|
[quote=michaf;137036]Gary, are you able to sieve this with sr2sieve?
(I am not, at least not on my laptop, I think due to memory shortages...) For another thing: How would you feel upon me taking up prp'ing upto 10k with my script, and then report the remaining back to you? Anything beyond 10k takes too long with pfgw, and really needs to be sieved. (which can then be taken on by anyone willing to :) ) 50-100M range yielded 808 left-overs upto 10k, so I think it should still be managable file-wise. I'm aware that the administration would be a bit more complicated (as in, when do you delete the k's that have reduced forms, hosting the files etc, but I think it has the advantage of getting the search started a bit more quickly too[/quote] It's interesting that you asked. I tried a number of experiments with sr2sieve and srsieve in order to see what I felt was the fastest and least manual-intervention method of sieving. At first I tried half of the k-values (102) using sr2sieve. Although it took several hours to create the Legendre symbols, that worked fine. I observed that it was using ~480M of memory. My machine has ~1G of memory but the operating system and other things of course use up ~100M (I think). I decided to push the limit on it and try with all 204 k-values using sr2sieve. Wouldn't you know it, I got a MALLOC error on the 198th k-value and it took over 8 hours (kind-of-slow 1.6 Ghz Athlon) to create the symbols. Unfortunately, even though I told it to save the symbols file, it doesn't do so if it goes down with an error. I then tried it with 195 k-values and after another ~8 hours to recreate the symbols file, it was working fine. The P-rate was ~170K/sec and the symbols file was 1.6 GB!! I would then need to run another instance of sr2sieve with the remaining 9 k-values but the P-rates would be so inconsistent that I determined that I should just run 2 instances of sr2sieve, one each for half of the k-values. I did that for the first half of them using the symbols file from my first test above and was getting a ~320K/sec P-rate, about what I would expect (slightly < double the 195 k's rate). I started to run the second instance of sr2sieve for the second half of the k's and after watching it VERY slowly creating the symbols file, I got sick of waiting. So, that's when I decided to see how much slower srsieve was for the entire 208 k's. I did an initial sieve to P=4G and then came the real test. I started a sieve from P=4G and the P-rate was ~150K/sec.; only about 10-12% slower than sr2sieve was for 195 k's. At that point, I just decided that sr2sieve was simply too much of a headache and have been running two instances of srsieve on my dual-core 1.6 Ghz Athlon laptop, each with all of the k's in them for different P-ranges. I've completed sieving to P=20G as of yesterday and started sieving P=20G-60G but have temporarily suspended it. Right now, I am running PFGW for bases 7 and 25 to get some small primes and balance the k's remaining for Siemlink's efforts on those bases. I am sieving n=25K-100K. My estimate is that the optimal sieve for breaking off the n=25K-50K piece is P=100G. If you want to pitch in on sieving, I can send you my ABCD file sieved to P=20G. I'm taking P=20G-60G so if you want to take P=60G-100G, then that should get us to where we need to begin LLRing n=25K-50K. (We'll need to check the removal rate again at that point.) For sieving, we can then remove the n=25K-50K candidates and continue sieving n=50K-100K. Edit: At the higher n-ranges, the 10-12% savings (minus time needed to create symbols) by using 2 instances of sr2sieve, one each for half of the k-values, would be more significant. We may want to revisit the issue for n=50K-100K or perhaps if we decide to go to a higher n-range with it. My opinion, though, is that we don't go testing above n=100K and that we go on to the next k-range and bring it up to n=100K also, etc. Of course others may prefer to search for higher primes. Gary |
[quote=michaf;137034]Considering 50-100M base 3 sierpinski:
The following 213 k's are left at n=25k with k mod 3 = 1 or 2 (and thus still need to be searched) [code]50219374 1 50222338 1 50287288 1 50449528 1 50541412 1 50620060 1 50877592 1 50921056 1 52186900 1 53109118 1 53314642 1 53593726 1 54315148 1 54503602 1 55055116 1 55075498 1 55193434 1 55703236 1 56148718 1 56171218 1 56524036 1 56581678 1 56882284 1 56905378 1 57254656 1 57336382 1 57557068 1 57675862 1 58437532 1 58871836 1 59763448 1 60209746 1 60703348 1 60935716 1 61270336 1 61429768 1 62499142 1 62531902 1 63016906 1 64341406 1 65507272 1 65554012 1 65595592 1 66255214 1 66557716 1 66928276 1 67852672 1 68093614 1 68155474 1 68526046 1 68558962 1 69187234 1 69487006 1 69897658 1 70143826 1 70260532 1 71647042 1 71825584 1 73225294 1 74803858 1 75465868 1 76479688 1 77475694 1 77519584 1 77554786 1 77976142 1 78702082 1 78703468 1 78967678 1 79190206 1 79473862 1 79545946 1 79714294 1 80078764 1 80763370 1 81095362 1 81540346 1 81903964 1 81956716 1 82085494 1 82386316 1 82436518 1 83880508 1 84469954 1 85310794 1 86000056 1 86850334 1 87173668 1 87252058 1 89478076 1 89824888 1 90473998 1 90784756 1 90978172 1 91233724 1 91293316 1 91379272 1 92793016 1 92894182 1 93364996 1 93409276 1 93711076 1 94591624 1 95450302 1 95489092 1 96026332 1 96746836 1 97418338 1 97696726 1 97826494 1 98043514 1 98392246 1 98926396 1 99613186 1 50357012 2 52898312 2 52912976 2 54282752 2 54320036 2 54332516 2 55196756 2 56092742 2 57703994 2 58007336 2 58537244 2 58680938 2 60260912 2 60581468 2 60650732 2 62109506 2 63362504 2 63973712 2 64133198 2 64877882 2 65719268 2 65924882 2 66048746 2 66431468 2 66600104 2 68203706 2 68204198 2 68232896 2 68268602 2 68426882 2 69005336 2 69026702 2 69563192 2 70009502 2 70258712 2 70668452 2 71192354 2 71440646 2 71445854 2 71448584 2 71744534 2 72086978 2 72880994 2 73308278 2 73440644 2 74374772 2 74481242 2 74927714 2 75065462 2 75734312 2 76020188 2 77057588 2 77304608 2 77357576 2 77574956 2 78373346 2 79379414 2 79822118 2 80114018 2 80126414 2 80292008 2 80382650 2 80598086 2 81106076 2 81278324 2 83873906 2 84187388 2 84215078 2 84481472 2 85867196 2 87080432 2 87593744 2 87706772 2 88091054 2 89106848 2 89665952 2 89813708 2 90269594 2 90733694 2 92297696 2 93455522 2 93882734 2 94389422 2 95532098 2 96103394 2 96259778 2 96693302 2 96839144 2 97016048 2 97132676 2 97688816 2 97963454 2 98486582 2 98762336 2 98841272 2 98997092 2 99170018 2 99341384 2 99434222 2 [/code] The following 83 are left at n=25k, but can be left out of the search as they are already searched as their (k mod 3) reduced version: [code]50080092 0 16693364 already being searched 50817246 0 16939082 already being searched 51184956 0 17061652 already being searched 51770814 0 17256938 already being searched 52608126 0 17536042 already being searched 53367864 0 17789288 already being searched 53746536 0 17915512 already being searched 54907896 0 18302632 already being searched 57158196 0 19052732 already being searched 57404058 0 19134686 already being searched 58350822 0 19450274 already being searched 58722414 0 19574138 already being searched 59842548 0 19947516 already being searched 60266832 0 20088944 already being searched 60775602 0 20258534 already being searched 60796566 0 20265522 already being searched 60915378 0 20305126 already being searched 60980334 0 20326778 already being searched 61308816 0 20436272 already being searched 61783518 0 20594506 already being searched 62313456 0 20771152 already being searched 62568984 0 20856328 already being searched 62665392 0 20888464 already being searched 63526044 0 21175348 already being searched 63563244 0 21187748 already being searched 64434408 0 21478136 already being searched 64493238 0 21497746 already being searched 66901566 0 22300522 already being searched 69729846 0 23243282 already being searched 69894348 0 23298116 already being searched 71181816 0 23727272 already being searched 71568912 0 23856304 already being searched 71588724 0 23862908 already being searched 71689188 0 23896396 already being searched 72058344 0 24019448 already being searched 74033112 0 24677704 already being searched 74177232 0 24725744 already being searched 74291604 0 24763868 already being searched 74776116 0 24925372 already being searched 74903178 0 24967726 already being searched 75286182 0 25095394 already being searched 75621948 0 25207316 already being searched 76400466 0 25466822 already being searched 76436058 0 25478686 already being searched 76565616 0 25521872 already being searched 78783756 0 26261252 already being searched 79181868 0 26393956 already being searched 79334466 0 26444822 already being searched 80414916 0 26804972 already being searched 81327648 0 27109216 already being searched 81870396 0 27290132 already being searched 83114886 0 27704962 already being searched 84215598 0 28071866 already being searched 84470448 0 28156816 already being searched 85605486 0 28535162 already being searched 86026002 0 28675334 already being searched 86893278 0 28964426 already being searched 87303774 0 29101258 already being searched 87399168 0 29133056 already being searched 87992922 0 29330974 already being searched 88045374 0 29348458 already being searched 88351962 0 29450654 already being searched 88433838 0 29477946 already being searched 88646016 0 29548672 already being searched 88842498 0 29614166 already being searched 89318382 0 29772794 already being searched 90098124 0 30032708 already being searched 90712896 0 30237632 already being searched 91320486 0 30440162 already being searched 91484592 0 30494864 already being searched 91820208 0 30606736 already being searched 93003468 0 31001156 already being searched 93773742 0 31257914 already being searched 95644314 0 31881438 already being searched 95910240 0 31970080 already being searched 97120722 0 32373574 already being searched 97291158 0 32430386 already being searched 97350336 0 32450112 already being searched 97696122 0 32565374 already being searched 98048838 0 32682946 already being searched 98082228 0 32694076 already being searched 99672414 0 33224138 already being searched 99981192 0 33327064 already being searched [/code] The following 6 have (k mod 3^2) = 1 or 2 and cannot be eliminated as they have primes as their reduced form on n=1: [code]65943336 0 21981112 1 has a prime at n=1, so this one needs to be searched further 70848912 0 23616304 1 has a prime at n=1, so this one needs to be searched further 59343216 0 19781072 2 has a prime at n=1, so this one needs to be searched further 62837376 0 20945792 2 has a prime at n=1, so this one needs to be searched further 93040692 0 31013564 2 has a prime at n=1, so this one needs to be searched further 98555838 0 32851946 2 has a prime at n=1, so this one needs to be searched further [/code] The following 1 has (k mod 3^2) = 1 or 2 and CAN be eliminated because of a prime for the reduced form > n=1: [code]80409768 0 26803256 2 has a prime larger then 1, so this one can be eliminated [/code] Of the 40 k's with (k mod 3)=0 there are 27 k's already tested as their reduced forms: [code]50171796 0 16723932 0 5574644 already being tested 55110546 0 18370182 0 6123394 already being tested 57271356 0 19090452 0 6363484 already being tested 60770772 0 20256924 0 6752308 already being tested 61735626 0 20578542 0 6859514 already being tested 63729054 0 21243018 0 7081006 already being tested 64005894 0 21335298 0 7111766 already being tested 67215438 0 22405146 0 7468382 already being tested 70915608 0 23638536 0 7879512 already being tested 72530982 0 24176994 0 8058998 already being tested 72812178 0 24270726 0 8090242 already being tested 73506276 0 24502092 0 8167364 already being tested 73640844 0 24546948 0 8182316 already being tested 77431176 0 25810392 0 8603464 already being tested 79454106 0 26484702 0 8828234 already being tested 80199324 0 26733108 0 8911036 already being tested 80912142 0 26970714 0 8990238 already being tested 81390438 0 27130146 0 9043382 already being tested 81859392 0 27286464 0 9095488 already being tested 83165814 0 27721938 0 9240646 already being tested 83653866 0 27884622 0 9294874 already being tested 85349196 0 28449732 0 9483244 already being tested 86155632 0 28718544 0 9572848 already being tested 87216516 0 29072172 0 9690724 already being tested 89890272 0 29963424 0 9987808 already being tested 92017494 0 30672498 0 10224166 already being tested 94541724 0 31513908 0 10504636 already being tested [/code] Of the 13 k's remaining, 12 can be eliminated because their reduced versions have a prime > n=2: [code]60961302 0 20320434 0 6773478 has a prime > n=2 so can be eliminated 61856352 0 20618784 0 6872928 has a prime > n=2 so can be eliminated 70787142 0 23595714 0 7865238 has a prime > n=2 so can be eliminated 71728128 0 23909376 0 7969792 has a prime > n=2 so can be eliminated 77379462 0 25793154 0 8597718 has a prime > n=2 so can be eliminated 78289416 0 26096472 0 8698824 has a prime > n=2 so can be eliminated 79111458 0 26370486 0 8790162 has a prime > n=2 so can be eliminated 79623216 0 26541072 0 8847024 has a prime > n=2 so can be eliminated 80482464 0 26827488 0 8942496 has a prime > n=2 so can be eliminated 85319784 0 28439928 0 9479976 has a prime > n=2 so can be eliminated 87321186 0 29107062 0 9702354 has a prime > n=2 so can be eliminated 99122256 0 33040752 0 11013584 has a prime > n=2 so can be eliminated [/code] The last k has a prime at n=2, and so needs to be checked further: [code]63003672 0 21001224 0 7000408 has a prime at n=2, so original has a prime at n=0, so needs to be checked further [/code] In short: the remaining 220 k's are: [code]50219374 50222338 50287288 50449528 50541412 50620060 50877592 50921056 52186900 53109118 53314642 53593726 54315148 54503602 55055116 55075498 55193434 55703236 56148718 56171218 56524036 56581678 56882284 56905378 57254656 57336382 57557068 57675862 58437532 58871836 59763448 60209746 60703348 60935716 61270336 61429768 62499142 62531902 63016906 64341406 65507272 65554012 65595592 66255214 66557716 66928276 67852672 68093614 68155474 68526046 68558962 69187234 69487006 69897658 70143826 70260532 71647042 71825584 73225294 74803858 75465868 76479688 77475694 77519584 77554786 77976142 78702082 78703468 78967678 79190206 79473862 79545946 79714294 80078764 80763370 81095362 81540346 81903964 81956716 82085494 82386316 82436518 83880508 84469954 85310794 86000056 86850334 87173668 87252058 89478076 89824888 90473998 90784756 90978172 91233724 91293316 91379272 92793016 92894182 93364996 93409276 93711076 94591624 95450302 95489092 96026332 96746836 97418338 97696726 97826494 98043514 98392246 98926396 99613186 50357012 52898312 52912976 54282752 54320036 54332516 55196756 56092742 57703994 58007336 58537244 58680938 60260912 60581468 60650732 62109506 63362504 63973712 64133198 64877882 65719268 65924882 66048746 66431468 66600104 68203706 68204198 68232896 68268602 68426882 69005336 69026702 69563192 70009502 70258712 70668452 71192354 71440646 71445854 71448584 71744534 72086978 72880994 73308278 73440644 74374772 74481242 74927714 75065462 75734312 76020188 77057588 77304608 77357576 77574956 78373346 79379414 79822118 80114018 80126414 80292008 80382650 80598086 81106076 81278324 83873906 84187388 84215078 84481472 85867196 87080432 87593744 87706772 88091054 89106848 89665952 89813708 90269594 90733694 92297696 93455522 93882734 94389422 95532098 96103394 96259778 96693302 96839144 97016048 97132676 97688816 97963454 98486582 98762336 98841272 98997092 99170018 99341384 99434222 65943336 70848912 59343216 62837376 93040692 98555838 63003672 [/code] PHEW :smile: Gary, would you be kind and check my reasoning? I think I've got it alright now, but a confirmation would be nice.[/quote] Wow, it looks like great work! Nice job! Thanks for providing all of the detail. It'll make the review far easier. It'll probably be tomorrow or Weds. before I can review it as the Riesel base 25 verification is taking many hours and more k's can be eliminated on it then what Siemlink has already found due to the base 5 project. I hope that no new bases are started for the next several months now! :smile: Gary |
[quote=Siemelink;137058]I have already finished this one.
