status report
k=6883 tested till n= 8.1M

status report
k=6883 tested till n= 8.3M

status report
k=6883 tested till n= 8.5M

status report
k=6883 tested till n= 8.7M

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 
[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] Mymy! That is a large domain to search and so few candidates left after sieving. Good luck with finding a big prime! 
Status for k=138847
[QUOTE=paulunderwood;486979]Mymy! 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 *2^12837931 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 
[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. 
[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 
[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 
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 
[B]jocelynl[/B] Can I reserve k=1466501(=29*61*829)?
Greetings, Grotex 
[QUOTE=Grotex;490398][B]jocelynl[/B] Can I reserve k=1466501(=29*61*829)?
Greetings, Grotex[/QUOTE] Nash weight of 1466501 : 119 
[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. 
Nobody objects to your request; you posted a question to a member who checks in perhaps 34 times a year. You shouldn't expect an answer in a week!

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 
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 
status report
k=6883 tested till n= 9M

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 
status report
k=6883 tested till n= 9.2M

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 
status report
k=6883 tested till n= 10M

status report
k=6883 tested till n= 10.3M

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

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 
[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)? 
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. 
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.

[I]k[/I] = 10009. Some lightweight results from the start:
[QUOTE]10009*2^31 10009*2^271 10009*2^711 10009*2^1011 10009*2^1571 10009*2^2791 10009*2^3111 10009*2^6791 10009*2^8371 10009*2^11011 10009*2^15691 10009*2^22191 10009*2^23431 10009*2^55271 10009*2^71091 10009*2^78471 10009*2^97971 10009*2^257971 10009*2^478711 10009*2^572711[/QUOTE] 
[I]k[/I] = 10009, [I]n[/I] = 192999
Hardware issue forced a stop. 
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 
[QUOTE=storm5510;537176][I]k[/I] = 10009. Some lightweight results from the start:[/QUOTE]
What makes you think k=10009 is a lowweight k value? This is quite a list of primes, if this was indeed a lowweight k. 
Another project running on my HP
[I]6001*2^1147751 is prime! (34555 decimal digits) [/I] [QUOTE=VBCurtis]What makes you think k=10009 is a lowweight k value? This is quite a list of primes, if this was indeed a lowweight k. [/QUOTE] How do you define "low weight?" 
[I]6001*2^1404491 is prime! (42284 decimal digits)[/I]
[I]6001*2^1565551 is prime! (47132 decimal digits)[/I] 
[QUOTE=storm5510;537233]
How do you define "low weight?"[/QUOTE] Given k, there is a threshold for which the k*2^n1 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=paulunderwood;537267]Given k, there is a threshold for which the k*2^n1 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*2^3155291 is prime! (94988 decimal digits)[/I] I hope someone is recording what folks are turning in here! 
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=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... 
[QUOTE=VBCurtis;537196]What makes you think k=10009 is a lowweight k value? This is quite a list of primes, if this was indeed a lowweight k.[/QUOTE]
Its Nash weight is 1261, which puts it a bit above what is generally considered lowweight (<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 lowpriority 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. 
[QUOTE=Happy5214;537403]Its Nash weight is 1261, which puts it a bit above what is generally considered lowweight (<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 lowpriority 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. 
[I]k[/I] = 6001, [I]n[/I] = 500,000 complete.
No additional primes found. i7 back online. Continuing... 
[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 kvalues ending in 0 or even values at all, because only the normalized form of Riesel numbers k*2^n1 are searched for. So 3780*2^n1 is the same as 945*2^(n+2)1, therefore k=945 is searched here instead. 
[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. 
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^n1 for k<300 today with most data of RPPDb but still without history and missing newer primes. 
[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. 
[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. 
[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. 
[I]k[/I] = 6001, [I]n[/I] = 700,000 complete.
No additional primes found. Continuing. 
[I]k[/I] = 6001, [I]n[/I] = 770,000 complete.
No additional primes found. Stopping. [B]Abandon in peace.[/B] 
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:

status report
k=6883 tested till n= 10.7M

10207*2^9800531 is prime! (295030 decimal digits).

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*2^30756021 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. 
[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*2^30756021 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 doublecheck, until we can actually verify that the entire range below that [I]n[/I] has been tested. 
I've got an email from R.Eckhard about his work done on the Riesel side.
Included in the Wiki now all nMax 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 kvalues not reserved officially. Those kvalues 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 kvalues and results can be found easily. 
[QUOTE=Happy5214;547691]...Continued work on this [I]k[/I] is useful, even if it's only a doublecheck, until we can actually verify that the entire range below that [I]n[/I] has been tested.[/QUOTE]
I performed a doublecheck on this particular [I]n[/I]: [QUOTE]10001*2^30756021 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? 
[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. 
[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. 
Based on my experience with Wikipedia, the caching for loggedin 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=Happy5214;547828]Based on my experience with Wikipedia, the caching for loggedin 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. 
[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. 
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.