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 2017-05-02 00:36

status report
 
k=6883 tested till n= 8.1M

Cruelty 2017-07-02 23:10

status report
 
k=6883 tested till n= 8.3M

Cruelty 2018-01-01 14:24

status report
 
k=6883 tested till n= 8.5M

Cruelty 2018-05-03 17:56

status report
 
k=6883 tested till n= 8.7M

Jean Penné 2018-05-04 19:22

Status for k=138847
 
Hi,
k=138847 is now tested up to n=10,071,249 ; no new prime, continuing.
The input file is sieved up to 1P and contains 213,091 candidates for n=33 to n=399,999,633
Regards,
Jean

paulunderwood 2018-05-04 19:46

[QUOTE=Jean Penné;486976]Hi,
k=138847 is now tested up to n=10,071,249 ; no new prime, continuing.
The input file is sieved up to 1P and contains 213,091 candidates for n=33 to n=399,999,633
Regards,
Jean[/QUOTE]

My-my! That is a large domain to search and so few candidates left after sieving. Good luck with finding a big prime!

Jean Penné 2018-05-06 15:24

Status for k=138847
 
[QUOTE=paulunderwood;486979]My-my! That is a large domain to search and so few candidates left after sieving. Good luck with finding a big prime![/QUOTE]

Thank you, Paul, for encouraging me!
I am continuing this search on this k value because of the prime 138847 *2^1283793-1 I discovered in April 2003, using the very first LLR version (without IBDWT)! This prime was then the 10th rank in larger known primes.
But, in fact, I was then very, very lucky!
Indeed, the Nash weight for k=138847 is 29, which correspond to a value of Ck- = 0.0476 of the Gallot weight (Cf the paper by Yves Gallot "On the number of primes in a sequence").
Then, it it is interesting to apply the formula given by Yves in page 6 of his work, to compute the expected number of primes found up to exponent N :

Pi(N) ~ Ck-*log2[(1.5*N+log2(k))/(1+log2(k))]

Then, I find :

Pi(1400000) ~ 0.80 (but there are 2 primes in this range).
Pi (10000000) ~ 0.94
Pi(180000000) ~ 1.13
Pi(360000000) ~ 1.16

The only thing we are sure is 138847 is not a Riesel number, n = 33 and n = 1283793 yielding primes but the chance to find larger primes is rather small...
Nevertheless, I hope to be lucky a second time...

Best Regards,
Jean

pepi37 2018-05-06 22:40

[QUOTE=Jean Penné;487083]

The only thing we are sure is 138847 is not a Riesel number, n = 33 and n = 1283793 yielding primes but the chance to find larger primes is rather small...
Nevertheless, I hope to be lucky a second time...

Best Regards,
Jean[/QUOTE]

I would like to ask : Riesel number as Proth number by definition has no prime at all. So weight of both types of number in that case would be 0.
So my question is: can for example candidate have weight 30 and still not to produce prime never , or prime exist, but since weight is too low, and position of prime is random, prime cannot be found so quickly.

Jean Penné 2018-05-11 15:42

[QUOTE=pepi37;487102]I would like to ask : Riesel number as Proth number by definition has no prime at all. So weight of both types of number in that case would be 0.
So my question is: can for example candidate have weight 30 and still not to produce prime never , or prime exist, but since weight is too low, and position of prime is random, prime cannot be found so quickly.[/QUOTE]

The Nash weight of a k value is obtained while testing the divisibility by a finite number of primes ; a zero result proves that the set of divisors is, or contains a covering set, so the k value is a Riesel or Sierpinski number.
On the other part, a low weight value for k can be found while there exists a covering set which can be huge, or even, infinite... This possibility remains while no prime are found for this k!

Regards,
Jean

pepi37 2018-05-11 18:12

[QUOTE=Jean Penné;487414]The Nash weight of a k value is obtained while testing the divisibility by a finite number of primes ; a zero result proves that the set of divisors is, or contains a covering set, so the k value is a Riesel or Sierpinski number.
On the other part, a low weight value for k can be found while there exists a covering set which can be huge, or even, infinite... This possibility remains while no prime are found for this k!

