2007-09-19 18:29

k's for last search
 
I just realized that I didn't include all of the k's that I searched in the last post. They are all of the ones marked in light blue for 8M < k < 12M on the summary page. But for future historical reference, I'll list them all here. To get the prior list of primes, I searched all of the following low-weight k's up to n=100K:

[quote]
8288233
8376239
8922449
9096613
9705763
9770317
10013593
10108837
10247561
10284899
10296007
10346561
10453199
10463923
10544249
10598947
10639619
10671431
10805593
10813783
10906603
10932097
10943321
11223059
11311003
11319193
11468609
11553221
11639819
11658187
11716993
11741347
11846279
11847299
11932211
11955659
[/quote]

Gary

kar_bon 2007-09-21 09:20

k=24186941
 
tested above k upto n=1M. one prime found at n=3802.
no further reservation of this k.

kar_bon 2007-10-11 11:57

k=371944871 tested to n=255k
filled gap: 26, 38, 98, 326, 1658, 2222, 58706, 217502*, 253358*
(*=confirmed)
no further reservation

kar_bon 2007-11-10 23:09

k=50227
 
tested upto n=1M, no more primes, no further reservation

mdettweiler 2007-11-11 00:56

I'm wondering...what is the difference between high weight and low weight k's? I was reading some of the earlier posts in this thread and I was kind of confused. Do low weight k's LLR faster or slower than high weight ones? Does sieving tend to remove more candidates earlier on for low weight, or high weight? Which ones generally have a higher concentration of primes?

amphoria 2007-11-11 10:32

Low weight k's have lots of values of n with small factors and therefore after sieving to a given depth there are fewer candidates remaining to LLR. Conversely high weight k's do not have the small factors and therefore there are lots of candidates remaining to LLR at the same sieve depth. Thus high weight k's would be expected to have more primes in a given range of n.

The weight does not make any difference to the time to LLR a given candidate as LLR time depends on the value of n and the size of the FFT that has to be used to perform the LLR. The size of the FFT is dependent on the value of k - larger values of k require larger FFT's. Thus k<300 are faster to LLR at a given value of n than larger k's.

mdettweiler 2007-11-11 14:25

[quote=amphoria;118208]Low weight k's have lots of values of n with small factors and therefore after sieving to a given depth there are fewer candidates remaining to LLR. Conversely high weight k's do not have the small factors and therefore there are lots of candidates remaining to LLR at the same sieve depth. Thus high weight k's would be expected to have more primes in a given range of n.

The weight does not make any difference to the time to LLR a given candidate as LLR time depends on the value of n and the size of the FFT that has to be used to perform the LLR. The size of the FFT is dependent on the value of k - larger values of k require larger FFT's. Thus k<300 are faster to LLR at a given value of n than larger k's.[/quote]
Thanks! :smile:

Cruelty 2007-11-18 08:56

Milestone report for k=3343
 
k=3343 tested till n=2M, I'm still working on it :flex:

Cruelty 2007-12-13 20:36

k=3343 tested till n=2.1M, I'm still working on it.

Cruelty 2008-01-02 19:19

k=3343 tested till n=2.2M, I'm still working on it.

kar_bon 2008-01-03 23:31

k=161464717
 
tested till n=1M
2 primes: 181 and 182845 (reported by Thomas)
no further testing

VBCurtis 2008-01-04 00:03

k=13900807 tested to 2.6M. Still going, slowly, to 4M.
-Curtis

Cruelty 2008-01-22 21:41

k=3343 tested till n=2.3M, I'm still working on it.

Cruelty 2008-02-19 01:23

k=3343 tested till n=2.4M, I'm still working on it.

humanoverlord 2008-04-08 21:47

k = 56251213 now at n=2.52M and still chugging along, albeit slowly...

Cruelty 2009-03-17 15:22

Meanwhile I have continuously tested k=3343 till n=3.1M. I am still working on this k.

Cruelty 2009-05-24 15:20

k=3343 tested till n=3.2M. I'm still working on it.

Cruelty 2009-07-24 21:43

k=3343 tested till n=3.3M. I'm still working on it.