Willem.[/quote] Nice work! I'll review it and reflect it on the web pages within the next week or so. I should preface my prior statement: I hope that no new bases with LARGE conjectures are started in the next few months! It's the large-conjectured bases that take so much time to administer. The small-conjectured bases like this are kind of fun. I did a few of them myself < 32 before starting the project to knock out some easy stuff. Gary |
Gary,
I most certainly agree on having a list of ALL primes, but I tend to disagree (for now at least) for base 3 (or other primes with a huge conjecture). It will take a LOAD of disc-space, and we won't be near the end of the conjectures anytime soon. When we are, the primes can all be easily generated again (125050976086 as a conjecture with 1/2 eliminated will need 62525488043 entries, with 10 digits for k, and say on average 1 digit for n so a disc space of 687780368473 bytes uncompressed; say it will get compressed 10-fold, you'll need about 68.778.000.000 (68 Gigabyte) storageroom. Hmm...now that I calculated I think we should save them, even now... It's not TOO much after all... (This means I'll have to re-do the range upto 100 to 10k, as I couldn't afford to keep those large files on my laptop...) What is your opinion on this matter? |
[quote=michaf;137152]Gary,
I most certainly agree on having a list of ALL primes, but I tend to disagree (for now at least) for base 3 (or other primes with a huge conjecture). It will take a LOAD of disc-space, and we won't be near the end of the conjectures anytime soon. When we are, the primes can all be easily generated again (125050976086 as a conjecture with 1/2 eliminated will need 62525488043 entries, with 10 digits for k, and say on average 1 digit for n so a disc space of 687780368473 bytes uncompressed; say it will get compressed 10-fold, you'll need about 68.778.000.000 (68 Gigabyte) storageroom. Hmm...now that I calculated I think we should save them, even now... It's not TOO much after all... (This means I'll have to re-do the range upto 100 to 10k, as I couldn't afford to keep those large files on my laptop...) What is your opinion on this matter?[/quote] I wondered if you might chime in about base 3. lol Yeah, I'll make an exception there. I personally have all of the primes stored < 30M with the exception of k<10M that I lost when I was laid off from my job. It was stored on my work laptop and I failed to copy it off. I'll rerun it sometime soon. It shouldn't take long. Here is my opinion: I will trust that you or KEP or whomever runs whatever k-range for base 3 will keep all of the primes that you find. I'm a little surprised that you said you couldn't "afford" (I assume you meant space and not cost) to keep the primes files on your laptop. Each k=1M primes file is just under 8 MB so it shouldn't be a problem with most hard drives >= 60 GB these days. For your k=70M range, that'd only be 550 MB. As we close in on testing the entire k-range (will WE ever do that, lol?), hopefully there will be a better way to send huge zipped files around the internet and we can deal with it at that point. Heck, I'm even keeping the RESULTS files for now, 200 MB per k=1M! For the k=20M that I have, that's 4 GB. That's crazy though. My laptop has an 80 GB hard drive so that would fill the entire hard drive in k<400M. I'll probably delete those at some point but the primes definitely need to be kept. BTW, I run PFGW by k-value instead of n-value on base 3 anyway. It's easiest that way. That way, I don't have to worry about sorting the huge primes files by k. Also, if I have an outage, it's easy to restart PFGW from the k that was left off. If you're processing them by n-range, you can't restart it from the n that was left off. PFGW does not remember the k's that were already eliminated on a restart and it starts searching them all over again. (Yuck!) Gary |
[QUOTE=gd_barnes;137200]I wondered if you might chime in about base 3. lol Yeah, I'll make an exception there. I personally have all of the primes stored < 30M with the exception of k<10M that I lost when I was laid off from my job. It was stored on my work laptop and I failed to copy it off. I'll rerun it sometime soon. It shouldn't take long.
Here is my opinion: I will trust that you or KEP or whomever runs whatever k-range for base 3 will keep all of the primes that you find. I'm a little surprised that you said you couldn't "afford" (I assume you meant space and not cost) to keep the primes files on your laptop. Each k=1M primes file is just under 8 MB so it shouldn't be a problem with most hard drives >= 60 GB these days. For your k=70M range, that'd only be 550 MB. As we close in on testing the entire k-range (will WE ever do that, lol?), hopefully there will be a better way to send huge zipped files around the internet and we can deal with it at that point. Heck, I'm even keeping the RESULTS files for now, 200 MB per k=1M! For the k=20M that I have, that's 4 GB. That's crazy though. My laptop has an 80 GB hard drive so that would fill the entire hard drive in k<400M. I'll probably delete those at some point but the primes definitely need to be kept. BTW, I run PFGW by k-value instead of n-value on base 3 anyway. It's easiest that way. That way, I don't have to worry about sorting the huge primes files by k. Also, if I have an outage, it's easy to restart PFGW from the k that was left off. If you're processing them by n-range, you can't restart it from the n that was left off. PFGW does not remember the k's that were already eliminated on a restart and it starts searching them all over again. (Yuck!) Gary[/QUOTE] It was indeed a 'space' problem, and not a 'money' problem :) (Though both are related to eachother ultimately...) I have kept all the prime > n=10k though (not nearly as much space required for that... I'll rerun them in the future; I'll be running upto n=10k with pfgw, k-wise... as in: first k=2, then k=4, then k=6 etc... with the script I've made for pfgw (I think I posted it somewhere...) edit: it was [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=134269&postcount=41"]here[/URL] I'll reserve k=120M to 200M to 10k for sierpinski base 3 now. (as said before, I reckon going to 25k takes too long for a single k) When we have 500k's left it's time again to go upward to 25k. What I think of right now too: is there a way to produce a list of all numbers in the range that can be eliminated? |
[quote]
Gary, would you be kind and check my reasoning? I think I've got it alright now, but a confirmation would be nice.[/quote] Your reasoning is dead on! One thing I'll mention: In your (k mod 3^2)=0 list, you state that k=79623216 can be eliminated because it's reduced version has a prime > 2. It does not. If you take it further, it reduces to a k-value that is still remaining, i.e. 79623216/3^3 = 2949008, which just so happens to be the LOWEST k-value remaining and one in which Siemelink tested to n=100K. :smile: Regardless, k=79623216 still does not need to be tested so there is no problem that I can see in your final list. The list will be added to the web pages shortly. Nice work! Gary |
[quote=michaf;137209]What I think of right now too: is there a way to produce a list of all numbers in the range that can be eliminated?[/quote]
I'll let you come up with that. :smile: Hint 1: Take your range of n=120M-200M and divide by 3, then divide by 3^2, then divide by 3^3, etc. and look at the k's remaining on the web page for each of those ranges, i.e. n=40M-66.667M, 13.333M-22.222M, etc. Hint 2: Look at the top-10 primes list and multiply each of those by 3, 3^2, 3^3, etc. and see if they fall in your range. Note to myself: At some point, I should expand this to a top-25 and then a top-50 list for this base. Better yet: I should come up with a list of all primes for n>10K. Base 3 is so huge that I probably should have been keeping many more than 10 primes. The problem is my list of primes for k<10M is gone so I need to rerun it. Hint 3: Check the top-5000 site for primes in your k-range. Hint 2 should cover a large # of them. Suggestion: Search all even k-values to n=10K. At that point, use the k's found from your elimination list to eliminate k's before starting n=10K-25K. It's far easier to write a PFGW script to just do a step 2 on a huge range then to try to piece-meal out k's to eliminate ahead of time. One way that I knew that your list of k's to be eliminated was accurate was that they encompossed entire ranges of k-values of k's divisible by 3 that were already remaining with no differences. For example, you had every reduced remaining k from k=16.667M-33.333M in your range of k=50M-100M with no extras and none missing. That's one thing that I was looking for. I mention this because it directly applies to the k-values that you could eliminate before searching n=10K-25K for your new range of k=120M-200M. Gary |
[QUOTE=gd_barnes;137235]Your reasoning is dead on!
One thing I'll mention: In your (k mod 3^2)=0 list, you state that k=79623216 can be eliminated because it's reduced version has a prime > 2. It does not. If you take it further, it reduces to a k-value that is still remaining, i.e. 79623216/3^3 = 2949008, which just so happens to be the LOWEST k-value remaining and one in which Siemelink tested to n=100K. :smile: Regardless, k=79623216 still does not need to be tested so there is no problem that I can see in your final list. The list will be added to the web pages shortly. Nice work! Gary[/QUOTE] Erm.. yep.. but at least that one SHOULD have a prime above n=2 :smile: We just need to determine where... |
I'm now testing 120-200M for only to n=1k, and am doing about 1M per hour.
1M reduces to about 200 k's. At this rate, the searchspace will be exhausted in 125050 CPU-hours which is 'only' 14.3 CPU years; after that, some 125050*200 = 62.5M candidates will remain. (I won't do a complete run through there... I will test all ranges upto 25k first) |
Stopping the script at n=1k is not a good idea....
srfile takes about 3 minutes to eliminate 1 prime found... when stopping at 1k, that are LOADS of primes to be eliminated still... Next run I will try stopping at 5k... |
[quote=michaf;137245]Erm.. yep.. but at least that one SHOULD have a prime above n=2 :smile:
We just need to determine where...[/quote] Ah, good point. lol I should have said it doesn't have a prime above n=2 YET! :smile: At least we hope it has one eventually. |
[quote=michaf;137262]Stopping the script at n=1k is not a good idea....
srfile takes about 3 minutes to eliminate 1 prime found... when stopping at 1k, that are LOADS of primes to be eliminated still... Next run I will try stopping at 5k...[/quote] I think that running PFGW to n=10K on all k's will be the best way to go for large k-ranges. Then use k's remaining to eliminate k's that you can determine can be elminated that already have found primes or are k's remaining for k / 3^q before starting a sieve for n=10K-25K. I actually used PFGW all the way to n=25K in my efforts because I could just start it and forget it. That's great for a few million k but it sux for MANY million k. It was spending 80% of it's total time or more searching k's for n=10K-25K. In retrospect, it was rather stupid but I was very busy with administering other efforts so I didn't mind just letting 'er rip and forgetting it. Gary |
[quote=michaf;137252]I'm now testing 120-200M for only to n=1k, and am doing about 1M per hour.
1M reduces to about 200 k's. At this rate, the searchspace will be exhausted in 125050 CPU-hours which is 'only' 14.3 CPU years; after that, some 125050*200 = 62.5M candidates will remain. (I won't do a complete run through there... I will test all ranges upto 25k first)[/quote] If someone had ~10 quads to throw at such an effort all with large hard drives, they could actually search the entire k-range to n=1K in 14.3/40=.36 year or 4-5 months. Anyone have a few spare quads laying around? Of course we'd have a few million k remaining. Would anyone want to attempt administering that? lol Also, how insanely boring would it be to spend $150+ on electricity per month to find millions of primes n<= 1K? It's definitely not something for the average prime finder to tackle. Gary |
Guys, if you need storage space, please tell me, my Quad has 1000 GB (at least 800 GB free) of storage space... I also has an external USB HDD on around 300 GB, so just feel free to ask, I can store a lot :smile: However Gary, I was actually considering sending you in 1-2 weeks the k's remaining and the ocean of primes for Riesel Base 3, for verification and other toying that you might find makes the proving more efficient :smile:, but however reading your previously post, about primes, and storage, are you interested in the primes or only in the k's remaining?