Regards,
Jean[/QUOTE]

So regardless fact that some k can have positive nash weight, that K does not have any prime. That is good to know

Jean Penné 2018-05-21 14:54

Status for k=138847
 
Hi,
k=138847 is now tested up to n=10,222,017(3,077,139 decimal digits) ; no new prime, continuing.
Regards,
Jean

Grotex 2018-06-24 05:29

[B]jocelynl[/B] Can I reserve k=1466501(=29*61*829)?

Greetings,
Grotex

Grotex 2018-06-24 06:37

[QUOTE=Grotex;490398][B]jocelynl[/B] Can I reserve k=1466501(=29*61*829)?

Greetings,
Grotex[/QUOTE]

Nash weight of 1466501 : 119

Grotex 2018-06-27 10:00

[QUOTE=Grotex;490398][B]jocelynl[/B] Can I reserve k=1466501(=29*61*829)?

Greetings,
Grotex[/QUOTE]

Seems that I am not welcomed...
Then I give up.

VBCurtis 2018-06-27 13:07

Nobody objects to your request; you posted a question to a member who checks in perhaps 3-4 times a year. You shouldn't expect an answer in a week!

Jean Penné 2018-07-02 13:05

Status for k=138847
 
Hi,
k=138847 is now tested up to n=10,508,433(3,163,359 decimal digits) ; no new prime, continuing.
Regards,
Jean

Jean Penné 2018-08-28 09:30

Status for k=138847
 
Hi,
k=138847 is now tested up to n=10,901,697(3,281,743 decimal digits) ; no new prime, continuing.
Regards,
Jean

Cruelty 2018-09-02 00:30

status report
 
k=6883 tested till n= 9M

Jean Penné 2018-11-03 15:20

Status for k=138847
 
Hi,
k=138847 is now tested up to n=11,262,849(3,390,461 decimal digits) ; no new prime, continuing.
Regards,
Jean

Cruelty 2018-11-30 23:32

status report
 
k=6883 tested till n= 9.2M

Jean Penné 2018-12-05 07:06

Status for k=138847
 
Hi,
k=138847 is now tested up to n=11,401,089(3,432,075 decimal digits) ; no new prime, continuing.
Regards,
Jean

Cruelty 2019-09-05 13:18

status report
 
k=6883 tested till n= 10M

Cruelty 2020-01-03 20:44

status report
 
k=6883 tested till n= 10.3M

storm5510 2020-02-01 15:39

There does not seem to be much activity here now. :huh:

Jean Penné 2020-02-08 13:56

Status for k = 138847
 
Hi,
k=138847 is now tested up to n=11,522,913(3,468,748 decimal digits) ; no new prime, continuing.
Regards,
Jean

Happy5214 2020-02-09 09:11

[QUOTE=Jean Penné;537071]Hi,
k=138847 is now tested up to n=11,522,913(3,468,748 decimal digits) ; no new prime, continuing.
Regards,
Jean[/QUOTE]

To confirm, does that include the range from n=1283793 to n=10M (which is the earliest progress report you posted)?

Happy5214 2020-02-09 09:16

Reserving the following k's from n=1 to 1M (including DC of Gary's work):

612509
671413
685183
686711
700057

Also reserving k=963643 to at least n=2M, k=10453199 to at least n=3.5M, k=10813783 to at least n=1M, and k=1665624349782373 to n=1.5M, including DCs from n=1.

storm5510 2020-02-09 14:21

10009
 
Commencing on [I]k[/I] = 10009. I didn't see it any database I searched. If this has been ran, please let me know.

storm5510 2020-02-09 23:07

[I]k[/I] = 10009. Some lightweight results from the start:

[QUOTE]10009*2^3-1
10009*2^27-1
10009*2^71-1
10009*2^101-1
10009*2^157-1
10009*2^279-1
10009*2^311-1
10009*2^679-1
10009*2^837-1
10009*2^1101-1
10009*2^1569-1
10009*2^2219-1
10009*2^2343-1
10009*2^5527-1
10009*2^7109-1
10009*2^7847-1
10009*2^9797-1
10009*2^25797-1
10009*2^47871-1
10009*2^57271-1[/QUOTE]

storm5510 2020-02-10 03:51

[I]k[/I] = 10009, [I]n[/I] = 192999
Hardware issue forced a stop.

