|
Riesel base 2 discussion
I'm going to shortly remove the link to Rieselsieve from our web pages as the link is no longer valid and hence it appears to no longer be a project.
Can someone refer me to a list of the k-values remaining and the search limits for each one? I will then manually list the info. in the CRUS web pages. Unless someone knows otherwise, technically the effort is now wide open for anyone to begin anew on so if anyone wants to coordinate any efforts here for Riesel base 2, go right ahead! I'll go ahead and remove the green project reservation from the page. Thanks, Gary |
k's and limits found...add'l info. needed
I was able to obtain the k's remaining and test limits for the Riesel Sieve k's from [URL="http://www.rieselprime.org"]www.rieselprime.org[/URL]. Note that the test limits are several months out of date. For the 4 k's < 32000 that affect our Riesel base 4 and 16 conjectures, the test limits were limits that I got < 2 months before the project went down so they are more up to date.
The Riesel Sieve project going down had a major ripple effect through the CRUS web pages. The Riesel Sieve remaining k's are now incorporated with the CRUS remaining k's for Riesel bases 2, 4, and 16. All links to the Riesel Sieve project have been removed. References are still made to the 'former Riesel Sieve project' about which k's were searched by it on the various powers of 2 bases. As far as we are concerned unless we hear otherwise, any former Riesel sieve k is now shown as (available) for coordination, sieving, and testing here unless another effort starts up somewhere else. If anyone knows of any effort anywhere else that is under way to continue on the Riesel base 2 conjecture, please let me know. Also, if anyone knows more up-to-date test limits on the various Riesel base 2 k-values, please let me know. If either affects what is shown on the pages, I'll update them quickly. Thanks, Gary |
Were there 65 k's remaining? I was trying to figure this out myself.
|
Hello Gary
I obtained this information on dc.rieselsieve.com, and one of those using the message board there did send me the .dat file. From that I removed the k that was found prime after the date of the dat file. This made me end up with following 64 k's remaining: [code] 2293 9221 23669 31859 38473 40597 46663 65531 67117 74699 81041 93839 97139 107347 121889 123547 129007 141941 143047 146561 161669 162941 191249 192971 206039 206231 215443 226153 234343 245561 250027 252191 273809 304207 315929 319511 324011 325123 327671 336839 342847 344759 353159 362609 363343 364903 365159 368411 371893 384539 386801 397027 398023 402539 409753 415267 428639 444637 470173 474491 477583 485557 494743 502573 [/code] I was able to make a list of all remaining k/n pair which were held by the dat, I can compress this output file and e-mail it to you, so you can start running a LLRNet client or something, if you're interested :smile: Hope it helps! KEP Ps. There is about 3.2M untested k/n pairs left in the dat file, above n=3.42M (test limit mentioned on the dc.rieselsieve.com forum). |
[quote=philmoore;143501]Were there 65 k's remaining? I was trying to figure this out myself.[/quote]
No, there were 64 k's remaining. On my web pages, I show 66 k's remaining because for all bases here, we include multiples of the base that have not yielded a prime for n>=1. For riesel base 2, there are 2 even k's remaining that Karsten (kar_bon) is working on. Gary |
[quote=KEP;143512]Hello Gary
I obtained this information on dc.rieselsieve.com, and one of those using the message board there did send me the .dat file. From that I removed the k that was found prime after the date of the dat file. This made me end up with following 64 k's remaining: [code] 2293 9221 23669 31859 38473 40597 46663 65531 67117 74699 81041 93839 97139 107347 121889 123547 129007 141941 143047 146561 161669 162941 191249 192971 206039 206231 215443 226153 234343 245561 250027 252191 273809 304207 315929 319511 324011 325123 327671 336839 342847 344759 353159 362609 363343 364903 365159 368411 371893 384539 386801 397027 398023 402539 409753 415267 428639 444637 470173 474491 477583 485557 494743 502573 [/code] I was able to make a list of all remaining k/n pair which were held by the dat, I can compress this output file and e-mail it to you, so you can start running a LLRNet client or something, if you're interested :smile: Hope it helps! KEP Ps. There is about 3.2M untested k/n pairs left in the dat file, above n=3.42M (test limit mentioned on the dc.rieselsieve.com forum).[/quote] Great! KEP, can you send me the .dat file in an Email? I'm sure it is huge. I'm not sure how it is sorted but if you can break it up in some logical fashion; perhaps one file for each 3 k's or one file for each n=1M range, that might help. Alternatively, is there a link where I can get the file? Also, can you refer me to a link or otherwise let me know what the exact test limits are (i.e. n-range completion limits) for all of the k's here? I need to know the n-value where there are ZERO k/n pairs below that n-value remaining to be tested. If people are interested, we could break up the .dat file here and start a drive to begin crunching again. Somebody please let me know if that would be politically incorrect. I don't want to start any wars. In looking at the Riesel Sieve threads, it appears the admins there aren't interested in responding to people in a timely fashion even though they say some things are 'in the works'. So they really don't look serious in getting a stable project running again. Gary |
[QUOTE=gd_barnes;143552]Great!
KEP, can you send me the .dat file in an Email? I'm sure it is huge. I'm not sure how it is sorted but if you can break it up in some logical fashion; perhaps one file for each 3 k's or one file for each n=1M range, that might help. Alternatively, is there a link where I can get the file? Also, can you refer me to a link or otherwise let me know what the exact test limits are (i.e. n-range completion limits) for all of the k's here? I need to know the n-value where there are ZERO k/n pairs below that n-value remaining to be tested. If people are interested, we could break up the .dat file here and start a drive to begin crunching again. Somebody please let me know if that would be politically incorrect. I don't want to start any wars. In looking at the Riesel Sieve threads, it appears the admins there aren't interested in responding to people in a timely fashion even though they say some things are 'in the works'. So they really don't look serious in getting a stable project running again. Gary[/QUOTE] I did not send you the .dat file in the e-mail sent to you, however I did send you the finished output file. In a few I'll send you the .abcd file, which I created, which has made the output-file that I did send to you. It turns out, that the way the .dat file from RieselSieve is formed, srfile were impossible to use, so I had to do some search and replace, to get the proper coding in order to change to .abcd coding. The file I sent to you, is containing all k/n pairs not yet factored, even though they are LLR-tested at least once. The testing limits you show, should maybe be increased to at least n=2.9M, since (if my memory is correct) boinc.rieselsieve.com showed something with 3.1M n being the lowest n availeable on their stat charts. So in order to not miss anything, I suggest that ALL 64 availeable k's is being tested from n>3M except the k's with test limits n>4M, it should be sufficient to test those 2 k's from n>4M, and still not miss a prime. Unfortunantly in only few words on: [url]http://dc.rieselsieve.com[/url] there is described a test limit by bryan at 3.42M, however this is much higher than the numbers BOINC ever got to, so I'm not sure if any k/n pairs could be left behind untested, going from that depth and up. This sadly is all I have, but I greatly appreciate your effort on getting this conjecture running again. Not sure if you collide with Bryan and any of his efforts, but do not expect anything else than empty promises. Several weeks ago he promised to get back to me and Rytis on setting up the base 2 Riesel conjecture and run it using PG, no replys has come to either of our e-mails yet. As said, as soon as I'm done checking the remaining posts, and getting my last fix before going to bed, I'll send you the .abcd file, I used the -G to create the output file, if you want an seperate output file for each k, just use -g... well I'm shure you know about that and finds your own solution :) Best of luck Kenneth! EDIT: I suggest a vote, that we vote "yes" or "no" to officially strip the RS project any ownership of this conjecture, so we can get things working again. In response to em99010pepe, it just verifies that nothing has really changed at RS since they gave up getting back online months and months ago :( 2. EDIT: No Gary, there is no way to download the .dat file, unless you knows someone who sieved using BOINC and who is willing to send you the .dat file on e-mail, like I just did :) |
LLRNet RieselSieve server at [B]dc.rieselsieve.com[/B], port 7000, is down so it's better to set up a new one.