After running the Base 19, I'm actually considering to suspend any more working on the Riesel Base 3, and come working on breaking the Sierpinski base 3, since it involves less manual work... but that is still sometime out in the future, and other peoples can come up with an even better conjecture before I rejoin the Base 3 sierpinski effort again :smile: Regards KEP PS. If not clear, almost all Riesel Base 3 primes for k<=500M with n<=500 is verified or discarded... a few composites has been eliminated from the primelist despite turning up in first instance as a PRP. Sieving is now underway for the first half of the approximately 250,000 k's remaining at n=<500 :smile: ETA for Riesel Base 3 k<=500M ~2 weeks from now! |
[QUOTE=gd_barnes;137272]a few million k remaining. Would anyone want to attempt administering that? lol
Gary[/QUOTE] No problem... remember where GIMPS is now... |
I've completed sieving Sierp base 3 to P=100G for k<50M and n=25K-100K. I've determined that to be the optimal sieve depth for breaking off n=25K-50K for the 204 k's remaining.
I'm going to reserve k<50M for n=25K-35K primality testing. After finishing, I'll remove all k's with primes and then post n=35K-50K in some sort of mini-drive for the group to help search. In the mean time, n=50K-100K still needs more sieving. If anyone is interested, let me know. I won't have the resources for it until n=25K-35K is complete. Gary |
Sierp base 3 k<10M
i'm releasing my effort for all k<10M upto n=45k.
all files from this effort sent to Gary. here the primes i've found 2930054 25270 2980832 38101 3159992 27396 3234118 31235 7969792 25529 8167364 33090 9294874 33338 7879512 34124 7081006 37404 8990238 37935 3891872 38100 9572848 39032 7468382 40160 6752308 41555 Karsten |
[quote=kar_bon;137576]i'm releasing my effort for all k<10M upto n=45k.
all files from this effort sent to Gary. here the primes i've found 2930054 25270 2980832 38101 3159992 27396 3234118 31235 7969792 25529 8167364 33090 9294874 33338 7879512 34124 7081006 37404 8990238 37935 3891872 38100 9572848 39032 7468382 40160 6752308 41555 Karsten[/quote] Thanks for the work and update Karsten. Base 3 is a remarkably prolific prime base! This now leaves: 1 k remaining for k<3M at n=100K 2 k's remaining for k<4M 4 k's remaining for k<5.5M 9 k's remaining for k<8M (The last 3 all at n=45K) Oddly, there are 12 k's remaining for k=8M-10M. I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that we searched the low k's until they found a prime (or to n=50K-100K) and previous efforts by others that found primes that were on the top-5000 site to knock out the lower k-values. In running k=10M-50M for n=25K-35K, I've already found 22 primes up to n=28.8K and 7 more primes from n=30K-32.4K. Upon a quick accounting, that would leave just 166 k's remaining for k<50M. Gary |
Sierp base 3 k<50M for n=25K to 30K is complete. 28 primes were found as follows:
[code] 13187782*3^25705+1 13624036*3^26311+1 16303856*3^25293+1 16586372*3^27930+1 19052732*3^29716+1 19134686*3^26677+1 20088944*3^26875+1 20888464*3^25870+1 21187748*3^29664+1 23856304*3^27567+1 24967726*3^25368+1 25478686*3^25037+1 28535162*3^29522+1 29477946*3^27149+1 29614166*3^29916+1 31970080*3^28108+1 32450112*3^25556+1 32682946*3^26656+1 34177186*3^29136+1 35581316*3^28484+1 36108932*3^25660+1 37535918*3^25766+1 38811148*3^28274+1 46285516*3^28712+1 46293816*3^26776+1 46927282*3^29086+1 47681248*3^25376+1 49944938*3^28446+1 [/code] n=30K-35K is in progress and is now at n=32.7K. I'll report the primes when the range is complete. Gary |
Sierp base 3 k<50M for n=30K to 35K is complete. 13 more primes were found as follows:
[code] 17061652*3^31833+1 17915512*3^34592+1 19574138*3^31271+1 25466822*3^31854+1 27109216*3^34175+1 29101258*3^33716+1 30606736*3^32819+1 31257914*3^34013+1 37018368*3^32115+1 41413226*3^30628+1 42771824*3^31910+1 42965452*3^31725+1 43276724*3^33370+1 [/code] This now leaves 154 k's remaining for k<10M at n=45K and k=10M-50M at n=35K. Balancing: 204 k's remaining for k<50M after Karsten's initial search to n=32K for k<10M minus 9 k's found prime for k<10M by Karsten for n=32K-45K minus 28 k's found prime for k<50M by me for n=25K-30K minus 13 k's found prime for k<50M by me for n=30K-35K Total 154 k's remaining for k<50M. Sometime next week, I'll start a mini-drive for k<50M and n=35K-100K. I have fully sieved files ready to go up to n=50K although I need to remove the k-values where primes were found. More sieving is still needed for n=50K-100K. Gary |
Sierpinski base 3, 120M - 200M is now complete to 25k.
The following 381 k's are left after removal of all reduces values (Gary, I'll mail you the excel file I used for checking at a glance) For now, I think I shall chime in on the mini-drive, but I will sure return to the hard work to be done in starting up... [CODE] 120012268 120116476 120232774 120289732 121371038 121458614 121689754 121783516 121786222 121805878 122415136 122474512 122928322 122933758 123047838 123216454 123279844 123439424 123563138 123813128 124603148 124612682 124981328 125129846 125212474 125372582 125544548 125688692 125700626 125763226 125825886 125924926 125998916 126072322 126086438 126429944 126453766 126717434 127032364 127565968 127659856 127847854 127903942 128052812 128139842 128188246 128702012 128843030 129184912 129351752 129433888 129570152 130064414 130121276 130169134 130225354 130308866 130680926 130858296 131789246 131848196 131915068 131986412 132260314 132695086 132729302 133140394 133331728 133737928 133999928 134052034 134447986 134471206 135877598 135981416 136036094 136058966 136280624 136665682 137233438 138293102 138570858 138726442 138809722 138881448 138908624 139125386 139127728 139190932 139253176 139283492 139450282 139635058 139795582 140205836 140304826 140522516 140819984 141115816 141132224 141205544 141421388 141448592 141491204 141693772 142193908 142506608 142680152 142850824 142934648 143035658 143339936 143439722 143557346 144120708 144593836 144683738 145085236 145317028 145453528 145576526 145856728 146280658 146488768 147114712 147272642 147360784 147676216 147702442 147768022 147778336 147874102 147874648 147955994 148038370 148062056 148099156 148115348 148259206 148307288 148381984 148489546 148653632 148962454 148994616 149289542 149592148 149725144 149737832 149930782 150034442 150417968 150771178 150881026 151111308 151508744 151686058 151805302 151861826 151919954 152127434 152234848 152329636 152431666 152501918 152620082 152785894 152862512 153242218 153491582 153574342 154171398 154420556 154543588 154677652 154709606 155143466 156033914 156217918 156257254 156410602 156434314 156539998 156687476 156843112 156966328 157037828 157090372 157678078 157993898 158323182 159236908 159918964 159940492 160225556 160276828 160493384 160978204 161083082 161172678 161884148 161948552 161953622 162139652 162435316 162671636 163047778 163222186 164056624 164568884 164582612 164739098 164759698 164808316 165152062 165321322 165556772 166113518 166128338 166210186 166957996 167039032 167040982 167495072 167514052 167827904 168379306 168440126 168809588 169204292 169374092 169711684 170003506 170291978 170846628 170976868 170979002 171574244 171927246 171942716 172029238 172281386 172425538 172526702 172540586 172637482 172718218 173114198 173322244 173341958 173369962 173722964 173803582 173848022 174403616 174418826 174566974 174574748 174644168 174755676 174769274 175205378 175226256 175279088 175286602 175809872 176808488 176856742 176904298 177000394 177075142 177200462 177221152 177239644 177839152 178029648 178133726 178138672 178206214 178264012 178543954 178704382 178883366 179527644 179956178 180026534 180149246 180533482 180562808 180579502 180624688 181231184 181475488 181522184 181664152 182074034 182090308 182389698 182693068 182767426 182961284 183193126 183205552 183671732 183687178 184050268 184233464 184286582 184371784 184488412 184696756 184927298 184934624 185649682 185792032 186011134 186065312 186500896 186638282 186709756 186790952 186825734 187596614 187894186 188159488 188512128 189011016 189069196 189124680 189445390 189598096 189767894 189932786 189996232 190715576 190863724 191093978 191295088 191746216 191773438 191975242 191997368 192016868 192132412 192136292 192267154 192514724 192567938 192707176 192817642 192875108 192903052 193082018 193196702 193521626 193678712 193898228 195035188 195134378 195143446 195175928 195556456 195648184 195738386 195807746 196853336 196996994 197407792 197624918 197830008 198625132 198812104 198894154 198911788 199331456 199403936 199415332 199785442 199891852 199924586 199993078 [/CODE] |
[quote=michaf;138607]Sierpinski base 3, 120M - 200M is now complete to 25k.
The following 381 k's are left after removal of all reduces values (Gary, I'll mail you the excel file I used for checking at a glance) For now, I think I shall chime in on the mini-drive, but I will sure return to the hard work to be done in starting up... [code] 120012268 120116476 120232774 120289732 121371038 121458614 121689754 121783516 121786222 121805878 122415136 122474512 122928322 122933758 123047838 123216454 123279844 123439424 123563138 123813128 124603148 124612682 124981328 125129846 125212474 125372582 125544548 125688692 125700626 125763226 125825886 125924926 125998916 126072322 126086438 126429944 126453766 126717434 127032364 127565968 127659856 127847854 127903942 128052812 128139842 128188246 128702012 128843030 129184912 129351752 129433888 129570152 130064414 130121276 130169134 130225354 130308866 130680926 130858296 131789246 131848196 131915068 131986412 132260314 132695086 132729302 133140394 133331728 133737928 133999928 134052034 134447986 134471206 135877598 135981416 136036094 136058966 136280624 136665682 137233438 138293102 138570858 138726442 138809722 138881448 138908624 139125386 139127728 139190932 139253176 139283492 139450282 139635058 139795582 140205836 140304826 140522516 140819984 141115816 141132224 141205544 141421388 141448592 141491204 141693772 142193908 142506608 142680152 142850824 142934648 143035658 143339936 143439722 143557346 144120708 144593836 144683738 145085236 145317028 145453528 145576526 145856728 146280658 146488768 147114712 147272642 147360784 147676216 147702442 147768022 147778336 147874102 147874648 147955994 148038370 148062056 148099156 148115348 148259206 148307288 148381984 148489546 148653632 148962454 148994616 149289542 149592148 149725144 149737832 149930782 150034442 150417968 150771178 150881026 151111308 151508744 151686058 151805302 151861826 151919954 152127434 152234848 152329636 152431666 152501918 152620082 152785894 152862512 153242218 153491582 153574342 154171398 154420556 154543588 154677652 154709606 155143466 156033914 156217918 156257254 156410602 156434314 156539998 156687476 156843112 156966328 157037828 157090372 157678078 157993898 158323182 159236908 159918964 159940492 160225556 160276828 160493384 160978204 161083082 161172678 161884148 161948552 161953622 162139652 162435316 162671636 163047778 163222186 164056624 164568884 164582612 164739098 164759698 164808316 165152062 165321322 165556772 166113518 166128338 166210186 166957996 167039032 167040982 167495072 167514052 167827904 168379306 168440126 168809588 169204292 169374092 169711684 170003506 170291978 170846628 170976868 170979002 171574244 171927246 171942716 172029238 172281386 172425538 172526702 172540586 172637482 172718218 173114198 173322244 173341958 173369962 173722964 173803582 173848022 174403616 174418826 174566974 174574748 174644168 174755676 174769274 175205378 175226256 175279088 175286602 175809872 176808488 176856742 176904298 177000394 177075142 177200462 177221152 177239644 177839152 178029648 178133726 178138672 178206214 178264012 178543954 178704382 178883366 179527644 179956178 180026534 180149246 180533482 180562808 180579502 180624688 181231184 181475488 181522184 181664152 182074034 182090308 182389698 182693068 182767426 182961284 183193126 183205552 183671732 183687178 184050268 184233464 184286582 184371784 184488412 184696756 184927298 184934624 185649682 185792032 186011134 186065312 186500896 186638282 186709756 186790952 186825734 187596614 187894186 188159488 188512128 189011016 189069196 189124680 189445390 189598096 189767894 189932786 189996232 190715576 190863724 191093978 191295088 191746216 191773438 191975242 191997368 192016868 192132412 192136292 192267154 192514724 192567938 192707176 192817642 192875108 192903052 193082018 193196702 193521626 193678712 193898228 195035188 195134378 195143446 195175928 195556456 195648184 195738386 195807746 196853336 196996994 197407792 197624918 197830008 198625132 198812104 198894154 198911788 199331456 199403936 199415332 199785442 199891852 199924586 199993078 [/code][/quote] Thanks for all of your hard work on this Micha. I got your Email a couple of days ago. I'm on a business trip and only have small bits of time to be on the forum and check things. I'll check it out and update the web pages within the next 5-7 days. I think the mini drive has made this effort kind of exciting. We've eliminated a lot of k's < 50M for n=35K-50K on top of what Karsten and I eliminated for n=25K-35K. Since we can't easily use sr2sieve for sieving so many large k's, I'm thinking after we do a "mini drive 2" for k=50M-100M for n=25K-50K that we should do future mini drives for k=100M ranges. There would likely be 450-500 k's remaining in each 100M k-range but srsieve can easily handle that. Alternatively, we could use sr2sieve for k=25M ranges but as the k-ranges get larger, it takes sr2sieve longer and longer to create the symbols file. Therefore I'm thinking k=100M ranges using srsieve will be the way to go. Gary |
Gary,
do you have an excel sheet available with all sierp 3 values that are remaining upto the tested limit? If so, I can easily manoever them into a shape to remove them from the 'first test to 25k' batch. (These are all numbers that will be remaining in the end (at 25k), so it might save quite some time) |
[quote=michaf;138919]Gary,
do you have an excel sheet available with all sierp 3 values that are remaining upto the tested limit? If so, I can easily manoever them into a shape to remove them from the 'first test to 25k' batch. (These are all numbers that will be remaining in the end (at 25k), so it might save quite some time)[/quote] No, I haven't kept one. All that is available for k's remaining is my web page. It is, in effect, in comma-delimited format. Perhaps you can manipulate it for what you need. It also shows how far the various ranges of k's have been tested. I'll be reviewing and adding your k=120M-200M range to the page either today or tomorrow. Gary |
[quote=gd_barnes;138938]No, I haven't kept one. All that is available for k's remaining is my web page. It is, in effect, in comma-delimited format. Perhaps you can manipulate it for what you need. It also shows how far the various ranges of k's have been tested.