Jean Penné 2020-02-10 07:22

k=138847
 
[QUOTE=Happy5214;537138]To confirm, does that include the range from n=1283793 to n=10M (which is the earliest progress report you posted)?[/QUOTE]
Yes, indeed, and I am also sieving the input file, now up to 1.61P

Regards,
Jean

VBCurtis 2020-02-10 07:34

[QUOTE=storm5510;537176][I]k[/I] = 10009. Some lightweight results from the start:[/QUOTE]

What makes you think k=10009 is a low-weight k value? This is quite a list of primes, if this was indeed a low-weight k.

storm5510 2020-02-10 16:43

Another project running on my HP

[I]6001*2^114775-1 is prime! (34555 decimal digits)
[/I]
[QUOTE=VBCurtis]What makes you think k=10009 is a low-weight k value? This is quite a list of primes, if this was indeed a low-weight k. [/QUOTE]

How do you define "low weight?"

storm5510 2020-02-10 18:14

[I]6001*2^140449-1 is prime! (42284 decimal digits)[/I]
[I]6001*2^156555-1 is prime! (47132 decimal digits)[/I]

paulunderwood 2020-02-10 23:55

[QUOTE=storm5510;537233]
How do you define "low weight?"[/QUOTE]

Given k, there is a threshold for which the k*2^n-1 numbers left in a sieve is below, given that one has sieved up to some maximum value. Less in the sieve means it is "lighter" and as a result one expects fewer primes. An extreme of weight is a [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riesel_number"]Riesel number[/URL] which has no weight at all. Sometimes Nash weight is used for weight. Heavy means lots of numbers are left in the sieve and consequently one can expect more primes below a maximum n,

There is a program somewhere on this subforum which calculates weights,

storm5510 2020-02-11 14:13

[QUOTE=paulunderwood;537267]Given k, there is a threshold for which the k*2^n-1 numbers left in a sieve is below, given that one has sieved up to some maximum value. Less in the sieve means it is "lighter" and as a result one expects fewer primes. An extreme of weight is a [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riesel_number"]Riesel number[/URL] which has no weight at all. Sometimes Nash weight is used for weight. Heavy means lots of numbers are left in the sieve and consequently one can expect more primes below a maximum n,

There is a program somewhere on this subforum which calculates weights,[/QUOTE]

Got it. Thank you! :smile:

I sieved a range of 50,000 possibilities on my HP overnight to 1e12. There were 1,100 remaining this morning.

[I]6001*2^315529-1 is prime! (94988 decimal digits)[/I]

I hope someone is recording what folks are turning in here!

VBCurtis 2020-02-11 15:08

You've chosen a k value (10009) from a range that nobody is tracking, noted that nobody is tracking it, and posted a bunch of primes of a size that aren't tracked by the top 5000.

If you expect a project to record your work, maybe pick a k value from a range that project cares about? The forum you're posting in, RPS, focuses on k < 300. For historical reasons, it also cares about multiples of 15 even if they're larger than 300 (the project was once called 15k).

No Prime Left Behind focuses on 300 < k < 2000 (I think?).

It should be obvious that you have an unlimited list of k values to choose from, but that doesn't mean someone cares about every possible k. I imagine the prime pages listings might include 6001, but you haven't reached a size that's all that interesting- a day or three of work isn't exactly a massive effort.

storm5510 2020-02-11 15:38

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;537347]You've chosen a k value (10009) from a range that nobody is tracking, noted that nobody is tracking it, and posted a bunch of primes of a size that aren't tracked by the top 5000.

If you expect a project to record your work, maybe pick a k value from a range that project cares about? The forum you're posting in, RPS, focuses on k < 300. For historical reasons, it also cares about multiples of 15 even if they're larger than 300 (the project was once called 15k).

No Prime Left Behind focuses on 300 < k < 2000 (I think?).

It should be obvious that you have an unlimited list of k values to choose from, but that doesn't mean someone cares about every possible k. I imagine the prime pages listings might include 6001, but you haven't reached a size that's all that interesting- a day or three of work isn't exactly a massive effort.[/QUOTE]

<300 has been worked heavily. 10009 did not appear in the top 5000 list nor the Riesel and Proth database. The latter is no longer being updated, it would appear.

6001 on my HP did not seem to have much effort put into it, so I picked it up. It also does not appear in the top 5000 list.