|
Oh wow guys. Perhaps some could view me as having done politically incorrect stuff in the past but this would be the biggest of them all! lol
'Stripping RS of any ownership' of the effort and taking a vote HERE to do such a thing would be tantamount to a big fight that I don't want this project involved in. I'll avoid anything of that nature. What I'll do is put a post or 2 in the dc.rieselsieve threads. What I generally do in situations such as this where people are not responding or are dragging their feet on efforts or reservations is to ask for specific estimates and time lines. Here's what I want to see: I want to see exactly what it is they need to fix their site. That is: an exact plan of action, realistic dates for accomplishing each item within the action plan, and a realistic completion date. Then, as the date for the first item in the action plan is nearing, I follow up to see if they are still on target. In effect, I become a quasi project manager just like in the real world. lol If they can't provide such a detailed plan within the next 3-4 weeks, THEN the project should be considered dead. What I'm hoping is this: If another project comes in and is potentially in a position to take over their effort, THEN they may actually get moving and get things fixed. We'll give them that chance first. I'll go ahead and update all the ranges that are n<2.9M to n=2.9M in the next few hours. Expect to see a couple of posts in the dc.rieselsieve threads by mid-morning GMT. Gary |
Guantlet dropped...
The gauntlet has been dropped:
[URL]http://dc.rieselsieve.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9[/URL] Limits also requested: [URL]http://dc.rieselsieve.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10[/URL] If they don't restart the RS project, I hope we can get more accurate limits. Gary |
[QUOTE=gd_barnes;143608]The gauntlet has been dropped:
[URL]http://dc.rieselsieve.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9[/URL] [/QUOTE] And been lifted up. H. |
[quote=hhh;143732]And been lifted up. H.[/quote]
And dropped again... [URL]http://dc.rieselsieve.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9&p=44#p44[/URL] H, if people are serious about getting RS rolling again, I want no part of "poaching" the project. As I state, the post was intended to ruffle feathers because nothing else was doing the trick. I've had 3 different people contact me about potentially getting it moving again here. After reading the threads there, I can now see why. The admins will not respond in a timely manner to their posts about a status of the project. Regardless of how state-of-the art that RS was when it started, people deserve better than to be left in the dark like they have after a site crashes suddenly. Like I say there, can we please focus on the situation and not the style or manner of the people involved? Thanks, Gary |
A long while ago, I participated in an effort to solve the Riesel Problem. We got to reserve individual k's at that time, and the k I got was k=234343. Then Riesel Sieve came along. Nearly all individual searchers, including myself, had to give up our k's because we couldn't keep up with their effort.
When Riesel Sieve came down a few weeks ago, my first thought was "did they find a prime for k=234343 yet? When I saw that they hadn't, and that CRUS might take over, I wanted to reserve it again. So, could I make a reservation for k=234343 if this forum continues where Riesel Sieve left off? Wait. Nevermind. The n's are searched way too high now. I'm already stuck with my two other reserved k's, k=173 and k=313. Even if I release them, each candidate will take at least a few hours to test, and k=234343 will progress verrrrrrry sloooowwwly. Oh well, it seemed like a good idea for a few minutes. [size=1]Yes, I know that I'm not really adding anything helpful here, but I just wanted to share my thoughts.[/size] |
What we can do at least is to host a llrnet server for RieselSieve, I don't mind to host one. I just want to see the project alive and kicking.
|
It does seem a pity that the project has gone down so soon after finding its first megadigit prime. The sieving work done under BOINC was incredible, and it certainly would be a shame to waste that work by not continuing the primality testing. It sounds like the owners of the project have had offers of help to get the server going again so it seems to me that they owe the project contributors a simple yes/no answer as to whether they intend to get the project going again and when. Granted, it is a hobby pursued for fun, but it is also something that many people have invested in, so there is also the aspect of responsibility toward the participants. To me, there would be absolutely no shame in saying "no, I am not able to continue coordinating this project at this time" and turning it over to someone else. On the other hand, not communicating about the present status of the project will create bad feelings about this project in particular, and perhaps distributed computing projects in general.
|
Lee's post from [URL="http://dc.rieselsieve.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6&start=10#p31"]Sep 02[/URL] 2008:
[quote="B2Riesel"]This is Lee. I will restore most of our severs at Riesel Sieve in the near future. 'Near Future' doesn't mean now...tomorrow...or two days from now. It may mean this weekend if I have the energy, time, and equipment/supplies to bring us back online. I regret the sudden suspension of our project with no notice. It was caused by forces outside my control and our project remained down until certain issues were taken care of. The last few weeks has only been laziness on my part and Bryan shouldn't be blamed for any of it. I look forward to restoring this project to its once former glory and I appreciate all the support and help each of you have given Riesel Sieve over the years. I apologize for the continued downtime since there is no valid reason beyond time and simple laziness for non-restoration from this point forward. I ask for patience but don't expect any...I would pretty jumpy too if I were in your place. Look for servers to be up in the 'Near Future' Lee Stephens Riesel Sieve[/quote] |
[quote=philmoore;143769]It does seem a pity that the project has gone down so soon after finding its first megadigit prime. The sieving work done under BOINC was incredible, and it certainly would be a shame to waste that work by not continuing the primality testing. It sounds like the owners of the project have had offers of help to get the server going again so it seems to me that they owe the project contributors a simple yes/no answer as to whether they intend to get the project going again and when. Granted, it is a hobby pursued for fun, but it is also something that many people have invested in, so there is also the aspect of responsibility toward the participants. To me, there would be absolutely no shame in saying "no, I am not able to continue coordinating this project at this time" and turning it over to someone else. On the other hand, not communicating about the present status of the project will create bad feelings about this project in particular, and perhaps distributed computing projects in general.[/quote]
Thank you Phil. VERY VERY well put! May I quote your post here in the dc-rieselsieve forum? That is all that I and I believe others are asking for. For the owners/admins of the project to step forth and say: "Folks, I'm sorry that we don't have the time nor the resources to continue the project.". If they do that, I believe that many people would have much greater respect for them bowing out of the prime search world in at least a semi-graceful manner. Thanks, Gary |
[quote=em99010pepe;143773]Lee's post from [URL="http://dc.rieselsieve.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6&start=10#p31"]Sep 02[/URL] 2008:[/quote]
I read this before posting my 'ultimatum style' post and is exactly why I posted it in the style that I did. Saying that it is 'laziness' that is causing one to not restart a monsterous project and then not following up with people in over 3 weeks is simply inexcusable. At least in my opinion, it is. Perhaps others feel differently. (lol) As Phil so eloquently alluded to: It may be a hobby but it is one that many people have invested much time, effort, and money into and people deserve better than this kind of response. BTW, yesterday KEP forwarded me their fairly recent sieved file. Rest assured that all of their sieving effort will not go to waste! Let me say this also: I have no intention of doing anything on this only at CRUS. RS is too big for the relatively new effort here and we don't have the infrastructure set up to handle it quickly. Sure we could set up and run the servers but without proper automated stats, we wouldn't get near the volume of searching that we would need to make any measureable progress. I would want to get PrimeGrid involved. Rytis is likely more 'politically correct' than yours truly :smile: and so may give RS a couple of more months. My main thinking here is that we push the former RS admins to get this thing going or to turn it over to others much more quickly than they appear to be currently doing. Than we can help coordinate the transition efforts and determine an action plan for the future. If that involves running some servers here and doing some manual stats updates, that is what we will do. My main thinking on prime search projects: Set goals and time lines for completing things and you will have people going after them. Without them, projects can go off in all different directions. Gary |
[QUOTE=gd_barnes;143608]The gauntlet has been dropped:
[URL]http://dc.rieselsieve.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9[/URL] [/QUOTE] I admit that I'm too lazy to register for that forum, so I'm posting here. Anyway, why do you and hhh believe that the Riesel conjecture won't be proven in our lifetimes? IMO, the only way we won't live to see the Riesel conjecture proven is if: 1.) One of those k's < 509203 really has no prime, no matter how high of an n you test. 2.) Civilization is destroyed through an asteroid impact, nuclear war, global pandemic, etc before 2100. 3.) Very few or no people are interested in trying to prove the conjecture anymore. 4.) Moore's law grinds to a complete halt tomorrow, and computer speed never increases again. 5.) The average life expectancy drops to 45. I don't have a PHD in math or anything, but I'm pretty sure the chance of #1 being true is under 10%. The odds of #2-5 happening are also quite low. |
[quote=MooooMoo;144036]I admit that I'm too lazy to register for that forum, so I'm posting here.