I'll be reviewing and adding your k=120M-200M range to the page either today or tomorrow. Gary[/quote] I can mold into a usable form... just that if you had it, it would be a tad easier :) Also, I just thought that a list of primes above say n=1k would be handy for the same purpose too. (The lower one's are found quickly enough...) Anything like that to your avail? |
[quote=michaf;138980]I can mold into a usable form... just that if you had it, it would be a tad easier :)
Also, I just thought that a list of primes above say n=1k would be handy for the same purpose too. (The lower one's are found quickly enough...) Anything like that to your avail?[/quote] Yes for k=10M-30M and no for k<10M. Unfortunately for k=10M-30M, they're on my main sieving laptop that just yesterday has started not wanting to turn on. I'm going to have a friend look at it and see if he can figure out what the problem is. The charger is fine and the battery is OK but it's acting like it's not getting any power. The little blue light is on around where the charger plugs in so I know that's not a problem. I need to rerun k<10M to get all of the primes. They were on a work laptop that I failed to copy off when I got laid off. For k=100M-120M, you'll have to check with KEP. This is the one main base where I've been quite disorganized in bringing all of the primes together because it's so time-consuming with the millions of small primes. Gary |
@ Gary: It's just a minor correction, but for Sierp Base 3 I only took k>110M to k<=120M... well no harm done :smile:
@ Michaf: I can see that I've all the primes for Sierpinski Base 3 for k>110M to k<=120M, on my g-mail, I don't remember if I've your e-mail but if you would like me to send you the primes that I way back send to Gary, feel free to PM me and give me your e-mail, and then as fast as possible I'll send them to you :) Regards KEP |
[quote=michaf;138607]Sierpinski base 3, 120M - 200M is now complete to 25k.
The following 381 k's are left after removal of all reduces values (Gary, I'll mail you the excel file I used for checking at a glance) For now, I think I shall chime in on the mini-drive, but I will sure return to the hard work to be done in starting up... [/quote] I checked your analysis on the spreadsheet that you sent me. Nice work. There are only a few minor glitches: k=125825886 would not be considered remaining. Although k=125825886/3^5=517802 has a prime at n=1 and n=2 and k=125825886/3^4=1553406 has a prime at n=1, k=125825886/3^3=4660218 is still remaining. So continuing to test k=125825886 would be a duplication of work, hence it is eliminated. The same issue exists for the following k's that can be eliminated: k-value : divisibile by : reduced k : comments about reduced k 138570858 : 3^2 : 15396762 : Reduced k remained when spreadsheet sent. Now prime at n=46233. 138881448 : 3 : 46293816 : Has no small primes so must have a larger prime.* 178029648 : 3 : 59343216 : Reduced k still remains. 179527644 : 3^2 : 19947516 : Reduced k remained when spreadsheet sent. Now prime at n=44420. 182389698 : 3^2 : 20265522 : Reduced k still remains. 188512128 : 3 : 62837376 : Reduced k still remains. 189011016 : 3 : 63003672 : Reduced k still remains. 197830008 : 3 : 65943336 : Reduced k still remains. You have to check k/3^q for ALL q and see if ANY of those k's are remaining (instead of only checking k/3^q for the HIGHEST possible q). If any of the reduced k's are remaining, your k can be eliminated. Base 3 is BY FAR the most difficult in this regard. Besides having one of the highest conjectures, it is the 2nd lowest base so we're frequently having to check k/3^q for 5-6 q-values or more and possibly as high as 15-20 q-values in the future for any potential k remaining. From your list of 381 k-values remaining, this eliminates 9 k's leaving 372 k's for k=120M-200M. I'll update the web pages later today. * - I do not know what the prime is for k=46293816 but it must be n<=25K because it is not remaining, was not found by the mini drive, and is not on the top-5000 site. Since you did k=30M-100M, do you know what the prime is? Gary |
Hmm... I was annoyed in that I couldn't find that k's prime in my logs, so I retested it to 25k,
and to my astonishment, there is NO prime upto 25k! (for k = 46293816) It could have been a false positive prime in the pfgw-phase? I sure hope it is not; I think it might be time to get all the primes in order, sorted by k, and recheck every single one of them :( |
[quote=michaf;139159]Hmm... I was annoyed in that I couldn't find that k's prime in my logs, so I retested it to 25k,
and to my astonishment, there is NO prime upto 25k! (for k = 46293816) It could have been a false positive prime in the pfgw-phase? I sure hope it is not; I think it might be time to get all the primes in order, sorted by k, and recheck every single one of them :([/quote] Oh, I'm very bad here. 46293816*3^26776+1 is prime. I found it in my k<50M for n=25K-35K search as shown in the threads. I didn't think to check there. I checked back through the threads and you correctly had it remaining at n=25K. I'm sorry I caused you extra testing time and hassle. Regardless, either way k=15431272 is not remaining. No need to recheck every one of them. There's no reason to think that you missed any primes. Can you send me all of your primes for k=30M-110M and 120M-200M for n>=1000? It's up to me to keep and organize them all. That shouldn't be too large of a file zipped and I can easily recreate a list of primes for n<1000 for all other k's if and when needed. KEP, can you send me in an Email all of your primes for n>=1000 for k=110M-120M for Sierp base 3? I need to get an organized list of all primes together sorted by k-value for this base. Not having such a list is creating too much confusion, especially on my part. Thanks, Gary |
[QUOTE=gd_barnes;139164]Oh, I'm very bad here. 46293816*3^26776+1 is prime. I found it in my k<50M for n=25K-35K search as shown in the threads. I didn't think to check there. I checked back through the threads and you correctly had it remaining at n=25K. I'm sorry I caused you extra testing time and hassle. Regardless, either way k=15431272 is not remaining.
No need to recheck every one of them. There's no reason to think that you missed any primes. Can you send me all of your primes for k=30M-110M and 120M-200M for n>=1000? It's up to me to keep and organize them all. That shouldn't be too large of a file zipped and I can easily recreate a list of primes for n<1000 for all other k's if and when needed. KEP, can you send me in an Email all of your primes for n>=1000 for k=110M-120M for Sierp base 3? I need to get an organized list of all primes together sorted by k-value for this base. Not having such a list is creating too much confusion, especially on my part. Thanks, Gary[/QUOTE] Just send you my range :smile: Regarding my propersition (suggestion) for a future battleplan for overcoming Sierpinski base 3, would it make more sence to run the initial phase to only n<=1000? I think it will remove a lot more redundant k's and unescesary testing at n<=1000 than it will at n<=2500... also it will speed up the "carpeting" (as i like to call it) a huge deal... sadly it would also, however mean more manual work to be done, but with such a low depth of the carpet, running the entire 125G range can be done in maybe just a few years... and then with the proper sieveing and testing afterwards, n<=25000 could lie just a decade or maybe less into the future :smile: Regards KEP |
I got wise at about 150M...
Since then I tested with pfgw up until n=1k. It proves to be the 'quickest' way. It allows for more sieving, which it more efficient then the trial factoring that pfgw does. But alas, the removal of the 'primed k's ' is a bit more tedious, but easily doable scriptable. Oh,and I think 10M ranges is more managable, since srfile takes too long to remove a k when there are more then say 200k's remaining. |
[quote=KEP;139171]Just send you my range :smile: Regarding my propersition (suggestion) for a future battleplan for overcoming Sierpinski base 3, would it make more sence to run the initial phase to only n<=1000? I think it will remove a lot more redundant k's and unescesary testing at n<=1000 than it will at n<=2500... also it will speed up the "carpeting" (as i like to call it) a huge deal... sadly it would also, however mean more manual work to be done, but with such a low depth of the carpet, running the entire 125G range can be done in maybe just a few years... and then with the proper sieveing and testing afterwards, n<=25000 could lie just a decade or maybe less into the future :smile:
Regards KEP[/quote] It's not so much the manual effort required as it is that finding billions of small primes would get very boring very fast. That's why we pause to find larger primes at times. It has been my intent to 'pause' every k=50M to do sieving and then searching up to n=100K. But for k>100M, I'm going to suggest doing it every k=100M. This is so that mini-drives (i.e. mini-team efforts) are reasonable in scope and size. It's very difficult to administer if 100's and 1000's of primes are being found. Keep in mind that I have to remove k's from files, update web pages, cross reference k's that are multiples of 3, update a full list of primes for all k's, etc. as the team effort progresses. Starting a team effort at n=10K would take too much time to administer. It's better if one person does it and then sends a list of primes to me. I can then easily sort the list by k-value (if not already done) and we have what we need for future reference. Reference your search for k<500M on the Riesel side, it looks like you are doing 'pieces' up to n=5K, then n=10K, etc. The problem with that: Can you imagine trying to do a team effort for k<500M starting at n=5K or 10K. We're pretty much stuck waiting for you to finish at least part of your range to n=25K so that we can get a reasonable-sized team effort started. If I had to make one request of your effort: Please search all k<100M to n=25K and send us the primes and k's remaining, then do k=100M-200M to n=25K, etc. In other words, don't to all k to n=15K, then all k to n=20K, etc. Otherwise, we're going to be waiting 3-4 months for you to finish the entire range. The sieve files become too large for a team effort if we have too large of a k-range at too low of an n-range. Thanks, Gary |
[quote=michaf;139172]I got wise at about 150M...
Since then I tested with pfgw up until n=1k. It proves to be the 'quickest' way. It allows for more sieving, which it more efficient then the trial factoring that pfgw does. But alas, the removal of the 'primed k's ' is a bit more tedious, but easily doable scriptable. Oh,and I think 10M ranges is more managable, since srfile takes too long to remove a k when there are more then say 200k's remaining.[/quote] As for 10M ranges being more managable, are you referring to searching n<=25K? If so, I also found 10M ranges to be the most managable. I still prefer to run PFGW to n=10K even though I'm sure running PFGW to n=1K is more efficient on CPU time. Although it takes more total CPU time, I don't have time for a lot of manual intervention. I have one slower dual-core machine in a corner that I just plug in a range and then totally forget it until it is done. Gary |
[quote=gd_barnes;139177]As for 10M ranges being more managable, are you referring to searching n<=25K?