Cruelty 2009-09-30 08:27

Status report
 
k=3343 tested till n=3.4M. I'm still working on it.

Cruelty 2010-01-17 08:50

k=3343 tested till n=3.5M. I'm still working on it.

Cruelty 2010-04-07 19:38

k=3343 tested till n=3.6M. I'm still working on it.

Cruelty 2010-06-24 21:48

k=3343 tested till n=3.7M. I'm still working on it.

Jean Penné 2010-07-28 19:07

Status for k = 442513453
 
Hello,

It is time I give some news about k = 442513453 (Nash weight = 11) that
I reserved a long time ago...

I reached to-day n = 4066115, no prime so far, but I wish to continue...

The file I am testing is sieved up to 100 Tera and contains exponents up to
333,000,000 ; no hope needed to persevere...

Regards,
Jean

Kosmaj 2010-07-31 08:59

[B]Jean[/B]

Thank you for your report, and we wish you to hit a prime soon!

Cruelty 2010-12-08 21:08

Status report
 
k=3343 tested till n=4M. I'm still working on it.

Cruelty 2010-12-23 11:10

I'm reserving k=6883 from n=1M.

Thomas11 2011-01-28 09:05

Status report
 
k=59493015971 has been tested to n=5M, continuing.

Merfighters 2011-02-10 09:47

Now I will post future k=14141 status here.
k=14141: tested up to 810k, no new primes, I'm still testing on it.

Cruelty 2011-03-06 14:49

Status report
 
k=3343 tested till n= 4.1M
k=6883 tested till n= 2.1M

Cruelty 2011-06-01 15:53

status report
 
k=3343 tested till n= 4.2M
k=6883 tested till n= 2.9M

Merfighters 2011-06-08 13:45

k=14141, n=990K, Still testing.

Jean Penné 2011-06-13 17:14

Status for k = 442513453
 
Hello,

I reached to-day n = 6028835, no prime so far, continuing...

The file I am testing is now sieved up to 145 Tera and contains exponents up to
333,000,000

Regards,
Jean

Merfighters 2011-07-21 05:45

k=14141, n=1004k, still testing.

SaneMur 2011-07-21 12:59

For k = 11235813, last prime was 161927, tested up to 228328 as of this morning.

It looks like by tomorrow I will reach the 250K mark, which has been sieved through 30T so far for exponents up to 1 M. BY the Prime Number Theorem I should be encountering a prime today, but we all know how that usually goes.

:smile:

Thomas11 2011-07-21 14:10

[QUOTE=SaneMur;267119]For k = 11235813, last prime was 161927, tested up to 228328 as of this morning.[/QUOTE]

Please note, that this thread is for reporting stats on [B]low weight[/B] sequences, which typically have Nash weights less than about 500 or so.

The Nash weight of your k is 1990, which I wouldn't call a [I]low weight[/I].

So, keep reporting your status on k=11235813 within the [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=4963"]Choose your own K[/URL] thread.

Cruelty 2011-09-01 07:36

status report
 
k=3343 tested till n= 4.3M
k=6883 tested till n= 3.3M

Jean Penné 2011-11-23 07:26

Status for k=442413453
 
Hello,

I reached to-day n = 6688355, no prime so far, continuing...

The file I am testing is now sieved up to 201 Tera and contains exponents up to
333,000,000

- So, I am now seaching for a prime larger than 2 millions digits base 10 but...

Regards,
Jean

kar_bon 2011-11-23 07:53

[QUOTE=Jean Penné;279561]Hello,

I reached to-day n = 6688355, no prime so far, continuing...
[/QUOTE]

I assume you meant k=442513453 (Nash=11) because k=442413453 got a Nash-weight of 1841.