Anyway, why do you and hhh believe that the Riesel conjecture won't be proven in our lifetimes? IMO, the only way we won't live to see the Riesel conjecture proven is if: 1.) One of those k's < 509203 really has no prime, no matter how high of an n you test. 2.) Civilization is destroyed through an asteroid impact, nuclear war, global pandemic, etc before 2100. 3.) Very few or no people are interested in trying to prove the conjecture anymore. 4.) Moore's law grinds to a complete halt tomorrow, and computer speed never increases again. 5.) The average life expectancy drops to 45. I don't have a PHD in math or anything, but I'm pretty sure the chance of #1 being true is under 10%. The odds of #2-5 happening are also quite low.[/quote] To determine how high the highest prime is likely to be on this conjecture, we need to go back to the history of the conjecture and see what percentage of k's were eliminated with each doubling of the n-value. It's very low because base 2 is not a very prime base like base 3. For historical reference and a personal estimate of how high we will need to test to prove this conjecture, here are the various numbers of k's remaining at each power-of-2 n-range: 2^15; 266 (i.e. at n=2^15, there were 266 k's remaining) 2^16; 204 2^17; 171 2^18; 136 2^19; 111 2^20; 90 2^21; 72 2^22; 64 (not complete yet) Therefore for n=2^15 thru 2^21 (last completed power-of-2 n-range), we can see that on average, there is a 19.57% reduction in k's remaining each time the n-value doubles. Formula: 1-(266/72)^(1/6). Extrapolating we can conclude future estimates of k's remaining at the following n-values: 2^22; 57.9 2^23; 46.6 2^24; 37.5 2^25; 30.1 2^26; 24.2 2^28; 15.7 2^30; 10.1 2^32; 6.6 2^34; 4.2 2^36; 2.7 2^38; 1.78 2^40; 1.15 2^42; 0.74 2^44; 0.48 So, it looks like we will likely have to search to somewhere between n=2^40 and 2^44. This would be somewhere between n=1.1T and 17.6T!! I'm sorry folks, but unless a new method of computing primes is determined, IMHO we just are not going to be finding trillion-bit primes in any of our lifetimes, even if my lifetime is shorter (I'm 47) than many of yours and computing capacity doubles every 18 months and the interest remains high for the effort and an asteriod does not strike us. I'll take it one step further: I think it's barely better than a 50-50 chance that the Sierp conjecture with only 6 k's remaining will be proven in MY remaining lifetime; speculated to be ~35 more years. Does that sound crazy? Using the above calulations with 6 k's remaining at n=~13M (on most k's), SOB will have to search to n=13M*2^12, i.e. n=53G! Now, I know there is some effort underway to look at 1-billion bit candidates but for some reason, something tells me that will be a very long effort! Of course SOB could get lucky and find several primes real quick but that's all it would be; luck. But those are just my opinions. I could be wrong. :smile: Gary P.S. If you think this is bad, you should see estimates for base 19 and other very composite bases with high conjectures; try n>10^15 or higher! P.S.S. Technically the above calculations assume that all k-values have the same weight. If one or more of the k's has an extraordinarly low weight vs. the others, the search limit estimates should be higher! Imagine 1 k remaining at n=1 trillion. Now imagine that the 1 k remaining has a weight of only 10! It's likely going to be many doublings of the n-value before a prime is found. |
I have found some info about the k status:
[url]http://dc.rieselsieve.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9&p=56#p56[/url] I will repost it here: [CODE]From http://web.archive.org/web/20061021144805/stats.rieselsieve.com/ Sieve: Total Ranges Outstanding: 42 Total G Outstanding: 128804 Min G Oustanding: 144325 Max G Outstanding: 417775 Next Range to Begin With: 417775 Most G Outstanding: boinc with 125000 Oldest Range: MCarp:2006-06-11,167046-167071 K Status: not max outstanding k http://web.archive.org/web/20061021145152/stats.rieselsieve.com/kstats.php K's :D K Weight Min N Max N Completed Total Tests in Queue 1 342673 310 2288919 3321615 873 => prime 2 93839 288 2365248 3321528 769 3 40597 225 2289105 3321909 765 4 362609 268 2360688 3321808 763 5 415267 296 2361169 3321809 761 6 319511 280 2365030 3321454 742 7 368411 268 2360522 3321866 702 8 474491 256 2291442 2401458 642 9 365159 256 2365128 3321488 638 10 364903 272 2360615 3321687 617 11 402539 235 2360652 3321764 596 12 26773 218 2360751 3321887 568 => prime 13 315929 209 2360788 3321876 560 14 215443 200 2360811 3321459 560 15 107347 201 2361093 2401749 531 16 65531 203 2365214 2401406 526 17 67117 190 2289925 3321457 526 18 191249 177 2371536 3321840 516 19 384539 183 2360696 3321824 514 20 146561 191 2365138 3321874 508 21 273809 189 2360532 3321876 500 22 371893 166 2360715 3321819 471 23 409753 177 2360675 3321899 470 24 428639 146 2364988 3321652 449 25 363343 158 2290307 3321707 437 26 470173 161 2360823 3321807 431 27 226153 147 2356955 3321803 427 28 344759 158 2360520 3321888 420 29 234343 159 2360591 3321743 394 30 97139 148 2365180 3321868 378 31 121889 151 2365016 3321536 378 32 23669 154 2360052 3321864 373 33 252191 145 2365950 3321870 373 34 46663 118 2360519 2401631 