If so, I also found 10M ranges to be the most managable. I still prefer to run PFGW to n=10K even though I'm sure running PFGW to n=1K is more efficient on CPU time. Although it takes more total CPU time, I don't have time for a lot of manual intervention. I have one slower dual-core machine in a corner that I just plug in a range and then totally forget it until it is done. Gary[/quote] Yep, I was referring to 10M ranges upto n=25k. Even if only pfgw'd to 1k, manual intervention is not very needed, the large bulk of k's is already removed. Each k left will be an hour extra work though, so I remove as much as possible. |
To make up for past reservations wich I either abandoned or gave up on, I've decided to give something back. Therefor I'm reserving: Sierp base 3 k>50M < k < 100M to n<=100000. Thanks for understanding. A total of 220 k's is held in the range :smile:
Also regarding Riesel base 3 k<=500M, a local power outtage has made it impossible for me to complete the range, since I can't get srfile to remove the k's already primed from the input file. If anyone would like to overtake and try to complete my incomplete work, please feel free to ask for the 25 incomplete ranges and I'll send them to you. But for now, consider it no option for me to do anything further on this Riesel range. Actually I'm getting kind of fed-up with those riesel numbers, they are more difficult than the sierpinski numbers, so in the future only expect me to work on Sierp numbers if ever going to work on anything after this reservation is completed. Take care KEP |
[quote=KEP;140998]To make up for past reservations wich I either abandoned or gave up on, I've decided to give something back. Therefor I'm reserving: Sierp base 3 k>50M < k < 100M to n<=100000. Thanks for understanding. A total of 220 k's is held in the range :smile:
Also regarding Riesel base 3 k<=500M, a local power outtage has made it impossible for me to complete the range, since I can't get srfile to remove the k's already primed from the input file. If anyone would like to overtake and try to complete my incomplete work, please feel free to ask for the 25 incomplete ranges and I'll send them to you. But for now, consider it no option for me to do anything further on this Riesel range. Actually I'm getting kind of fed-up with those riesel numbers, they are more difficult than the sierpinski numbers, so in the future only expect me to work on Sierp numbers if ever going to work on anything after this reservation is completed. Take care KEP[/quote] We were planning on running a team drive on that n-range that would run the same time as a team drive on the Riesel k=0-50M range. I guess the Riesel range is out now. KEP, please reserve a smaller range that you absolutely KNOW that you can complete. See what Michaf is doing where he reserves a range, finishes it in a few days, then reserves another, etc. Suggestion: Reserve k=50M-60M up to n=100K. Finish that. Reserve k=60M-70M to n=100K, etc. until you're ready to move on to something else. Thanks. Why is Riesel base 3 more difficult than Sierp base 3? They're basically one and the same as far as searching for and finding primes. Riesel has a lower conjecture so it should be ultimately easier. The chance of finding primes on either side is going to be nearly identical. I don't understand your reasoning. Why would a local power outage make it to where you can't run srfile to remove k's with primes? If you can't run srfile, then you certainly couldn't run srsieve and LLR on SIERP base 3 for the range you are wanting to reserve. Once again, your logic baffles me. No need to answer the last two paragraphs as I was just pointing out a logic flaw but please respond to the paragraph asking you to reduce your reservation. Gary |
Reserving for Sierpinski base 3 k>100M to k<=200M. Sieving is already in progress and will continue. Reservation is made with consideration that you would like to make a TEAM drive on the k>50M to k<=100M. So my reservation is for k>100M to k<=200M for n<=100K. As we speak the 417 candidates has less than 877,000 k/n pairs remaining in the sieve file.
|
[quote=KEP;143267]Reserving for Sierpinski base 3 k>100M to k<=200M. Sieving is already in progress and will continue. Reservation is made with consideration that you would like to make a TEAM drive on the k>50M to k<=100M. So my reservation is for k>100M to k<=200M for n<=100K. As we speak the 417 candidates has less than 877,000 k/n pairs remaining in the sieve file.[/quote]
Kenneth, This is too much again! Here is what I already have you down for: 1. Riesel base 3 for k=100M-500M to n=25K. I believe you still have a lot of work on that. You completed k<100M to n=25K a week ago and I just now started verifying that. Good work! 2. Sierp base 19 all k's to n=25K. Your status in an Email 3 days ago reported that you were at n=14.2K. This will likely take you at least another month at the rate that you currently progressing as shown in your Emails. 3. Sierp base 252 k=27 to n=100K. Currently at n=51K. A lot of work to get to n=100K! All of these efforts have a lot of work remaining. Please finish at least one of them before reserving any more work unless you plan on purchasing several more quads in the near future. k=100M-200M to n=100M is a VERY big effort to take on by yourself. I would appreciate it if you'd let us run team efforts on the n>25K ranges. If you'd like to help us by sieving the range and then providing the file to us, that's fine but I'd really prefer that you dedicate your resources towards your existing reservations. As I've asked many times, PLEASE reserve smaller efforts. It makes it hard to administer when people reserve things, search part of them, and then stop in the middle of them. Thanks, Gary |
[QUOTE=gd_barnes;143317]Kenneth,
This is too much again! Here is what I already have you down for: 1. Riesel base 3 for k=100M-500M to n=25K. I believe you still have a lot of work on that. You completed k<100M to n=25K a week ago and I just now started verifying that. Good work! 2. Sierp base 19 all k's to n=25K. Your status in an Email 3 days ago reported that you were at n=14.2K. This will likely take you at least another month at the rate that you currently progressing as shown in your Emails. 3. Sierp base 252 k=27 to n=100K. Currently at n=51K. A lot of work to get to n=100K! All of these efforts have a lot of work remaining. Please finish at least one of them before reserving any more work unless you plan on purchasing several more quads in the near future. k=100M-200M to n=100M is a VERY big effort to take on by yourself. I would appreciate it if you'd let us run team efforts on the n>25K ranges. If you'd like to help us by sieving the range and then providing the file to us, that's fine but I'd really prefer that you dedicate your resources towards your existing reservations. As I've asked many times, PLEASE reserve smaller efforts. It makes it hard to administer when people reserve things, search part of them, and then stop in the middle of them. Thanks, Gary[/QUOTE] Well I've already sieved the k>100M to k<=200M range to 9.1G, so I would appreciate if no one begun sieving the range all over, since that would make me loose a single cores 1½ days of work. I've no idea exactly how long it is going to take, regarding the Sierp. base 19 but I guess around 2 weeks from now. Regarding Sierp. base 252 it is most likely only 2 days of work left on the Quad, after that it will most likely have progressed (if not finished) very far with the remaining ranges for Riesel base 3 k<=500M. Let me know what you decide, but for now sieving is stopped. KEP! |
[quote=KEP;143328]Well I've already sieved the k>100M to k<=200M range to 9.1G, so I would appreciate if no one begun sieving the range all over, since that would make me loose a single cores 1½ days of work. I've no idea exactly how long it is going to take, regarding the Sierp. base 19 but I guess around 2 weeks from now. Regarding Sierp. base 252 it is most likely only 2 days of work left on the Quad, after that it will most likely have progressed (if not finished) very far with the remaining ranges for Riesel base 3 k<=500M.
Let me know what you decide, but for now sieving is stopped. KEP![/quote] OK, for now I'll reserve sieving only to you on k=100M-200M for Sierp base 3. Gary |
Reserving Sierpinski base 3:
k>50M to k<=100M for n>25K to n<=100K, sieving only. I'll sieve this range to the same sieve depth ~16G as the K>100M to k<=200M range. Once both ranges is sieved to the same depth, I will in respect of efficiency, combine both ranges and sieve the k>50M to k<=200M range in 1 file in stead of 2 files :smile: I expect the completion date to be only delayed by 2-3 days. Hope its OK, and that no one else has reserved that range for sieving :smile: KEP! |
[quote=gd_barnes;146107]?? You're doing it again KEP, stating different things on different days on huge efforts. On one hand, you want to reserve something to PrimeGrid level, which will be a multi-year CPU effort, and then on the other hand, you allow the fact that you have a few weeks on your current efforts to stop you? That is, to put it mildly, quite confusing.
Let me see if I have you down correctly now: Sieving sierp base 3 for k=50M-200M for n=25K-100K. If you need some filler work to keep your machines busy, please take something smaller; perhaps some files from the Riesel and Sierp base 3 mini-drives. Thanks, Gary[/quote] If it wasn't clear, I'm sorry, it all refers to some of the reasons earlier e-mailed to you. I suffered a setback this week, and also I forgot how much more work I've left. You've put my reservations right. Some status: Sierp base 3 k=50-100M ~53G (1 k per ~24 sec) Again I ask you to accept my appologize, it all refers to private reasons, and a matter of concentration aswell memory. Expect no more reservations (or at least just ignore them) within the next 6 months, since my intention is to wrap what is now reserved and then leave for at least a while. Thanks for understanding, and good luck on your own challenges :smile: |
Reserving k=200M+2 to k=300M
Doing it this way: 1. Strict tests to n=2500 2. Sieve remaining candidates from n=2501 to n=25000 3. PRP test remaining k/n pairs untill n=25000 4. Verify the PRPs 5. Find the final remaining k's These 5 steps is meant as timings in order for me to find the best way to tackle a several G range for Sierp base 3. Also only very few PRPs should be composite if ever anyone, since I'm going to sieve pretty high the remaining candidates. Now a final question, how and which primes do I send? And to who should the desired primes be sent? Regards KEP |
[quote=KEP;155614]Reserving k=200M+2 to k=300M
Doing it this way: 1. Strict tests to n=2500 2. Sieve remaining candidates from n=2501 to n=25000 3. PRP test remaining k/n pairs untill n=25000 4. Verify the PRPs 5. Find the final remaining k's These 5 steps is meant as timings in order for me to find the best way to tackle a several G range for Sierp base 3. Also only very few PRPs should be composite if ever anyone, since I'm going to sieve pretty high the remaining candidates. Now a final question, how and which primes do I send? And to who should the desired primes be sent? Regards KEP[/quote] I know you know how to do this so here is all that I need: 1. All primes > 1000 or > 500; take your choice. 2. All k's remaining at n=25K. I would prefer if you didn't remove k's that are multiples of the base. Although if you would like to, after you have tested to n=2500, forward me the k's remaining that are MOB that you think you should remove and I'll check them. In a synopsis for MOB on this base: Remove k's that are MOB if k+1 is composite. I think you are going to have a lot of work reserved again. Can you give me a list of your reservations? Thanks, Gary |
[QUOTE=gd_barnes;155757]I know you know how to do this so here is all that I need:
1. All primes > 1000 or > 500; take your choice. 2. All k's remaining at n=25K. I would prefer if you didn't remove k's that are multiples of the base. Although if you would like to, after you have tested to n=2500, forward me the k's remaining that are MOB that you think you should remove and I'll check them. In a synopsis for MOB on this base: Remove k's that are MOB if k+1 is composite. I think you are going to have a lot of work reserved again. Can you give me a list of your reservations? Thanks, Gary[/QUOTE] I have a lot of work reserved again. I'm not going to remove any of the k's remaining at n=25000. Following is reserved: 1. Sierp base 3 k>200M to k<=300M (ETA 2-3 weeks) 2. k=27 for sierp base 252 (at n=95500) 3. k=3677878 for riesel base 3 (testing will start in 5-6 days) ETA 8-10 weeks 4. Riesel base 3 k>100M to k<200M from n=25K to n=100K. Following status: Core 1: n=61618 Core 2: n=69305 Core 3: n=54190 Core 4: n=58080 5. Sierpinski base 63 all k's to either n=5K 10K or 25K (Will be sieved to n=25K) Hope this helps! Regards KEP |
Hmm... I think I posted yesterday that I had finished all my ranges, and just need to check for non-prime prp's and gather all the results.
No idea where that post went :) * What's the first name of Alzheimer?? * No idea? * That's how it starts... |
[quote]No idea where that post went :)[/quote]
It's on the Riesel Base 3 thread. No need to panic and look for a head doctor. LOL BTW, his first name was Alois (if I remember correctly). What was the question? |
Oh bugger :)
Seems logical that my post about Riesels is in the Riesel-thread... Who's first name is THAT? :) |
[QUOTE]Who's first name is THAT? :) [/QUOTE]
Alzheimer's first name |
[quote=MyDogBuster;163235]Alzheimer's first name[/quote]
What is Alzheimer's first name? |
Alzheimer's first name is Alois.
See posts 139 & 140 (I think) |
[QUOTE=gd_barnes;163481]What is Alzheimer's first name?[/QUOTE]
I forgot. :razz: |
[quote=MyDogBuster;163498]Alzheimer's first name is Alois.
See posts 139 & 140 (I think)[/quote] Huh? Why would tell me what Alzheimer's first name is? Did I ask that question? :missingteeth: |
[QUOTE]Huh? Why would tell me what Alzheimer's first name is? Did I ask that question?
[/QUOTE] Do I know you? Why are you asking me questions? |
[quote=MyDogBuster;163642]Do I know you? Why are you asking me questions?[/quote]
I think you know me but I can't remember why I'm asking you questions. You mean you can't remember? |
The sentries report Zulus to the south west. Thousands of them.
|
Gargoils report Klingons to the east. Millions of them.
|
[quote=gd_barnes;163804]Gargoils report Klingons to the east. Millions of them.[/quote]
LOL--hey, I didn't realize you were a Star Trek fan! :smile: (Or did you get the part about Klingons from some online generator? :wink:) |
Guaold to the left of me, Ori to the right. Replicators to the front, and me without a Teal'C. At least I think that was the dudes name.
|
[quote=MyDogBuster;163888]Guaold to the left of me, Ori to the right. Replicators to the front, and me without a Teal'C. At least I think that was the dudes name.[/quote]
Is that supposed to be another Star Trek reference? Because the part about "replicators to the front" sort of vaguely has a connection, though I can't see how any of the other stuff fits in. :wink: |
[QUOTE=mdettweiler;163929]Is that supposed to be another Star Trek reference? Because the part about "replicators to the front" sort of vaguely has a connection, though I can't see how any of the other stuff fits in. :wink:[/QUOTE]
no, this time it's Stargate (with the legendary actor from 'McGyver' (Richard Dean Anderson)-> "Give me a paperclip, a ballpen and a rubber band and i can build a bomb!" :grin:) |
I had no idea what Chris was talking about. It just looked like jibberish to me so I made something up and klingons came to mind.