Jean Penné 2011-11-23 09:38

[QUOTE=kar_bon;279563]I assume you meant k=442513453 (Nash=11) because k=442413453 got a Nash-weight of 1841.[/QUOTE]

Oh yes, indeed, sorry for this typo!
Jean

Thomas11 2011-11-28 13:46

k=59493015971 has just reached n=7M. :showoff:

Cruelty 2011-11-29 13:50

status report
 
k=3343 tested till n= 4.4M
k=6883 tested till n= 3.8M

Thomas11 2011-12-31 19:17

status report
 
k=59493015971 is now fully tested up to [B]n=10M[/B].
I'm stopping there and will take some other (even lower weighted) Ks instead.

If someone (Jean?) want's to take this k further, just feel free to do so!

Thomas11 2012-01-18 15:06

I generated a new bunch (a few hundreds) of some extremely low weight Ks, out of which I'm currently processing 55 Ks to n=1M. On average there are only 24 candidates per million to be LLR tested (which is just about 1/3rd of the number of candidates of my former lowest weighted sequence for k=59493015971).

Since the Nash weights (w) are almost zero, I adopted an "extended" Nash weight (w') using a larger interval (n=1-100000 instead of the n=100000-110000 for the default Nash weight).

The following 12 Ks are already done to n=1M (no primes):

[CODE] k w w'
-------------------------------
48339404892961177 1 14
406073582908236461 1 14
592979134808991457 2 13
652850574413930323 2 14
722628597787516781 1 11
779459145704090233 0 11
1120506687783216073 1 15
1169903532554197841 2 13
1230093405438569351 0 12
1453925393534176987 1 11
1785111313457786563 0 10
1798192187704866367 1 10
[/CODE]

I will report the others once they are finished to n=1M.

Of course, there is a good chance that some of those Ks are actually Riesel numbers. So, the challenge is open to find some unknown covering sets... :smile:

Thomas11 2012-02-10 09:57

Here comes the remaining part of the 55 extremely low weight Ks.
All tested to n=1M, no primes:

[CODE] k w w'
-------------------------------
1857833492721734399 2 14
1889973078421276391 2 11
2134283979496977071 2 14
2336808081874555027 0 14
2361395635463628913 1 9
2382824198781367777 1 14
2429751258528036643 0 8
2836914664354991819 1 13
2906083326630193357 1 7
2922711893866140097 2 13
3357318879583504987 1 11
3590135939982057041 1 9
3905879503574758663 2 14
4147838629795642961 0 11
4150722274592923633 0 11
4909752721230431699 1 13
4912819163835060913 1 11
5234218736802825547 1 13
5412103969953297493 0 11
5525169014874395083 0 15
5676538842682825567 1 12
6161602957511341897 0 11
6500156429041023487 1 13
6637512635665889863 1 11
6769336298281479701 1 10
6838389932203592981 0 14
6976449340148941409 1 11
7135659833720286523 2 10
7156629629285559641 2 14
7247899968266151097 1 11
7333936375096049413 0 5
7419486210481787381 1 13
7493892384027423131 3 11
7521556265302368389 1 7
7765247154549407503 1 10
7792196351147980619 1 12
7860917433568278179 1 10
7861962846623813377 1 15
8089507880965116551 3 10
8119785642358069297 2 10
8503602799194836803 1 12
8510030899264686877 2 15
8747510320667708377 1 8
[/CODE]

As before, w is the standard Nash weight (n=100000-110000) and w' means "extended" Nash weight (for the interval n=1-100000).

Cruelty 2012-02-12 10:44

Status report
 
k=3343 tested till n= 4.5M
k=6883 tested till n= 4.0M

Jean Penné 2012-03-29 14:22

Status for k = 442513453
 
Hello,

I reached to-day n = 7000475, no prime so far, continuing...

The file I am testing is now sieved up to 241 Tera and contains exponents up to
333,000,000

Regards,
Jean

Jean Penné 2012-03-29 14:46

k=59493015971
 
[QUOTE=Thomas11;284264]k=59493015971 is now fully tested up to [B]n=10M[/B].
I'm stopping there and will take some other (even lower weighted) Ks instead.

If someone (Jean?) want's to take this k further, just feel free to do so![/QUOTE]

Thank you, Thomas, for your proposal!
I can now use a 4 core 64bit CPU to try to go further on this k value.
Do you still have a presieved file with exponents >= 10M ?
If yes I would be happy to start with it.