Make a suggestion and I will give it a go...

Happy5214 2020-02-12 05:09

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;537196]What makes you think k=10009 is a low-weight k value? This is quite a list of primes, if this was indeed a low-weight k.[/QUOTE]

Its Nash weight is 1261, which puts it a bit above what is generally considered low-weight (<1000).

I'll add that all k's between 10k and 100k have been fully tested below n~=1k, and k's between 10k and 15k have been tested to n=20k. The results from those can be found at [URL]https://www.rieselprime.de/Data/10e04a.txt[/URL].

(After reading the next few posts after a page cutoff...)

The old Riesel database is gradually being replaced with [URL]https://www.rieselprime.de/ziki/Riesel_prime_table[/URL], which is in a wiki format. [URL]https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=89[/URL] would be a more appropriate place to post low-priority data, or you could apply for a wiki account at [URL]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=24141[/URL] to enter the data yourself.

If you're looking for useful work, you may consider filling in gaps in the data for unreserved k's already in the old or new Riesel DB. Check with [URL]https://github.com/happy5214/rps/[/URL] to make sure you don't overlap with my work in that area. I also am working on the RPS 9th and 10th Drive k's below n=400k, all Woodall and near Woodall k's > 10k, and all k's between 10k and 15k with missing data, all on local PRPNet servers.

Edit: [url]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=7213[/url] has the Nash weight calculators alluded to by Paul.

storm5510 2020-02-12 14:26

[QUOTE=Happy5214;537403]Its Nash weight is 1261, which puts it a bit above what is generally considered low-weight (<1000).

I'll add that all k's between 10k and 100k have been fully tested below n~=1k, and k's between 10k and 15k have been tested to n=20k. The results from those can be found at [URL]https://www.rieselprime.de/Data/10e04a.txt[/URL].

(After reading the next few posts after a page cutoff...)

The old Riesel database is gradually being replaced with [URL]https://www.rieselprime.de/ziki/Riesel_prime_table[/URL], which is in a wiki format. [URL]https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=89[/URL] would be a more appropriate place to post low-priority data, or you could apply for a wiki account at [URL]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=24141[/URL] to enter the data yourself.

[B]If you're looking for useful work, you may consider filling in gaps in the data for unreserved k's already in the old or new Riesel DB[/B]. Check with [URL]https://github.com/happy5214/rps/[/URL] to make sure you don't overlap with my work in that area. I also am working on the RPS 9th and 10th Drive k's below n=400k, all Woodall and near Woodall k's > 10k, and all k's between 10k and 15k with missing data, all on local PRPNet servers.

[B]Edit: [URL]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=7213[/URL] has the Nash weight calculators alluded to by Paul.[/B][/QUOTE]

There are lots of missing [I]k's[/I] in the database. I really do not know how to interpret the Github data. It seems to jump around a lot. If it was in a more strict order, perhaps.

I have been running [I]k[/I] = 6001 for several days. It's "Nash" value is 938. 6001 did not appear in any of the databases. I am approaching [I]n[/I] = 500,000. I was experimenting with Nash on numbers close to what was on my parents mailbox, 3789. 3780 has a Nash value of 4135. 3789's Nash is 2109. There is a second number in the sequence. Sometimes it is higher than the first and other times, it is lower.

[B]VBCurtis[/B] mentioned multiples of 15 were somewhat popular now. Looking at the old database, multiples ending in zero were not there. I was not expecting them to be there.

Unless there is an objection, I will continue with 6001. I was recently "gigged" for not running [I]k's[/I] longer.

storm5510 2020-02-13 00:40

[I]k[/I] = 6001, [I]n[/I] = 500,000 complete.
No additional primes found.
i7 back online. Continuing...

kar_bon 2020-02-13 08:13

[QUOTE=storm5510;537420]6001 did not appear in any of the databases.[/QUOTE]

Sure... Looking at my [url='https://www.rieselprime.de/Data/06000.htm']RPPdB[/url] it was done by [url='https://www.rieselprime.de/FreeDC/Drives/FreeDC_Drive2.htm']FreeDC Drive #2[/url]. See also the Top5000 entry for [url='https://primes.utm.edu/bios/page.php?id=1820']FreeDC[/url].