Yep, I'm an old-time Trek fan; the 60's version. I never liked the newer versions as much although I did like a couple of the movies. |
[QUOTE]Yep, I'm an old-time Trek fan; the 60's version. I never liked the newer versions as much although I did like a couple of the movies[/QUOTE]
Was a trekkie till Stargate came along. Carter is a babe. Saw all the Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis episodes. Can't wait for Stargate Galaxy this fall (if I remember to watch it). |
Regarding the range k>200M to k<=300M for Sierp base 3, I'm gonna have to give you a choice between 2 options Gary. I never had any intentions to do any kind of PRP testing for n<500, but now that I'm rerunning the range to get the primes from n>500-n<=2500, I'm facing difficulties. For some reasons (though I've never experienced it before on the Sierp side) doing a strict test using -t causes at the ~100,000 test an infinite Brillart-Lehmer loop. I've tryed restarting 3 times now, and its the same story every time :(
So here is your options: 1. Accept to now recieve any primes for n<=2500 and consider the range completed 2. Consider the range lost It's your call what you decides, either decision is acceptable to me. So please let me know how to proceed according to the 2 options. Regards Kenneth Ps. To make clear, it will be no problem to find the k's remaining for the k=200-300M range aswell the primes for n>2500 is easily submitted and send to you aswell. |
[quote=KEP;166075]Regarding the range k>200M to k<=300M for Sierp base 3, I'm gonna have to give you a choice between 2 options Gary. I never had any intentions to do any kind of PRP testing for n<500, but now that I'm rerunning the range to get the primes from n>500-n<=2500, I'm facing difficulties. For some reasons (though I've never experienced it before on the Sierp side) doing a strict test using -t causes at the ~100,000 test an infinite Brillart-Lehmer loop. I've tryed restarting 3 times now, and its the same story every time :(
So here is your options: 1. Accept to now recieve any primes for n<=2500 and consider the range completed 2. Consider the range lost It's your call what you decides, either decision is acceptable to me. So please let me know how to proceed according to the 2 options. Regards Kenneth Ps. To make clear, it will be no problem to find the k's remaining for the k=200-300M range aswell the primes for n>2500 is easily submitted and send to you aswell.[/quote] I'm assuming that you are using PFGW for this? Very wierd. I've never heard of that problem. Before we decide how to proceed, can you look in your pfgw.out file and tell me what test it is going into the loop on? If you don't usually have the results written out, you'll need to use the -l switch (small "L") to do it. I think we'll need to post the problem in a techie forum somewhere. We shouldn't stop our testing because the software has a problem. My thinking is if we can isolate where the problem is and there's no way to fix it, then another piece of software could be used for that k (LLR or Phrot) and all other k's should be tested in the range using PFGW. We could then use Proth to prove any probable prime for the problem k. Gary |
[quote=gd_barnes;166366]I'm assuming that you are using PFGW for this?
Very wierd. I've never heard of that problem. Before we decide how to proceed, can you look in your pfgw.out file and tell me what test it is going into the loop on? If you don't usually have the results written out, you'll need to use the -l switch (small "L") to do it. I think we'll need to post the problem in a techie forum somewhere. We shouldn't stop our testing because the software has a problem. My thinking is if we can isolate where the problem is and there's no way to fix it, then another piece of software could be used for that k (LLR or Phrot) and all other k's should be tested in the range using PFGW. We could then use Proth to prove any probable prime for the problem k. Gary[/quote] I am using PFGW with the following command-line: "Script.pl -t -lLog.txt" And the infinite Brillhart Lehmer loop occured at following test: 200212800*3^4+1 With the following beginning of the infinite loop looking like this: [CODE]Running N-1 test using base 191 Running N-1 test using base 89 Running N-1 test using base 251 Running N-1 test using base 149 Running N-1 test using base 197 Running N-1 test using base 173 Running N-1 test using base 193 Running N-1 test using base 181 Running N-1 test using base 223 Running N-1 test using base 167 Running N-1 test using base 71 Running N-1 test using base 79 Running N-1 test using base 11 Running N-1 test using base 103 Running N-1 test using base 211 Running N-1 test using base 29 Running N-1 test using base 23 Running N-1 test using base 227 Running N-1 test using base 7 Running N-1 test using base 67 Running N-1 test using base 263 Running N-1 test using base 271 Running N-1 test using base 281 Running N-1 test using base 283 Running N-1 test using base 293 Running N-1 test using base 311 Running N-1 test using base 313 Running N-1 test using base 317 Running N-1 test using base 331 Running N-1 test using base 337 Running N-1 test using base 347 Running N-1 test using base 383 Running N-1 test using base 409 Running N-1 test using base 419 Running N-1 test using base 421 Running N-1 test using base 439 Running N-1 test using base 443 Running N-1 test using base 449 Running N-1 test using base 463 Running N-1 test using base 499 Running N-1 test using base 503 Running N-1 test using base 541 Running N-1 test using base 547 Running N-1 test using base 557 Running N-1 test using base 563 Running N-1 test using base 569 Running N-1 test using base 571 Running N-1 test using base 613 Running N-1 test using base 617 Running N-1 test using base 619 Running N-1 test using base 631 Running N-1 test using base 647 Running N-1 test using base 659 Running N-1 test using base 661 Running N-1 test using base 709 Running N-1 test using base 727 Running N-1 test using base 743 Running N-1 test using base 751 Running N-1 test using base 761 Running N-1 test using base 769 Running N-1 test using base 773 Running N-1 test using base 797 Running N-1 test using base 811 Running N-1 test using base 821 Running N-1 test using base 827 Running N-1 test using base 839 Running N-1 test using base 853 Running N-1 test using base 857 Running N-1 test using base 859 Running N-1 test using base 863 Running N-1 test using base 877 Running N-1 test using base 883 Running N-1 test using base 887 Running N-1 test using base 907 Running N-1 test using base 919 Running N-1 test using base 929 Running N-1 test using base 937 Running N-1 test using base 941 Running N-1 test using base 947 Running N-1 test using base 967 Running N-1 test using base 983 Running N-1 test using base 1009 Running N-1 test using base 1013 Running N-1 test using base 1031 Running N-1 test using base 1033 Running N-1 test using base 1039 Running N-1 test using base 1051 Running N-1 test using base 1087 Running N-1 test using base 1091 Running N-1 test using base 1093 Running N-1 test using base 1117 Running N-1 test using base 1123 Running N-1 test using base 1151 Running N-1 test using base 1163 Running N-1 test using base 1171 Running N-1 test using base 1181 Running N-1 test using base 1187 Running N-1 test using base 1193 Running N-1 test using base 1213 Running N-1 test using base 1223 Running N-1 test using base 1237 Running N-1 test using base 1259 Running N-1 test using base 1291 Running N-1 test using base 1297 Running N-1 test using base 1301 Running N-1 test using base 1303 Running N-1 test using base 1319 Running N-1 test using base 1361 Running N-1 test using base 1373 Running N-1 test using base 1381 Running N-1 test using base 1399 Running N-1 test using base 1427 Running N-1 test using base 1447 Running N-1 test using base 1453 Running N-1 test using base 1459 Running N-1 test using base 1483 Running N-1 test using base 1487 Running N-1 test using base 1489 Running N-1 test using base 1493 Running N-1 test using base 1511 Running N-1 test using base 1531 Running N-1 test using base 1543 Running N-1 test using base 1549 Running N-1 test using base 1571 Running N-1 test using base 1583 Running N-1 test using base 1597 Running N-1 test using base 1601 Running N-1 test using base 1609 Running N-1 test using base 1621 Running N-1 test using base 1627 Running N-1 test using base 1657 Running N-1 test using base 1663 Running N-1 test using base 1667 Running N-1 test using base 1669 Running N-1 test using base 1693 Running N-1 test using base 1697 Running N-1 test using base 1709 Running N-1 test using base 1721 Running N-1 test using base 1723 Running N-1 test using base 1741 Running N-1 test using base 1753 Running N-1 test using base 1759 Running N-1 test using base 1777 Running N-1 test using base 1801 Running N-1 test using base 1831 Running N-1 test using base 1847 Running N-1 test using base 1861 Running N-1 test using base 1867 Running N-1 test using base 1901 Running N-1 test using base 1913 Running N-1 test using base 1931 Running N-1 test using base 1933 Running N-1 test using base 1949 Running N-1 test using base 1951 Running N-1 test using base 1979 Running N-1 test using base 1987 Running N-1 test using base 1993 Running N-1 test using base 1997 Running N-1 test using base 2017 Running N-1 test using base 2053 Running N-1 test using base 2069 Running N-1 test using base 2083 Running N-1 test using base 2087 Running N-1 test using base 2099 Running N-1 test using base 2111 Running N-1 test using base 2113 Running N-1 test using base 2129 Running N-1 test using base 2131 Running N-1 test using base 2141 Running N-1 test using base 2179 Running N-1 test using base 2207 Running N-1 test using base 2213 Running N-1 test using base 2237 Running N-1 test using base 2269 Running N-1 test using base 2287 Running N-1 test using base 2293 Running N-1 test using base 2309 Running N-1 test using base 2311 Running N-1 test using base 2333 Running N-1 test using base 2339 Running N-1 test using base 2341 Running N-1 test using base 2371 Running N-1 test using base 2377 Running N-1 test using base 2381 Running N-1 test using base 2383 Running N-1 test using base 2393 Running N-1 test using base 2399 Running N-1 test using base 2411 Running N-1 test using base 2437 Running N-1 test using base 2503 Running N-1 test using base 2531 Running N-1 test using base 2543 Running N-1 test using base 2549 Running N-1 test using base 2551 Running N-1 test using base 2609 Running N-1 test using base 2659 Running N-1 test using base 2663 Running N-1 test using base 2683 Running N-1 test using base 2693 Running N-1 test using base 2713 Running N-1 test using base 2731 Running N-1 test using base 2749 Running N-1 test using base 2753 Running N-1 test using base 2767 Running N-1 test using base 2777 Running N-1 test using base 2791 Running N-1 test using base 2797 Running N-1 test using base 2801 Running N-1 test using base 2803 Running N-1 test using base 2819 Running N-1 test using base 2837 Running N-1 test using base 2843 Running N-1 test using base 2851 Running N-1 test using base 2861 Running N-1 test using base 2879 Running N-1 test using base 2897 Running N-1 test using base 2903 Running N-1 test using base 2917 Running N-1 test using base 2957 Running N-1 test using base 2969 Running N-1 test using base 3001 Running N-1 test using base 3011 Running N-1 test using base 3019 Running N-1 test using base 3023 Running N-1 test using base 3037 Running N-1 test using base 3067 Running N-1 test using base 3079 Running N-1 test using base 3089 Running N-1 test using base 3119 Running N-1 test using base 3163 Running N-1 test using base 3181 Running N-1 test using base 3191 Running N-1 test using base 3203 Running N-1 test using base 3229 Running N-1 test using base 3251 Running N-1 test using base 3253 Running N-1 test using base 3257 Running N-1 test using base 3271 Running N-1 test using base 3313 Running N-1 test using base 3319 Running N-1 test using base 3329 Running N-1 test using base 3347 Running N-1 test using base 3373 Running N-1 test using base 3407 Running N-1 test using base 3433 Running N-1 test using base 3461 Running N-1 test using base 3463 Running N-1 test using base 3469 Running N-1 test using base 3491 Running N-1 test using base 3511 Running N-1 test using base 3517 Running N-1 test using base 3527 Running N-1 test using base 3559 Running N-1 test using base 3571 Running N-1 test using base 3581 Running N-1 test using base 3593 Running N-1 test using base 3659 Running N-1 test using base 3673 Running N-1 test using base 3697 Running N-1 test using base 3701 Running N-1 test using base 3727 Running N-1 test using base 3733 Running N-1 test using base 3793 Running N-1 test using base 3797 Running N-1 test using base 3833 Running N-1 test using base 3847 Running N-1 test using base 3851 Running N-1 test using base 3853 Running N-1 test using base 3881 Running N-1 test using base 3889 Running N-1 test using base 3911 Running N-1 test using base 3917 Running N-1 test using base 3931 Running N-1 test using base 3947 Running N-1 test using base 4001 Running N-1 test using base 4007 Running N-1 test using base 4013 Running N-1 test using base 4019 Running N-1 test using base 4021 Running N-1 test using base 4051 Running N-1 test using base 4073 Running N-1 test using base 4079 Running N-1 test using base 4091 Running N-1 test using base 4139 Running N-1 test using base 4159 Running N-1 test using base 4201 Running N-1 test using base 4211 Running N-1 test using base 4217 Running N-1 test using base 4219 Running N-1 test using base 4231 Running N-1 test using base 4253 Running N-1 test using base 4273 Running N-1 test using base 4327 Running N-1 test using base 4339 Running N-1 test using base 4349 Running N-1 test using base 4357 Running N-1 test using base 4373 Running N-1 test using base 4397 Running N-1 test using base 4409 Running N-1 test using base 4421 Running N-1 test using base 4423 Running N-1 test using base 4441 Running N-1 test using base 4447 Running N-1 test using base 4451 Running N-1 test using base 4481 Running N-1 test using base 4483 Running N-1 test using base 4519 Running N-1 test using base 4547 Running N-1 test using base 4549 Running N-1 test using base 4561 Running N-1 test using base 4583 Running N-1 test using base 4603 Running N-1 test using base 4621 Running N-1 test using base 4637 Running N-1 test using base 4639 Running N-1 test using