Thank you by advance and Best Regards,
Jean

Thomas11 2012-03-29 15:29

[QUOTE=Jean Penné;294649]
Do you still have a presieved file with exponents >= 10M ?
If yes I would be happy to start with it.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry, Jean, but I sieved the exponents only for the interval n=0-10M.

Kind regards,

Thomas

Jean Penné 2012-03-29 19:30

[QUOTE=Thomas11;294658]Sorry, Jean, but I sieved the exponents only for the interval n=0-10M.

Kind regards,

Thomas[/QUOTE]

It is not grave, but would you send me the sieved file up to 10M, and the lresults file? may be I would make a double checking (after finding a prime...)

Thank you by advance and Best Regards,
Jean

Thomas11 2012-04-03 10:32

1 Attachment(s)
[QUOTE=Jean Penné;294702]It is not grave, but would you send me the sieved file up to 10M, and the lresults file? may be I would make a double checking (after finding a prime...)
[/QUOTE]

It took me a little time to dig out the old results files.
Please find them attached (including the sieve file).
Actually all below one million digits (n=3.3M) is missing.

Good luck for your search!

Jean Penné 2012-04-03 12:05

Sieve file and results
 
[QUOTE=Thomas11;295247]It took me a little time to dig out the old results files.
Please find them attached (including the sieve file).
Actually all below one million digits (n=3.3M) is missing.

Good luck for your search![/QUOTE]

Thank you very much, Thomas!

I will keep these files carefully!
For now, I am only sieving for this k value, but sr1sieve-x86_64-linux is really fast : I have already overtaken p = 2T!

Best Regards,
Jean

Kosmaj 2012-04-05 21:40

To Henry and Thomas

I moved your discussion to a new thread called [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=16700"]Generating Low-Weight Ks[/URL].

otutusaus 2012-05-17 02:27

k=9787 tested up to n=1M.
No new primes found. Releasing this k.

Cruelty 2012-05-21 16:15

Status report
 
k=3343 tested till n= 4.6M
k=6883 tested till n= 4.4M

amphoria 2012-05-31 15:15

k=2683 at n=2.30M

Cruelty 2012-09-30 12:42

Status report
 
k=3343 tested till n= 4.7M
k=6883 tested till n= 4.7M

Cruelty 2012-12-01 18:06

k=3343 tested till n= 4.8M
k=6883 tested till n= 4.9M

Cruelty 2013-02-14 21:35

status report
 
k=3343 tested till n= 4.9M
k=6883 tested till n= 5.1M

Cruelty 2013-06-02 22:18

status report
 
k=3343 tested till n= 5.1M
k=6883 tested till n= 5.2M

Antonio 2013-06-08 12:24

k=7333936375096049413

No Primes to n=3M

Antonio 2013-06-16 15:59

k=7333936375096049413

No Primes to n=4M

Antonio 2013-06-28 05:32

k=7333936375096049413

No Primes to n=5M

Antonio 2013-07-10 05:39

k=7333936375096049413

No Primes below n=6M

Antonio 2013-07-31 05:54

k=7333936375096049413

No Primes below n=7M

Stopping search at this point.

Citrix 2013-08-01 08:12

[QUOTE=Citrix;84591]Can I reserve

[code]
1665624349782373
10075614324682349
12782924755172441
15335906269828439
23009979551311559
30729699810869707
41360993926068041
49050506465852977
49791527843569597
50670759245200691
72292129717621199
(11 k)

[/code]
[/QUOTE]

Forgot to post this earlier, there was an error on my part. One of the k's actually did produce a prime (it was in the n=600K range approx and I think it was k=1665624349782373). Can't find the files right now. (It would have made the top 5000 list at that time:yucky::redface::bangheadonwall::blush:... no point checking it again)