361 35 250027 120 2365273 3321793 351 36 353159 146 2365324 3321484 350 37 206231 130 2361218 3321626 348 38 81041 118 2360710 3321190 343 39 206039 129 2289496 3321160 337 40 325123 129 2365199 3321671 336 41 129007 110 2365073 3321569 334 42 386801 126 2365126 2401438 315 43 38473 105 2361227 3321083 301 44 502573 107 2360651 3321419 297 45 123547 112 2365145 3321737 277 46 327671 101 2245934 3321758 261 47 485557 89 2365125 3321537 249 48 494743 92 2360511 3321711 249 49 74699 91 2360596 3321580 227 50 143047 90 2365021 3321397 224 51 469949 89 2291708 3321788 215 52 397027 83 2354381 2398949 211 53 304207 66 2360645 3321701 180 54 192971 57 2361202 3321658 166 55 477583 60 2361091 3321499 159 56 161669 57 2371736 3321776 153 57 245561 45 2372174 2398526 126 58 31859 172 3321828 121 59 324011 153 3321634 117 60 398023 130 3321531 111 61 162941 123 2291950 3321766 103 K's 1, 12 found prime after 2006-12 external k's 1 2293 202 max0526 3097679 3400751 2 113983 398 maefly 2953575 3321855 => prime 3 336839 390 maefly 2953556 3321836 4 9221 379 maefly 2953518 3321834 5 444637 39 maefly 2954829 2952669 6 141941 439 maefly 2953506 3321894 7 485767 346 maefly 2953717 3321685 => prime 8 342847 38 (inactive) 4077289 4077289[/CODE] |
[quote=CedricVonck;144139]I have found some info about the k status:
[URL]http://dc.rieselsieve.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9&p=56#p56[/URL] I will repost it here: [code]From http://web.archive.org/web/20061021144805/stats.rieselsieve.com/ Sieve: Total Ranges Outstanding: 42 Total G Outstanding: 128804 Min G Oustanding: 144325 Max G Outstanding: 417775 Next Range to Begin With: 417775 Most G Outstanding: boinc with 125000 Oldest Range: MCarp:2006-06-11,167046-167071 K Status: not max outstanding k http://web.archive.org/web/20061021145152/stats.rieselsieve.com/kstats.php K's :D K Weight Min N Max N Completed Total Tests in Queue 1 342673 310 2288919 3321615 873 => prime 2 93839 288 2365248 3321528 769 3 40597 225 2289105 3321909 765 4 362609 268 2360688 3321808 763 5 415267 296 2361169 3321809 761 6 319511 280 2365030 3321454 742 7 368411 268 2360522 3321866 702 8 474491 256 2291442 2401458 642 9 365159 256 2365128 3321488 638 10 364903 272 2360615 3321687 617 11 402539 235 2360652 3321764 596 12 26773 218 2360751 3321887 568 => prime 13 315929 209 2360788 3321876 560 14 215443 200 2360811 3321459 560 15 107347 201 2361093 2401749 531 16 65531 203 2365214 2401406 526 17 67117 190 2289925 3321457 526 18 191249 177 2371536 3321840 516 19 384539 183 2360696 3321824 514 20 146561 191 2365138 3321874 508 21 273809 189 2360532 3321876 500 22 371893 166 2360715 3321819 471 23 409753 177 2360675 3321899 470 24 428639 146 2364988 3321652 449 25 363343 158 2290307 3321707 437 26 470173 161 2360823 3321807 431 27 226153 147 2356955 3321803 427 28 344759 158 2360520 3321888 420 29 234343 159 2360591 3321743 394 30 97139 148 2365180 3321868 378 31 121889 151 2365016 3321536 378 32 23669 154 2360052 3321864 373 33 252191 145 2365950 3321870 373 34 46663 118 2360519 2401631 361 35 250027 120 2365273 3321793 351 36 353159 146 2365324 3321484 350 37 206231 130 2361218 3321626 348 38 81041 118 2360710 3321190 343 39 206039 129 2289496 3321160 337 40 325123 129 2365199 3321671 336 41 129007 110 2365073 3321569 334 42 386801 126 2365126 2401438 315 43 38473 105 2361227 3321083 301 44 502573 107 2360651 3321419 297 45 123547 112 2365145 3321737 277 46 327671 101 2245934 3321758 261 47 485557 89 2365125 3321537 249 48 494743 92 2360511 3321711 249 49 74699 91 2360596 3321580 227 50 143047 90 2365021 3321397 224 51 469949 89 2291708 3321788 215 52 397027 83 2354381 2398949 211 53 304207 66 2360645 3321701 180 54 192971 57 2361202 3321658 166 55 477583 60 2361091 3321499 159 56 161669 57 2371736 3321776 153 57 245561 45 2372174 2398526 126 58 31859 172 3321828 121 59 324011 153 3321634 117 60 398023 130 3321531 111 61 162941 123 2291950 3321766 103 K's 1, 12 found prime after 2006-12 external k's 1 2293 202 max0526 3097679 3400751 2 113983 398 maefly 2953575 3321855 => prime 3 336839 390 maefly 2953556 3321836 4 9221 379 maefly 2953518 3321834 5 444637 39 maefly 2954829 2952669 6 141941 439 maefly 2953506 3321894 7 485767 346 maefly 2953717 3321685 => prime 8 342847 38 (inactive) 4077289 4077289[/code][/quote] Thanks for the info. This is helpful but I need to get a little clarification: Can someone clarify what "Min n" and "Max n" mean here? What we need is the n-value where ALL exponents below that n-value have been tested. That's what I thought "Min n" was. If so, the search limit is much lower on many k's than what we have discussed here so far (n=2.36M vs. n=2.9M-3M). To clarify what I thought further: I thought that "Max n" was the highest n-value handed out for testing but not necessarily completed yet. In other words, there could be many exponents below that value still untested. We need to start at the n-value where there are no untested exponents below it. Gary |
Rieselsieve project going back?
Hi All,
Did you remark that [url]http://www.rieselsieve.com/[/url] is now again active ? It says : "The Riesel Sieve project is currently undergoing reconstruction." " Thanks for your patience!" Regards, Jean |
Any news of the project?