base 4649 Running N-1 test using base 4651 Running N-1 test using base 4657 Running N-1 test using base 4673 Running N-1 test using base 4679 Running N-1 test using base 4703 Running N-1 test using base 4721 Running N-1 test using base 4729 Running N-1 test using base 4751 Running N-1 test using base 4759 Running N-1 test using base 4783 Running N-1 test using base 4789 Running N-1 test using base 4801 Running N-1 test using base 4813 Running N-1 test using base 4817 Running N-1 test using base 4861 Running N-1 test using base 4933 Running N-1 test using base 4937 Running N-1 test using base 4951 Running N-1 test using base 4967 Running N-1 test using base 4973 Running N-1 test using base 4987 Running N-1 test using base 4999 Running N-1 test using base 5021 Running N-1 test using base 5039 Running N-1 test using base 5059 Running N-1 test using base 5077 Running N-1 test using base 5099 Running N-1 test using base 5119 Running N-1 test using base 5147 Running N-1 test using base 5171 Running N-1 test using base 5189 Running N-1 test using base 5209 Running N-1 test using base 5227 Running N-1 test using base 5273 Running N-1 test using base 5279 Running N-1 test using base 5303 Running N-1 test using base 5347 Running N-1 test using base 5387 Running N-1 test using base 5399 Running N-1 test using base 5407 Running N-1 test using base 5417 Running N-1 test using base 5419 Running N-1 test using base 5441 Running N-1 test using base 5443 Running N-1 test using base 5479 Running N-1 test using base 5483 Running N-1 test using base 5527 Running N-1 test using base 5563 Running N-1 test using base 5581 Running N-1 test using base 5651 Running N-1 test using base 5653 Running N-1 test using base 5657 Running N-1 test using base 5683 Running N-1 test using base 5689 Running N-1 test using base 5711 Running N-1 test using base 5717 Running N-1 test using base 5737 Running N-1 test using base 5741 Running N-1 test using base 5743 Running N-1 test using base 5749 Running N-1 test using base 5779 Running N-1 test using base 5783 Running N-1 test using base 5791 Running N-1 test using base 5801 Running N-1 test using base 5821 Running N-1 test using base 5843 Running N-1 test using base 5861 Running N-1 test using base 5867 Running N-1 test using base 5869 Running N-1 test using base 5897 Running N-1 test using base 5903 Running N-1 test using base 5927 Running N-1 test using base 5953 Running N-1 test using base 5981 Running N-1 test using base 5987 Running N-1 test using base 6011 Running N-1 test using base 6043 Running N-1 test using base 6053 Running N-1 test using base 6073 Running N-1 test using base 6089 Running N-1 test using base 6113 Running N-1 test using base 6121 Running N-1 test using base 6133 Running N-1 test using base 6151 Running N-1 test using base 6221 Running N-1 test using base 6229 Running N-1 test using base 6247 Running N-1 test using base 6257 Running N-1 test using base 6269 Running N-1 test using base 6271 Running N-1 test using base 6277 Running N-1 test using base 6287 Running N-1 test using base 6317 Running N-1 test using base 6329 Running N-1 test using base 6343 Running N-1 test using base 6379 Running N-1 test using base 6449 Running N-1 test using base 6451 Running N-1 test using base 6469 Running N-1 test using base 6473 Running N-1 test using base 6481 Running N-1 test using base 6529 Running N-1 test using base 6547 Running N-1 test using base 6551 Running N-1 test using base 6553 Running N-1 test using base 6563 Running N-1 test using base 6569 Running N-1 test using base 6571 Running N-1 test using base 6577 Running N-1 test using base 6673 Running N-1 test using base 6679 Running N-1 test using base 6691 Running N-1 test using base 6701 Running N-1 test using base 6703 Running N-1 test using base 6709 Running N-1 test using base 6733 Running N-1 test using base 6737 Running N-1 test using base 6779 Running N-1 test using base 6781 Running N-1 test using base 6791 Running N-1 test using base 6793 Running N-1 test using base 6841 Running N-1 test using base 6857 Running N-1 test using base 6871 Running N-1 test using base 6899 Running N-1 test using base 6917 Running N-1 test using base 6947 Running N-1 test using base 6949 Running N-1 test using base 6961 Running N-1 test using base 6971 Running N-1 test using base 6977 Running N-1 test using base 6983 Running N-1 test using base 7019 Running N-1 test using base 7043 Running N-1 test using base 7057 Running N-1 test using base 7079 Running N-1 test using base 7103 Running N-1 test using base 7127 Running N-1 test using base 7159 Running N-1 test using base 7177 Running N-1 test using base 7187 Running N-1 test using base 7211 Running N-1 test using base 7213 Running N-1 test using base 7219 Running N-1 test using base 7229 Running N-1 test using base 7237 Running N-1 test using base 7247 Running N-1 test using base 7297 Running N-1 test using base 7309 Running N-1 test using base 7321 Running N-1 test using base 7331 Running N-1 test using base 7333 Running N-1 test using base 7417 Running N-1 test using base 7433 Running N-1 test using base 7457 Running N-1 test using base 7499 Running N-1 test using base 7517 Running N-1 test using base 7523 Running N-1 test using base 7529 Running N-1 test using base 7537 Running N-1 test using base 7541 Running N-1 test using base 7547 Running N-1 test using base 7549 Running N-1 test using base 7561 Running N-1 test using base 7573 Running N-1 test using base 7583 Running N-1 test using base 7607 Running N-1 test using base 7621 Running N-1 test using base 7669 Running N-1 test using base 7681 Running N-1 test using base 7687 Running N-1 test using base 7727 Running N-1 test using base 7753 Running N-1 test using base 7759 Running N-1 test using base 7789 Running N-1 test using base 7817 Running N-1 test using base 7823 Running N-1 test using base 7829 Running N-1 test using base 7841 Running N-1 test using base 7853 Running N-1 test using base 7873 Running N-1 test using base 7879 Running N-1 test using base 7883 Running N-1 test using base 7907 Running N-1 test using base 7927 Running N-1 test using base 7933 Running N-1 test using base 7951 Running N-1 test using base 7993 Running N-1 test using base 8009 Running N-1 test using base 8039 Running N-1 test using base 8059 Running N-1 test using base 8069 Running N-1 test using base 8089 Running N-1 test using base 8093 Running N-1 test using base 8101 Running N-1 test using base 8123 Running N-1 test using base 8147 Running N-1 test using base 8191 Running N-1 test using base 8219 Running N-1 test using base 8221 Running N-1 test using base 8243 Running N-1 test using base 8263 Running N-1 test using base 8287 Running N-1 test using base 8317 Running N-1 test using base 8329 Running N-1 test using base 8353 Running N-1 test using base 8377 Running N-1 test using base 8423 Running N-1 test using base 8447 Running N-1 test using base 8467 Running N-1 test using base 8513 Running N-1 test using base 8521 Running N-1 test using base 8527 Running N-1 test using base 8563 Running N-1 test using base 8573 Running N-1 test using base 8581 Running N-1 test using base 8597 Running N-1 test using base 8599 Running N-1 test using base 8627 Running N-1 test using base 8647 Running N-1 test using base 8663 Running N-1 test using base 8707 Running N-1 test using base 8719 Running N-1 test using base 8731 Running N-1 test using base 8737 Running N-1 test using base 8741 Running N-1 test using base 8747 Running N-1 test using base 8753 Running N-1 test using base 8761 Running N-1 test using base 8779 Running N-1 test using base 8807 Running N-1 test using base 8819 Running N-1 test using base 8821 Running N-1 test using base 8837 Running N-1 test using base 8839 Running N-1 test using base 8849 Running N-1 test using base 8861 Running N-1 test using base 8887 Running N-1 test using base 8893 Running N-1 test using base 8923 Running N-1 test using base 8929 Running N-1 test using base 8933 Running N-1 test using base 8951 Running N-1 test using base 8969 Running N-1 test using base 8999 Running N-1 test using base 9007 Running N-1 test using base 9041 Running N-1 test using base 9091 Running N-1 test using base 9133 Running N-1 test using base 9137 Running N-1 test using base 9151 Running N-1 test using base 9157 Running N-1 test using base 9173 Running N-1 test using base 9181 Running N-1 test using base 9203 Running N-1 test using base 9227 Running N-1 test using base 9239 Running N-1 test using base 9281 Running N-1 test using base 9283 Running N-1 test using base 9311 Running N-1 test using base 9319 Running N-1 test using base 9349 Running N-1 test using base 9371 Running N-1 test using base 9391 Running N-1 test using base 9397 Running N-1 test using base 9413 Running N-1 test using base 9431 Running N-1 test using base 9433 Running N-1 test using base 9437 Running N-1 test using base 9461 Running N-1 test using base 9463 Running N-1 test using base 9479 Running N-1 test using base 9491 Running N-1 test using base 9551 Running N-1 test using base 9587 Running N-1 test using base 9601 Running N-1 test using base 9623 Running N-1 test using base 9631 Running N-1 test using base 9643 Running N-1 test using base 9649 Running N-1 test using base 9677 Running N-1 test using base 9689 Running N-1 test using base 9697 Running N-1 test using base 9721 Running N-1 test using base 9767 Running N-1 test using base 9787 Running N-1 test using base 9791 Running N-1 test using base 9811 Running N-1 test using base 9839 Running N-1 test using base 9857 Running N-1 test using base 9859 Running N-1 test using base 9923 Running N-1 test using base 9941[/CODE] It continues up to well above base 4400000 in the log file, untill I manually aborted the test by forced shut-down of PFGW. Good luck on finding a solution, I've never experienced this issue regarding the Sierp side before, however I did see it using strict tests on the Riesel side before. Regards KEP |
Problem with PFGW?...
That is VERY strange! Can any technical person help us with this apparent PFGW problem here?
If I don't get a response within a couple of days, I'll create a separate thread for this and perhaps PM a few more knowledgeable folks. Gary |
I have not had time to do the follow ups with the particular issue involving PFGW. It is very strange for such a small test. The problem test was:
200212800*3^4+1, which factors to 19*31*41*61*101*109. Perhaps the large # of factors (i.e. smoothness) contributes to PFGW's problem. Therefore, I needed to check the k for myself using Alpertron's site and found that: 200212800*3^13+1 is prime. For k=200M-300M and n<=25K, KEP went ahead and sent me his primes and k's remaining for n>2500 quite a while ago. I'll add k's remaining to the pages and show the range complete here shortly. Gary |
For historical balancing reference as sent to me by KEP:
k=200M-300M has 715 k's remaining at n=25K. Subtract 246 k's that are divisible by 3. Add back 11 k's that are divisible by 3 where k+1 is prime. Total 480 k's remaining at n=25K. Gary |
@ Gary regarding my base 3 reservation:
Glad that you decided to accept the range as complete. And I guess you actually may be on to something, regarding the amount of factors, because maybe it reaches a limitation in an allowed length of factors found (or how to describe it). Don't know :smile: Off topic here, I can tell you, that I followed you advice on looking at the patterns on the riesel side, and I've actually been able to come up with a k == "remainder" mod "divisor" (divisor) answer in stead of just writing the apparent general factor for each k remaining. So in the next batches of completion I'll hand over to you, you'll get the modulos (or whatever you call it) in stead of just the factor :smile: I can btw not tell when I will hand over the next batch of completed bases to n=25K or proven, but I can tell that I'll hand over 84 bases which you can add in your own pace :) Also it is actually quite educational for me to do the investigation myself and having to do a lot of the thinking myself, so I actually thinks that my skills will improve drasticly as I move down the list of bases :smile: Take care everyone. Kenneth! |
You haven't been specific enough to show that you understand which k's have trivial factors.
The pattern of the trivial factors for each base is as follows: 1. Find the prime factors of the (base minus 1). Let's say they are A and B. 2. The k's with trivial factors for your base are: (a) For Riesel, k==(1 mod A) and k==(1 mod B). (b) For Sierp, k==(A-1 mod A) and k==(B-1 mod B). Example for base 46: 1. The prime factors of 45 are 3*3*5. 2. The k's with trivial factors for base 46 are: (a) For Riesel, k==(1 mod 3) and k==(1 mod 5). (b) for Sierp, k==(2 mod 3) and k==(4 mod 5). For bases where the base-1 is prime, it's simply k==(1 mod b-1) for Riesel and k==(b-2 mod b-1) for Sierp. Example: base 48. Riesel has k's with trivial factors for k==(1 mod 47) and Sierp has k's with trivial factors for k==(46 mod 47). That is why base 2 is the only base with no k's that have trivial factors. If you subtract 1 from the base you get 1 but 1 is not considered prime and therefore cannot be a prime factor. Hence there are no base 2 k's with trivial factors. A more complex example is base 211. 210 factors to 2*3*5*7, therefore many k's have trivial factors for base 211. For Riesel, it's k==1mod2, 1mod3, 1mod5, and 1mod7. For Sierp, it's k==1mod2, 2mod3, 4mod5, and 6mod7. Does that make sense? It's quite simple when you see the pattern. You don't have to use srsieve or Alperton's site to eliminate k's or come up with factors. k's with algebraic factors on the Riesel side have a more complex, yet easily discernable, pattern once you are able to see it. Before I was able to pick it up, the project had to expand beyond base 32. Once it got near base 50-60, I saw 1-2 recurring patterns and then was able to "extrapolate" several more, which subsequent testing bore out. Gary |
Actually it does make sence. Thanks for the explanaition, as soon as I'm done replying here, I'll copy this information to a notepad document and then I'll use the information, to doublecheck weather or not I infact has come up with all k's with trivial factors. Also you're right, I was not quite clear enough on what I understood, so in short term, I understood at the time I posted that the trivial factors appears in a pattern i.e. k = = 1 mod 31 (31) will appear for bases 32, 63, 94, 125, 156, 187, 218, 249 etc. etc. etc.