7393513980157211*2^193554-1 is prime!:smile:
Reserving
73369061163506189
72034954241261729
7393513980157211
12066462798697631
23009979551311559
&
406073582908236461
592979134808991457
652850574413930323
722628597787516781
1169903532554197841
1785111313457786563
1857833492721734399
2134283979496977071
2382824198781367777
2429751258528036643
2836914664354991819
2906083326630193357
2922711893866140097
3357318879583504987
3590135939982057041
3905879503574758663
4147838629795642961
4150722274592923633
4912819163835060913
5234218736802825547
5412103969953297493
5676538842682825567
6161602957511341897
6500156429041023487
6637512635665889863
6769336298281479701
6838389932203592981
6976449340148941409
7135659833720286523
7156629629285559641
7247899968266151097
7333936375096049413
7419486210481787381
7493892384027423131
7521556265302368389
7765247154549407503
7792196351147980619
7860917433568278179
8089507880965116551
8119785642358069297
8747510320667708377

Does someone have an exe program to generate more of these extremely low weight numbers? Thomas11 could you post the other extremely low wt numbers you generated.:bow: Thanks!

Kosmaj 2013-08-16 00:25

I moved the discussion about generating low weight numbers (multipliers) here:
[url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=18471[/url]

Cruelty 2013-09-30 23:00

status report
 
k=3343 tested till n= 5.2M
k=6883 tested till n= 5.3M

Kosmaj 2013-11-24 01:08

I moved all posts about the new low weight project started by Citrix, Thomas, and Larry to a [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=18943"]new thread[/URL]. Please post your new messages on this topic there.

Cruelty 2014-03-01 01:38

status report
 
k=3343 tested till n= 5.4M
k=6883 tested till n= 5.4M

Cruelty 2014-06-30 21:50

status report
 
k=3343 tested till n= 5.6M
k=6883 tested till n= 5.6M

Citrix 2014-09-29 03:52

Status report
 
k=124679 tested to 3.5M
No new primes.

Cruelty 2014-09-30 22:30

status report
 
k=3343 tested till n= 5.9M
k=6883 tested till n= 5.9M

Jean Penné 2014-10-07 07:55

I wish to work again on k=138847
 
Hi Joss,

Do you want to continue to reserve k = 138847 and work on it?
I wish to work again on this k for several reasons :

1) To carefully double-check for exponents <= 1283793, in order to prove that the two primes already found are the only ones in this range.

2) To continue sieving, and later, testing for very large exponents.
For now, I sieved this k from scratch, using sr1sieve_64-linux for exponents up to 400,000,000 and reached more than 26T. I think the progresses in hardware and software since April 2003 (when I found this prime, using NewPgen and the very first version of LLR!) are very impressive and allow some hope with this low weight k...

Thank you by advance for your response and best regards,
Jean

Cruelty 2015-01-03 01:20

status report
 
k=3343 tested till n= 6.1M
k=6883 tested till n= 6.1M

Jean Penné 2015-01-03 10:15

k = 138847
 
Hi,

1) - The double check up to n = 1283793, using the last version of LLR, proves that n = 33 and n = 1283793 are the only exponents yielding a prime in this range (all residues match with those of year 2003).

2) - The file for n < 400,000,000 is today sieved up to 105 T, 228,039 n's remain, and one is eliminated each 1350s, so, I will wait still a little more before launching the next LLR tests...

Happy new year and Best Regards,
Jean

Cruelty 2015-02-28 20:41

status report
 
k=3343 tested till n= 6.2M
k=6883 tested till n= 6.3M

Beyond 2015-04-16 12:48

3817 tested to 2.0 m
9913 tested to 2.0 m

Cruelty 2015-10-31 19:08

k=3343 tested till n= 6.5M
k=6883 tested till n= 6.6M

Cruelty 2016-01-03 02:35

status report
 
k=3343 tested till n= 6.6M
k=6883 tested till n= 6.8M

diep 2016-02-15 11:22

k=733 tested till 4M. Still going.

Cruelty 2016-07-01 00:09

status report
 
k=3343 tested till n= 6.9M
k=6883 tested till n= 7.3M

Cruelty 2016-09-29 22:32

status report
 
k=3343 tested till n= 7167543 - [B]releasing this "k"[/B]
k=6883 tested till n= 7.5M


All times are UTC. The time now is 18:56.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.