[QUOTE=storm5510;537420]I was experimenting with Nash on numbers close to what was on my parents mailbox, 3789. 3780 has a Nash value of 4135. 3789's Nash is 2109.
[...]
[B]VBCurtis[/B] mentioned multiples of 15 were somewhat popular now. Looking at the old [/QUOTE]

There're no k-values ending in 0 or even values at all, because only the normalized form of Riesel numbers k*2^n-1 are searched for.
So 3780*2^n-1 is the same as 945*2^(n+2)-1, therefore k=945 is searched here instead.

storm5510 2020-02-13 13:33

[QUOTE=kar_bon;537487]Sure... Looking at my [URL="https://www.rieselprime.de/Data/06000.htm"]RPPdB[/URL] it was done by [URL="https://www.rieselprime.de/FreeDC/Drives/FreeDC_Drive2.htm"]FreeDC Drive #2[/URL]. See also the Top5000 entry for [URL="https://primes.utm.edu/bios/page.php?id=1820"]FreeDC[/URL]....[/QUOTE]

I started 6001 where it left off, 25,789, even though it said it had been tested to 50,000.This is in the Riesel and Proth Database, [URL="https://www.rieselprime.de/default.htm"]https://www.rieselprime.de/default.htm.[/URL] Your first link above seems to be the same. It is an excellent reference despite not being updated now.

kar_bon 2020-02-13 22:24

As Happy5214 said, I'm working on building the Wiki now for holding those data and all history editable for every registered user. The RPPDb was too much for updating by myself, so I hope others will edit the Wiki: Reservations can be done there or own results updated by themselves.
There is still much work to do, not everything is available right now. I just finished to upload the data for Riesel numbers k*2^n-1 for k<300 today with most data of RPPDb but still without history and missing newer primes.

storm5510 2020-02-14 02:36

[QUOTE=kar_bon;537533]...The RPPDb was too much for updating by myself, so I hope others will edit the Wiki: Reservations can be done there or own results updated by themselves.[/QUOTE]

I used to have a Wiki user ID, but it has been years and I have no idea what it was now. Some pages do not require a user ID to edit. What is the address?

I really do not care for running blind, and would much rather have a list to choose from. This way, anyone going there can see what all the others are running and go from there.

kar_bon 2020-02-14 07:19

[QUOTE=storm5510;537538]Some pages do not require a user ID to edit.[/QUOTE]
No, to edit you have to be registered/logged in, otherwise you only can [B]view[/B] the source of any page.

[QUOTE=storm5510;537538]What is the address?[/QUOTE]
See the answers from Happy 5214.

storm5510 2020-02-14 15:16

[QUOTE=kar_bon;537547]No, to edit you have to be registered/logged in, otherwise you only can [B]view[/B] the source of any page.

See the answers from Happy 5214.[/QUOTE]

I can create another Wiki account if this is what is required, or is this something another person must do?

The new database looks good. It seems quite abbreviated. I can understand that. Reproducing all the data from the old database would be a huge task.

storm5510 2020-02-15 00:40

[I]k[/I] = 6001, [I]n[/I] = 700,000 complete.
No additional primes found.
Continuing.

storm5510 2020-02-15 14:57

[I]k[/I] = 6001, [I]n[/I] = 770,000 complete.
No additional primes found.
Stopping.

[B]Abandon in peace.[/B]

storm5510 2020-03-01 12:44

Reserving [I]k[/I] = 22783, Nash= [U]995[/U], on 3/02/2020. I am giving this a day to see if it appears in areas I may not have searched. I found no references. :cat:

Cruelty 2020-04-04 00:22

status report
 
k=6883 tested till n= 10.7M

storm5510 2020-05-12 14:13

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

storm5510 2020-06-10 18:03

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

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

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

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

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

Happy5214 2020-06-11 10:03

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

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

kar_bon 2020-06-11 11:29

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

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

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

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

storm5510 2020-06-12 01:19

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

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

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

kar_bon 2020-06-12 06:08

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

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

storm5510 2020-06-12 17:58

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

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

Happy5214 2020-06-12 19:36

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

storm5510 2020-06-13 22:56

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

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

Happy5214 2020-06-14 10:44

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

Cruelty 2021-01-26 12:04

status report
 
k=6883 tested till n= 11.5M


All times are UTC. The time now is 18:15.

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