But now I think that I'll prepare a spreadsheet that can help me find the prime-factors of b-1 :smile: Thanks for the very educational and informative knowledge. Regards Kenneth |
Sierp Base 3
Sierp Base 3
k=200M-300M (480k's) Testing from n=25K-50K |
Sierp Base 3
Sierp base 3 k=200M-300M-n=25K-80K complete
322 primes found and proven - see attached list I will continue to n=100M |
[quote=MyDogBuster;194007]Sierp base 3 k=200M-300M-n=25K-80K complete
322 primes found and proven - see attached list[/quote] Nice! We "only" have 449 k's remaining for Sierp base 3 for k<300M plus 2 large squared k's > 1G. For balancing purposes for k=200M-300M at n=80K, we have 480 - 322 = 158 k's remaining. [quote=MyDogBuster;194007] I will continue to n=100M[/quote] Dang! Gonna be crunching a few years? You sure you'll live that long? If you're going to test that high, I'd suggest doing k<100M first. :missingteeth: |
[QUOTE]Dang! Gonna be crunching a few years? You sure you'll live that long? If you're going to test that high, I'd suggest doing k<100M first.[/QUOTE]
I meant 100K. M's and K's, it's only a letter anyway. :razz: |
Sierp base 3 k=200M-300M-n=80K-100K complete
21 primes found and proven - see attached list Releasing range [QUOTE]266356276*3^82244+1 276198764*3^82641+1 211424498*3^82946+1 268894196*3^86144+1 214111278*3^86550+1 205194422*3^87605+1 252794000*3^89442+1 208564828*3^90039+1 225771878*3^90355+1 231659672*3^90957+1 261865738*3^91446+1 289623476*3^92036+1 261518924*3^92163+1 205915818*3^92454+1 245416376*3^92788+1 249835154*3^94858+1 251552506*3^96033+1 233864102*3^96941+1 209667754*3^97143+1 221059934*3^98109+1 269558696*3^98441+1 [/QUOTE] |
Sierp Base 3
Sierp Base 3 Range = 300M-310M
Conjectured k = 125,050,976,086 Covering Set = 5, 7, 13, 17, 19, 37, 41, 193, 757 Trivial Factors k == 1 mod 2(2) Found Primes: 3,589,061k's - File emailed Remaining k's: 507k's - Tested to n=2.5K - File emailed MOB Eliminations: 41,193,757k's - File emailed Files emailed Range released |
1 Attachment(s)
[quote=MyDogBuster;200229]Sierp Base 3 Range = 300M-310M
Conjectured k = 125,050,976,086 Covering Set = 5, 7, 13, 17, 19, 37, 41, 193, 757 Trivial Factors k == 1 mod 2(2) Found Primes: 3,589,061k's - File emailed Remaining k's: 507k's - Tested to n=2.5K - File emailed MOB Eliminations: 41,193,757k's - File emailed Files emailed Range released[/quote] Wow, 41M+ MOB eliminations for a k=10M range. That's amazing. :smile: Your file shows 1,410,432 MOB eliminations. I won't be able to show these on the pages since it's a large-conjectured base with the k-range only searched to n=2500. If anyone would like to search Sierp base 3 k=300M-310M for n=2.5K to 25K (or to 10K), then I could show it on the pages. Attached are the 507 k's remaining at n=2500. Gary |
[QUOTE=gd_barnes;200289]Wow, 41M+ MOB eliminations for a k=10M range. That's amazing. :smile: Your file shows 1,410,432 MOB eliminations.
I won't be able to show these on the pages since it's a large-conjectured base with the k-range only searched to n=2500. If anyone would like to search Sierp base 3 k=300M-310M for n=2.5K to 25K (or to 10K), then I could show it on the pages. Attached are the 507 k's remaining at n=2500. Gary[/QUOTE] I'll do it to n=25K. As previously mentioned, please take your startups for the smaller bases to at least n=25K, since it doesn't mean very much more work :smile: KEP |
1 Attachment(s)
The range: k>300M >k k<=310M is complete to n=25K. 464 primes were found and verified and double, heck even triple checked. There is a total of 43 k's remaining all listed in the attached file.
Regards KEP |
Sierp Base 3
Sierp Base 3 Range = 310M-330M
Conjectured k = 125,050,976,086 Covering Set = 5, 7, 13, 17, 19, 37, 41, 193, 757 Trivial Factors k == 1 mod 2(2) Found Primes: 7,176,408k's - File emailed Remaining k's: 91k's - Tested to n=25K - File emailed MOB Eliminations: 2,823,501k's - File emailed compPRP: 25k's - File emailed Range released |
Sierp Base 3 - Range 330M-340M
Conjectured k = 125,050,976,086 Covering Set = 5, 7, 13, 17, 19, 37, 41, 193, 757 Trivial Factors k == 1 mod 2(2) Found Primes: 3587632k's - File emailed Remaining: 60k's - File emailed - Tested to n=25K MOB Eliminations: 1412308k's - File emailed Range Released compPRP 333202810*3^4+1 333388184*3^67+1 333401180*3^5+1 334374110*3^4+1 335181778*3^6+1 335276768*3^4+1 335550520*3^55+1 335556080*3^4+1 336267398*3^79+1 336787876*3^3+1 338344760*3^5+1 338945294*3^5+1 338985326*3^71+1 |
[QUOTE=MyDogBuster;214469]
compPRP 333202810*3^4+1 333388184*3^67+1 333401180*3^5+1 334374110*3^4+1 335181778*3^6+1 335276768*3^4+1 335550520*3^55+1 335556080*3^4+1 336267398*3^79+1 336787876*3^3+1 338344760*3^5+1 338945294*3^5+1 338985326*3^71+1[/QUOTE] Were you using PFGW? If so, which version? |
[QUOTE]Were you using PFGW? If so, which version? [/QUOTE]
I'm using WinPFGW 3.3.1. Primes were found for all the compPRP's. |
[quote=MyDogBuster;214478]I'm using WinPFGW 3.3.1. Primes were found for all the compPRP's.[/quote]
Can you clarify? I assume that you mean that primes were found for all k's where there was a composite PRP, correct? Not...that the composite PRP's themselves turned out to be prime when tested with other software. The GWNUM libraries still seem to have a bug. I'm not going to test them here but I'll make a prediction: All of the compPRP's with an exponent < 50 are actually composite but the compPRP's with an exponent >= 50 are actually prime. So the n<50 compPRPs are correct as shown. Of course this doesn't make a difference for the proof of the conjecture since it appears that you found higher primes for all of the k's. I have found tons of compPRP's on Sierp base 63 with an exponent >= 100 that turned out to actually be prime. As a matter of fact, just like for base 3 with an exponent >=50, ALL compPRP's on Sierp base 63 with an exponent >= 100 turned out to be prime. There were no composites. In several cases, the k shows as remaining at n=1000 and I had to go back and test the compPRP with other software just to make sure that the k could be removed. This is not a bug in the starting bases script because I've hopped through many hoops to attempt to prove PRP's correctly. The GWNUM libraries themselves need to be fixed. I have 10s and now, probably even a couple of hundred examples of them on both bases 3 and 63. BTW, as a point of reference on speed and proving PRPs: I use trial factoring of 35% (-f35) on base 3 to n=25K and 10% (-f10) on base 63 to n=1K. If you drop it much lower than that on base 3, you'll get PRPs (that are actually prime) that for some reason, PFGW cannot prove. In other words, it doesn't prove them prime nor does it prove them composite. In all cases, I found these PRPs to be prime but it's a nuisunce so it's best to put the trial factoring high enough to avoid them completely. (BTW, because of this, the starting bases script ASSUMES that unprovable PRPs that also cannot be proven composite are prime and hence, are also written to the primes file. Nevertheless, these PRPs would need to be proven by other software. These are fairly rare unless you use very low trial factoring so don't worry about it if it isn't clear.) Gary |
[QUOTE]Can you clarify? I assume that you mean that primes were found for all k's where there was a composite PRP, correct?[/QUOTE]
That is correct. |
[QUOTE=MyDogBuster;214478]I'm using WinPFGW 3.3.1. Primes were found for all the compPRP's.[/QUOTE]
You need to upgrade to 3.3.3 (in the minimum). PFGW was upgraded to use gwnum 25.14 in that release. The problems you are describing are most likely fixed in 3.3.4 based upon this change in gwnum: [code] More conservative in selecting an FFT length for non-base-2 cases. [/code] |
[QUOTE=gd_barnes;214500]The GWNUM libraries still seem to have a bug. I'm not going to test them here but I'll make a prediction: All of the compPRP's with an exponent < 50 are actually composite but the compPRP's with an exponent >= 50 are actually prime. So the n<50 compPRPs are correct as shown. Of course this doesn't make a difference for the proof of the conjecture since it appears that you found higher primes for all of the k's.
I have found tons of compPRP's on Sierp base 63 with an exponent >= 100 that turned out to actually be prime. As a matter of fact, just like for base 3 with an exponent >=50, ALL compPRP's on Sierp base 63 with an exponent >= 100 turned out to be prime. There were no composites. In several cases, the k shows as remaining at n=1000 and I had to go back and test the compPRP with other software just to make sure that the k could be removed.[/QUOTE] I have one comment, which I know has been stated before because I stated it. If anyone believes that they have uncovered a bug, I would prefer that they contact me first rather than stating it publicly in a forum. This is a very aggressive tactic that not only frustrates me (and others) but puts people on the defensive. I would state that it is premature to blame gwnum for the problems you are seeing. Please PM (or e-mail) me the relevant information regarding the problem. I need to know which version of PFGW you are using and the test cases that can reproduce the problem. |
[quote=rogue;214524]I have one comment, which I know has been stated before because I stated it. If anyone believes that they have uncovered a bug, I would prefer that they contact me first rather than stating it publicly in a forum. This is a very aggressive tactic that not only frustrates me (and others) but puts people on the defensive.
I would state that it is premature to blame gwnum for the problems you are seeing. Please PM (or e-mail) me the relevant information regarding the problem. I need to know which version of PFGW you are using and the test cases that can reproduce the problem.[/quote] I'm sorry Mark. I thought that a related GWNUM bug had been brought out publicly before that caused relatively small primes (but not VERY small primes) to show up as composite (upon an attempted proof) and that it was not a bug in PFGW. I'm also fairly certain that LLR 3.8 was showing the same problem, which made me further think that it must be GWNUM. I know I've been publicly critical before but in no way intended that this be a criticism of GWNUM. I was merely stating the symptoms of what I thought was a known problem. I'm sorry if the tone sounded otherwise. Would you like a list of the PRPs where a proof showed "actual primes" to be composite on bases 3 and 63? It seems to only happen on fairly specific sizes of PRPs. That is around n=50-75 or n=100-120 on base 3 and I've only seen it for n=100-120 on base 63. I am running PFGW 3.3.2. The above is definitely not a bug introduced in any subsequent releases of PFGW since the new speedy GWNUM libraries were introduced that sped it up nearly 5 times. I'm getting the same problem in older releases of PFGW back to 3.2.3. It will take me a little while to put the list together but can do it if you think it will help. You can also generate a few yourself by running a k=1M range of Sierp base 63 using the starting bases script with trial factoring set to 10% (-f10). [I haven't checked to see if the trial factoring % would make any difference.] Any CompPRP with an exponent of n>100 is actually prime. I've verified this for all k<=20M now. I estimate that there are about 100 of them. As you know, I'm continuing that doublecheck up to the conjectore of k=~37M. Interestingly, there are a gob of compPRPs on both bases 3 and 63 with an exponent of n<20. All of those are actually composite. So...it's a very specific size of PRP that causes the problem. If you think a list of the "truly composite" CompPRPs would help, I can also forward those. Gary |
Since PFGW 3.3.3 is using a newer version of gwnum, I think it is important to see if that version is exhibiting the same problems that you see in PFGW 3.3.2. If it does, then please post any numbers causing problems.
|
[quote=rogue;214602]Since PFGW 3.3.3 is using a newer version of gwnum, I think it is important to see if that version is exhibiting the same problems that you see in PFGW 3.3.2. If it does, then please post any numbers causing problems.[/quote]
The same problem has existed ever since PFGW 3.2.3. I've tested every version so...I guess I'll test another. Can you please provide a direct link to the Windows and Linux versions of PFGW 3.3.3? I'll then test all of them and post the problem ones. Thanks. |
[quote=gd_barnes;214640]The same problem has existed ever since PFGW 3.2.3. I've tested every version so...I guess I'll test another. Can you please provide a direct link to the Windows and Linux versions of PFGW 3.3.3? I'll then test all of them and post the problem ones.
Thanks.[/quote] [URL]http://sourceforge.net/projects/openpfgw/files/[/URL] Try this :smile: It use to be here. Lennart |
[quote=Lennart;214649][URL]http://sourceforge.net/projects/openpfgw/files/[/URL]
Try this :smile: It use to be here. Lennart[/quote] OK, thanks Lennart. I guess we're already at version 3.3.4 so I'll test with that against the many compPRP's that are coming out of bases R3, S3, and S63. BTW, I have a question for you since you have a lot of cores. How do you easily keep the latest versions of everything on all of them? I find it very time-consuming to update to new versions of things fairly often. I suppose if you only use a PRPnet server on most of them, that helps, although it still needs to have the latest PFGW, LLR, etc. in it. I've been using PFGW 3.3.2 on my 2 Windows machines, which is what I used to test the above bases but PFGW 3.3.0 on the rest of my machines that are Linux. I'll finally take the time to update everything to 3.3.4 later today but it just takes a while. I have ~50 cores. |
[QUOTE]BTW, I have a question for you since you have a lot of cores. How do you easily keep the latest versions of everything on all of them? I find it very time-consuming to update to new versions of things fairly often. I suppose if you only use a PRPnet server on most of them, that helps, although it still needs to have the latest PFGW, LLR, etc. in it.
I've been using PFGW 3.3.2 on my 2 Windows machines, which is what I used to test the above bases but PFGW 3.3.0 on the rest of my machines that are Linux. I'll finally take the time to update everything to 3.3.4 later today but it just takes a while. I have ~50 cores.[/quote] I use our prpclient package on all my computers, that means I have one main folder "program" In that folder I have all programfiles like PRPclient,cllr,pfgw,phrot,genefer,etc. I'll stop all work and abandoned all. I copy the update file to "program" run install. and all core folders are updated. Then I start again :smile: If there is more changes I do a main package and download them to each computer Edit computer ID run install & update, ready to run. Lennart |
| All times are UTC. The time now is 08:54. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.