It is already a month ago when the last was made... |
There is no news, except the project is undergoing reconstruction, so with a little luck, maybe around Christmas or New Year we will start to see the RS project get moving again :smile:
I just hope that they abandon their sieve part untill a new sievefile is needed, and then re-launch their project with an overall LLR attack on the k's remaining and thereby starts to bring down the k's remaining below the 3.4M pairs, as a result of k's being primed in stead of k/n pairs being factored :smile: KEP! |
[quote=Jean Penné;145414]Hi All,
Did you remark that [URL]http://www.rieselsieve.com/[/URL] is now again active ? It says : "The Riesel Sieve project is currently undergoing reconstruction." " Thanks for your patience!" Regards, Jean[/quote] It's been that way for a month now. They don't say what kind of reconstruction they are talking about, which is typical of the way it's been for the last ~3-4 months. Unfortunately I've been so busy with NPLB and other CRUS efforts that I haven't had time to start any kind of effort here on it. The main thing I'm concerned about is getting the n-range for each k where there is ZERO remaining k/n pairs to be tested below that range. There have been several postings here but none has clarified that. If it's the "min n", I need to know that. I know it's not the "max n". The problem that I'm having is that the TRUE search range is what I think to be the "min n" and if that is the case, it is only around n=2.3M to 2.4M on most k's; not the 3M to 3.4M that people have been stating. We can't just start there and leave untested n-values below, even if it's only a few of them. Gary |
[quote=KEP;148347]There is no news, except the project is undergoing reconstruction, so with a little luck, maybe around Christmas or New Year we will start to see the RS project get moving again :smile:
I just hope that they abandon their sieve part untill a new sievefile is needed, and then re-launch their project with an overall LLR attack on the k's remaining and thereby starts to bring down the k's remaining below the 3.4M pairs, as a result of k's being primed in stead of k/n pairs being factored :smile: KEP![/quote] Yes, the sieving needs to be completely abandoned for YEARS!! (no joke) The sieving is likely sufficient for testing up to n=6M or higher! Primality testing is all that is needed at this point for a very long time. Gary |
[QUOTE=gd_barnes;148432]It's been that way for a month now. They don't say what kind of reconstruction they are talking about, which is typical of the way it's been for the last ~3-4 months.
Unfortunately I've been so busy with NPLB and other CRUS efforts that I haven't had time to start any kind of effort here on it. The main thing I'm concerned about is getting the n-range for each k where there is ZERO remaining k/n pairs to be tested below that range. There have been several postings here but none has clarified that. If it's the "min n", I need to know that. I know it's not the "max n". The problem that I'm having is that the TRUE search range is what I think to be the "min n" and if that is the case, it is only around n=2.3M to 2.4M on most k's; not the 3M to 3.4M that people have been stating. We can't just start there and leave untested n-values below, even if it's only a few of them. Gary[/QUOTE] Why shouldn't we start from n=2M for the remaining k's? That to show we have good "cuttoff" point? |
[quote=CedricVonck;148822]Why shouldn't we start from n=2M for the remaining k's?
That to show we have good "cuttoff" point?[/quote] Well, we know we are up to n=2.3M-2.4M per the above posted web page that was archived in 2006 so there's no use to start so low. When the project gets going again, they can double-check themselves. We don't need to do it. So...perhaps starting from n=2.8M or 3M would be OK. KEP, do you happen to remember what the "Min n" was on most k's before RieselSieve went down? |
[QUOTE=gd_barnes;148913]Well, we know we are up to n=2.3M-2.4M per the above posted web page that was archived in 2006 so there's no use to start so low. When the project gets going again, they can double-check themselves. We don't need to do it. So...perhaps starting from n=2.8M or 3M would be OK.
KEP, do you happen to remember what the "Min n" was on most k's before RieselSieve went down?[/QUOTE] The min. n was about 2,947,000 for all k's. Most tests for n's from 2,947,000 to n=3,000,000 was tested, since 2,947,000 apparently referred to an outstanding n, which had not yet been returned. So All numbers below n=2,947,000 has been doublechecked, since that was practically all that RS ever managed to do while using BOINC. KEP! |
[quote=KEP;148983]The min. n was about 2,947,000 for all k's. Most tests for n's from 2,947,000 to n=3,000,000 was tested, since 2,947,000 apparently referred to an outstanding n, which had not yet been returned. So All numbers below n=2,947,000 has been doublechecked, since that was practically all that RS ever managed to do while using BOINC.
KEP![/quote] OK, very good. Thank you for the specific answer. What does everyone think of us setting up a server to restart Riesel base 2 from n=2947000 on all k's except k=2293 and 342847. Clearly those k's were at n>4M and likely tested higher by individuals. There is no reason to test them right now. Before doing this, I'll post our intentions in the RieselSieve forum. Gary |
RieselSieve discussion
[quote=gd_barnes;149003]OK, very good. Thank you for the specific answer.
What does everyone think of us setting up a server to restart Riesel base 2 from n=2947000 on all k's except k=2293 and 342847. Clearly those k's were at n>4M and likely tested higher by individuals. There is no reason to test them right now. Before doing this, I'll post our intentions in the RieselSieve forum. Gary[/quote] I support this idea. However, I'm probably never gonna be able to support this in the near future. But to all of you who have the resources to support the effort, please feel free to count on my support. Also it's most likely a good idea to post a message on your intention in the RS forum, since there is really no need for a multi-run on 2 different servers, testing the same numbers, since this is big numbers. Regards KEP |
[quote=KEP;149236]I support this idea. However, I'm probably never gonna be able to support this in the near future. But to all of you who have the resources to support the effort, please feel free to count on my support. Also it's most likely a good idea to post a message on your intention in the RS forum, since there is really no need for a multi-run on 2 different servers, testing the same numbers, since this is big numbers.
Regards KEP[/quote] I posted our intent to revive Riesel base 2 by requesting that Carlos and/or David possibly host an LLRnet server, but then I changed my mind and promptly deleted the post at [URL]http://dc.rieselsieve.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a[/URL]. If you look at the end of that thread, Bryan did finally respond on Oct. 9th. I hadn't seen it because I wasn't used to the way the site navigates. Unfortunately his post doesn't really give much useful info. At this point, as all-encompassing as CRUS is, I'm going to bow out of any kind of administration of the Riesel base 2 effort. As much as it pains me to see it go dormant for so long, I feel that the controversy that it might create is just not worth it. I'll be perfectly willing to support anyone who wants to set up threads, a sub-project, and/or a subforum for running the effort here but I won't make an effort myself to get the ball rolling in that regard. I'll also support and advertise any server that anyone might be interested in hosting for the effort. I have the sieved file from KEP and can provide it if needed. Gary |
Rieselsieve.com is still not up
Is it not time for action???? I will see that I can liberate a core for it :smile: (sieve) |
[quote=CedricVonck;150478]Rieselsieve.com is still not up
Is it not time for action???? I will see that I can liberate a core for it :smile: (sieve)[/quote] Whatever you do, do NOT sieve! The file has been sieved into the ground. All that we should for the next 5 years is look for primes! Perhaps when primality testing is approaching n=7M-10M, the file should be sieved further. Carlos had indicated a while back that he might be interested in creating an LLRnet server for it. I'm sure that IronBits would also. If you want to, create a thread and coordinate the effort. If needed, I can edit reservation/status postings as needed. Testing should begin at n=2.947M on all except 2 k's. k=2293 and one other k are already searched to n=4M. Gary |
Anyone still interested in this project?
I saw that dc.rieselsieve.com is "backup" again.... presumably with my figures :smile: |
[quote=CedricVonck;157155]Anyone still interested in this project?
I saw that dc.rieselsieve.com is "backup" again.... presumably with my figures :smile:[/quote] Good for them. I'm not interested in it. Perhaps others are. Are they actually doing primality testing now or is the site just "fluff"? One bit of advice for them: Stop the sieving completely and look for primes. Sieving should have stopped long ago. Gary |
[QUOTE=gd_barnes;157170]Are they actually doing primality testing now [/QUOTE]
I think they are. Here were yesterday's results, from [url]http://dc.rieselsieve.com/[/url] [CODE] Last 10 tests completed: (didn't copy the name) 336839*2^3627836-1 4928 points NeoLogic: 336839*2^3633644-1 4943 points KWSN_Lady_DC: 336839*2^3634196-1 4945 points KWSN_Lady_DC: 336839*2^3634020-1 4944 points KWSN_Al_Dente: 336839*2^3633860-1 4944 points NeoLogic: 336839*2^3633956-1 4944 points Happy5214: 336839*2^3631364-1 4937 points KWSN_Lady_DC: 9221*2^3634086-1 4945 points KWSN_Lady_DC: 9221*2^3634014-1 4944 points TongZhou: 9221*2^3629154-1 4931 points [/CODE] Today's results: [CODE] KWSN_Lady_DC: 9221*2^3628830-1 4930 points NeoLogic: 9221*2^3635790-1 4949 points NeoLogic: 9221*2^3635538-1 4949 points KWSN_Al_Dente: 9221*2^3635214-1 4948 points cswchan: 9221*2^3632970-1 4942 points Dr_Vornoffs_Hex_Mach: 9221*2^3634338-1 4945 points TongZhou: 336839*2^3629180-1 4931 points NeoLogic: 9221*2^3613434-1 4888 points KWSN_Lady_DC: 336839*2^3628508-1 4929 points NeoLogic: 336839*2^3635084-1 4947 points [/CODE] |
there're only 3 k's in the test-queue:
9221, 336839 and 444637 with n_min=3.6M the links on top of the page (Info,Stats,Download) don't work yet! the current k-status ([url]http://dc.rieselsieve.com/kstats.php[/url] )shows only 270 pairs under n=3M. |
[quote=kar_bon;157357]there're only 3 k's in the test-queue:
9221, 336839 and 444637 with n_min=3.6M the links on top of the page (Info,Stats,Download) don't work yet! the current k-status ([URL]http://dc.rieselsieve.com/kstats.php[/URL] )shows only 270 pairs under n=3M.[/quote] Why would they only be testing 3 k's near n=3.6M when there are still k's showing with tests remaining for n<3M? The status page is woefully out of date. k=485767 is shown as remaining. A prime was found for it 6 months ago. I'm beginning to think that everything n>2M should be double-checked there. Stuff like this calls into question the actual sieve file that they are working with. That is, are there k/n pairs removed that should not have been? It kind of makes one wonder. Gary |
[quote=gd_barnes;158652]Why would they only be testing 3 k's near n=3.6M when there are still k's showing with tests remaining for n<3M?
The status page is woefully out of date. k=485767 is shown as remaining. A prime was found for it 6 months ago. I'm beginning to think that everything n>2M should be double-checked there. Stuff like this calls into question the actual sieve file that they are working with. That is, are there k/n pairs removed that should not have been? It kind of makes one wonder. Gary[/quote] Last I heard, they had transferred most of their k's into their BOINC LLR system, and had left just 3 k's (high-weight if memory serves) for LLRnet. I don't think they've gotten their BOINC system back online yet, so right now they're only doing their three LLRnet k's. |
[quote=mdettweiler;158653]Last I heard, they had transferred most of their k's into their BOINC LLR system, and had left just 3 k's (high-weight if memory serves) for LLRnet. I don't think they've gotten their BOINC system back online yet, so right now they're only doing their three LLRnet k's.[/quote]
Ah; that's a little better. At least there is progress now. There is still nothing that I can accurately link to from my web pages for the effort so I'm still showing each k remaining separately. |
I think that it's possible that Lee(B2_Riesel) may be intentionally trying to kill the project. I have multiple reasons for thinking this.
Reason #1: Lee claimed that he was court ordered to stay off the Internet for 60 days because the government suspected him of using the RS project as a front for a cracking operation. I know it sounds stupid, but that's basically the gist of it. Yet I know of at least one person who's claimed to have seen a known Ikariam(online browser game) account of his with activity. Reason #2: Before he disappeared, he had told people he would only be offline for about 15 minutes to move the servers. Now, this is mere conjecture, but I can imagine him having unanticipated troubles and simply saying "F*** it, I quit." He has given the project over to punchcard. I don't know punchcard's real name, apparently he was a co-worker of Lee's in meatspace at one point. It is my opinion that this was done simply because punchcard is better at being a hardass and not backing down. I believe they intend to kill the project and decided punchcard would be better able to deal with the problematic questions about the project. This is just my opinion, based on experience and watching #rieselsieve channel, as well as some PMs in IRC. I wouldn't be surprised if this gets me permanently banned from #rieselsieve, we'll see. I think the Riesel Sieve project is dead, if the Riesel conjecture continues to be studied, I don't think it will be done by Riesel Sieve. I also think that it will be very difficult to get any of the known results in the database if anyone wants to continue the project. |
[QUOTE]
Quote: Originally Posted by [B]MyDogBuster[/B] [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=169980#post169980"][IMG]http://www.mersenneforum.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif[/IMG][/URL] [I]I don't know who is older, you or I, but you summed it up perfectly. PS. Riesel Sieve was my favorite project also. Too bad b2 went the direction he went. I wonder whatever happened to those humungous sieved files?[/I] Never fear. I have that file. You don't think I'd be running CRUS and not follow up did you? Technically, it is a direct subset of the CRUS project. If someone wants to give me a little (OK, maybe a BIG) push, I could be talked into setting it up to start testing on the file again. But PLEASE, no more sieving. The file is WAY WAY over-sieved as it is. It just needs primality testing done on it. We'd likely start at n=3M but I'd need to check into test limits a little more. If we did something like that, we'd need these things: 1. A hardy server to run it on. 2. It's own stats page like what we have for NPLB. 3. Someone to handle the political fall out from "taking over" the Riesel Sieve project. [Not sure how it could be taking over the project since the project hasn't existed for 9 months now.] Part of the reason I haven't pursued it is that I didn't want to drag resources away from NPLB. I've strongly felt for a long time that what is needed to find and unlock the "key" to the primes is to find a lot of smaller primes (if you can call n=500K-600K small :smile:); not to find a few huge primes. But the main reason is the political fallout. I hate politics and self-admitidely don't handle politics well. (Same way in my personal life too, much to my chagrin. lol) So if we did something like that, I'd need a P.R. guy to handle any crap that comes down. BTW, that is why I asked Max to help with CRUS and NPLB. He does the P.R. stuff well and has the techie knowledge to help where I fall short there. I've given him a hard time in these forums sometimes when he gets a little busy but it never phases him. Thanks Max! Anyway, since it'd be a sub-project of CRUS, it could be handled there with it's own thread or sub-forum. For that matter, I'd be just as happy to assist someone else who would want to take over such an effort. If we get into an extended discussion on this, I'll move it over to a thread where we talked about RieselSieve before at CRUS and then provide a link to it from here. Edit: BTW the RieselSieve file is about half the size of our k=1003-2000/n=500K-1M file...17.6 MB vs. 32.7 MB unpacked in ABCD format. Of course it's only 64 k's vs. 500 k's but it does go from n=100 to 20M. (That's 100, not 100K.) Gary [/QUOTE] Question #1. About the sieve file mentioned above. Did Riesel Sieve remove the remaining tests from the file when they found a prime? I can't remember one way or another. Question #2. How much flak would be expected. Who is going to have a cow? |
At #1. Yes RieselSieve did remove the primed k from the sieve file, when they felt like they had the time to do so. However what is a bit more critical is the fact that RS did not remove any k/n pairs from the sieve file with a n<2,947,000 (which were the sure doublecheck maximum), also I don't think that several 1000T of p's and the factors that they produced has been removed either. Because we have to remember that at some point RS sieved well above 100T each day and then produced more than 1000 (most often around 2500) factors a day.
At #2. Well it might give some flaming and frustration among the hardcore supporters of RS, however there are fewer active users, supporting RS than there is active users on CRUS. Regarding #2, I would strongly suggest that we in stead of setting up our own server, actually made a deal with Rytis if someone can convince him that the k's does no longer belong to RS, and gets the help of the PG users. Many users would actually like the fact that a WU only takes ~6-7 hours. Plus we would see that the first pass n-value aswell the second pass value will remain the same, since there is instant doublechecking, and then as we nears the n=20M we will for certain know which k's remain and then be able to start a new sieve, without having to worry about having missed a k. It's just my suggestion, but I really don't think that it should be ruled out as a possibility, since everyone here can agree that only 3 k's at most can be declared as being assigned to the RS project at the current state :smile: Regards Kenneth |
[QUOTE]Regarding #2, I would strongly suggest that we in stead of setting up our own server, actually made a deal with Rytis if someone can convince him that the k's does no longer belong to RS, and gets the help of the PG users. Many users would actually like the fact that a WU only takes ~6-7 hours. Plus we would see that the first pass n-value aswell the second pass value will remain the same, since there is instant doublechecking, and then as we nears the n=20M we will for certain know which k's remain and then be able to start a new sieve, without having to worry about having missed a k. It's just my suggestion, but I really don't think that it should be ruled out as a possibility, since everyone here can agree that only 3 k's at most can be declared as being assigned to the RS project at the current state :smile:
[/QUOTE] Personally I would stay away from Boinc (and PG). Most Boincers overclock their machines (obviously). The chances of them missing a prime were/are pretty high. If it were me, I'd start any new LLR effort as low a possible on the n scale. I'd also leave the k's that a prime are found for in the candidates file. That would fulfill the NPLB philosophy and also the CRUS philosophy. Why not do both? Just my thoughts. |
I would think one would be concerned about the integrity of the file. If you do not know the condition/contents of the file, both tested and untested, it's pretty hard to use that item for justification for or against any conjecture is it not?
|
[quote=Brucifer;170132]I would think one would be concerned about the integrity of the file. If you do not know the condition/contents of the file, both tested and untested, it's pretty hard to use that item for justification for or against any conjecture is it not?[/quote]
Well, at the very least, the most recent publicly released copy of the sieve file should be fully intact and trustworthy. The only thing that's somewhat up in the air is exactly where RieselSieve stopped testing (and it varies from k to k, to boot). |
Just a thought. We can re-create the original input file before any sieving was done. Was there ever any published listing of found factors? Any chance Bryan or Lee would send us just the found factors?
|
@MyDogBuster:
First of all, good luck on getting Bryan or Lee to send you anything. The only reason I ever got the sieve file was because an other member just as eager to get the project started again, was willing to mail it to me. Secondly, using BOINC is not that dangerous, since there is (if we choose to have it) when we use PG automatical doublechecks, that way the faulty computers will not cause us to miss any prime up to n=20M, so I think it would be a fair way to speed up the progress. Also, I'm just for fun and testing beginning to sieve all 64 k's remaining from n 20M-250M, since any larger ranges caused a malloc error :smile: If I choose to continue sieving this high-n range, I will of course remove any eventually primed k aswell keep sieving untill a public sieve is nescessary :smile: Regards Kenneth |
Guys, I'm confident that the file is very good. It has all of the k's that are needed, starts from n=~100 and goes to n=20M. KEP converted it to "regular" ABCD format before sending it to me.
As for BOINC, this is the ideal situation to utilize it. The tests are extremely long compared to what most of us are used to here. For a test at n=4M, it is likely to take 8-10 hours. How many of you want to complete 2-3 tests per day with each test likely having a 1 in 40000-60000 chance of being prime? Compare that to what we are used to at NPLB: 10-15 min tests with a 1 in 5000-7000 chance of prime. Let me put it to you this way: A prime at n=4M will take 512 times as long to find as a prime at n=500K assuming same sieve depth. Since the RS file is obviously sieved far further, it's probably more like 450-500 times as long. (lol) Calculation: The tests will take 64 times as long and the chance of prime is 1/8th as much. 64*8=512. I used n=4M because the calculations are easier. As KEP has previously suggested, we'd likely start at n=3M so maybe the primes would only take 200 times as long to find with tests taking "only" 6-7 hours. (wee!) Regardless, this effort is not for the faint of heart! That said, I don't think we'd be able to talk Rytis into taking over the effort at PrimeGrid but I'm all in favor of giving it a shot. But someone else has to follow up with him. As for starting it under the "CRUS" umbrella, I'm fine with that. Here is what we need: 1. A hardy LLRnet server. 2. A good stats page like we have at NPLB. 3. A good P.R. guy to handle any political fall out. 4. A lot of crunchers who don't mind extremely long tests. Gary |
I have sent the Riesel base 2 sieve file to Ian, Bruce, and Max by Email.
Edit: Oops, for those of you read my last post before I edited it, I removed the part about not needing to sieve the file. I reread KEP's post and realized that he is talking about sieving n=20M-250M. KEP, you of course realize that it will probably take the better part of most of our lives just to test the current file up to n=20M? Sieving n=20M-250M now is a huge waste of CPU time. Consider waiting until about 10-15 years from now when computers are likely to be a "little bit" faster than now. lol You really need to think a little bit before starting on these monsterous tasks. |
It appears according to the sieve stats at dc.rieselsieve.com, that the last returned range from BOINC was at p=5850000000000000 with a gap from p=5850000000000000 to p=7100020000000000. That alone, that there is gaps in the sieve range, aswell as the disorganized way and the irresponsible way that RS has handeled things since their mysterious "disappering", should be more than enough to convince a stable project like PG to join us and support our claim to take over all these k's remaining. Also I suggest that since Max is the one who has been pointed out as able to handle the political fallouts, that he actually also creates a joint notification that those of us who wants to can sign, and that one can then be handeled to Rytis to show that it is not just the project manager or some of his "ridicure" followers who is concerned about the way things is dealt with at RS :smile:
Regards KEP @ Garys last post: Good job, hope they can use it :smile: Also does anyone happen to know what optimal sievedepth for k*2^250000000-1 is? My guess is that it is well more than 100,000 T p's, but does anyone has any ideas? |
Kenneth,
No one knows and I doubt anyone cares what the optimum sieve depth is for n=250M. Like I said in the last post, it is a complete waste of today's resources. We won't reach n=20M for as many as 20 years or more, even allowing for extreme computer speed and participation increases on Riesel base 2. It's possible we may not reach it in most of our lives. Please trust me on this, you are completely wasting your time. It would be like looking for a prime on k=1 for Sierp base 252 that you tried for a while. Since it's a GFN, you're unlikely to find one in your lifetime. Also take a look at SOB. They are at n=14M and they only have 6 k's remaining vs. 64 k's for Riesel base 2. SOB is a very well run project like GIMPS. To match their coordination and resources will be a large undertaking, likely requiring what PrimeGrid could bring to the effort. Why don't you focus on base 63 and your many other bases < 1024? Base 63 alone will take several CPU years to get to n=25K. Max informed me that he thought RS had sieved the file fully to P=20P (i.e. 20,000T) but I think you are saying that they only fully sieved to P=5.85P. I would think it would be much higher than that. If you want to try sieving for a while, a much better use of your CPU time would be to test and see if there are any factors in the Riesel base 2 file from P=5.85P-6P; i.e. a 150T range. If you find none by P=5.9P, then likely it has been sieved higher. Try experimenting with that at different depths and make sure you attempt a sufficient range before concluding there are no factors at that depth. (The estimated # of factors as given by sr2sieve should probably be 5 or higher; 10 would be even better.) Gary |
@ gary: I do still focus on the Sierp base 63, however I tried for fun to sieve to 1 G on the remaining 64 k's for the range n=20M-250M, it took about 3 hours and left ~78Million candidates. However I decided to stop, since I find it much more usefull to see if their actually comes a BOINC interface focusing on the Riesel base 2 conjecture, also I thought that I would be best to wait for all 66 remaining k's to be tested to n=20M, or close to, before starting sieving another range, even though it has to take quite a lot of sieving before it is even remotely sieved to the least efficient point.
Regarding the sieve depth, I doubt that they actually reached 20P, however my conclusion were based on the last completed BOINC sieve range, found in the sieve statistics. It stated that the upper p=5.85P, but I might follow your suggestion and do some testing at various sieve depths. I'm thinking 10G's sieve ranges at least or maybe more :) Also I has 1 concern about determining the sieve depth in this manner, mostly because none of us is aware at what sieve point the RS folks removed found factors at last. So according to sieve file, it might be even lower the sieve depth than 5.85P. Regards KEP |
OK, very good. That would be a good excercise. To be more specific:
I would suggest trying it at P=1P intervals for a range of P=10G. That is: P=3000T-3000.010T P=4000T-4000.010T P=5000T-5000.010T (etc.) Do that and when you find a range that you start finding factors, then go to halfway between the two ranges and try again. Keep doing that until you narrow it down to the actual sieve depth. Example: Let's assume that you find factors in P=5000T-5000.0010T, then try 4500T-4500.010T. If you find factors there, split the difference with the 4000T-4000.010T range and try 4250T-4250.010T, etc. Do the above and once you've determined which P=1P range there are missing factors, it will only take you log(1P)/log(2) = ~50 attempts to get to the exact sieve depth. But we don't really need to do ~50 attempts, we could narrow it down to the closest P=1M range in ~30 attempts or the closest P=1G range in ~20 attempts. Sieving an extra P=1M or even 1G for this would not take much time so that should be sufficient. The key here is that a big enough range is tested so that it has a chance to find factors. Look at the expected # of factors that sr2sieve gives for that. If it is 10 or higher, then you should be good. I'll be curious what you come up with. Gary |
Thanks for your advice, I'll follow it and get back to you as soon as I've something to report to you :smile:
Kenneth |
any news on weather this is going again?id love to do some testing on this,id be willing to fire 4-6 cores at it for about 6 months then maybe cut back to 2-4 cores for the fore-seeable future.
|
[quote=Dougal;187418]any news on weather this is going again?id love to do some testing on this,id be willing to fire 4-6 cores at it for about 6 months then maybe cut back to 2-4 cores for the fore-seeable future.[/quote]
As far as we are concerned, Riesel Sieve is dead. I removed all links in the CRUS web pages to Riesel Sieve many months ago because it has no info. Any references refer to the "former Riesel Sieve project", which is what it now is. See your PM for more info. Within 1-2 months, I am hoping to have all NPLB and CRUS servers moved over to my machines. At that time, I/we may consider setting up a server for processing part of Riesel Base 2. If we do that, a PRPnet server would likely be best because the inherent problems that PRPnet has are related to too many k/n pairs being returned at once. This would not be a problem for tests at n>3M. Keep in mind that tests at n>3M take ~2-4 hours each. Testing at that level is definitely not child's play! :-) The chance of a prime with only 4-6 cores running for 6 months is extremely remote. Gary |
Anyone still interested to reboot this project?
|
im working on this at the moment,il have to send gary the results some of these days.i think it should be restarted,but first you need someone willing to run it,which would require alot of work.
|
IMHO, we should set several goals before rebooting this project.
E.g.: 1) I have still a dat file, so tests can be made from it 2) We should then determine a cut off point from where to restart the llr testing e.g. 2M for all k's because no one has access to the residues to verify them 3) Should this a k by k seach, test a k until we find a prime, rinse & repeat? 4) Or llr tests for all k's simultanesoly (?)? 5) Hosting of the llr files: @ mersseneforum.org? 6) Should this be co-ordinated in a separated thread? 7) Who will step up for the coordination? I am willing to help to coordinate this 8) Short Term: can be probably done @ mersenneforum, self llr crunching 8b) Medium Term: proper website & llrnet implemenation 8c) Long Term: Boinc project? 9) Should we do a handover to Primegrid? => They have the resources (people and hardware) 10) Should we sieve? IMHO, no, maybe if we reach 10M 11) Should we do P-1? IMHO, maybe, but the p-1 effort I coordinated @ Rieselsieve yielded a very low number of factors, ok a factor found is an LLR-test spared, maybe other B1-B2 bounds? These are my $0.02 ... So the gauntlet is down again :devil: Anyone up for a challenge ? :smile: (Excuse when I offended someone) Regards C |
right, first 'we' should determine the source to start with (pairs, results, factors).
a new thread should also be right to give that big project an own start-point. and as we can see, for many other projects there'll be questions/suggestions only for that project, so collect them all under one thread! BOINC or LLR(net)? some of those here certainly know what i think and LLR is a good place to start! more details later! :grin: |
If this were a small effort, then I think that hosting somewhere else would be fine, but because it has such high visibility, I suggest that you turn it over to PrimeGrid. The BOINC client is being used by SoB.
|
Please remember everyone, that the testing depth of 2.947 M, includes a complete doublecheck up to that depth. So a good starting point would be n=2.947M...
I personally and several other has asked numerous of times to get PG to do an effort in trying to tackle this conjecture, since the testings has grown to a huge testing time and also since they have the needed resources to come somewhere... however the conclusion everytime from Rytis is that "they want have anything to do with us either", so unless we can find a way to convince Rytis and the others in the PG crew that Rieselsieve is in fact dead and not just under reconstruction, then PG should be excluded as a feasible alternative... Regarding sieving, it makes no sence, since sieving appeared to be ended around 5.4P (5400 T). Now a question for you Dougal, how much work have you done since I send you the untested k/n pairs for Riesel base 2 conjecture? And of course, I wouldn't mind a drive, where one can pick up a few ranges here and there and do whatever one can support this almost megatesting project with. But maybe we can save some time, if someone can get in contact with one or two of the then responsible people at rieselsieve, and have them send us the exact testing depth aswell the exact doublecheck testing depth. Regards KEP |
KEP,i split the file into 5 smaller files,but i only have 4 cores on it,so 1 file is completely untested.i only have about 2000-3000 tests done.
|
1 Attachment(s)
Here is a graph of found primes, Yves Gallot's predictions and some speculation.
Note that the last two found primes are far to the right, or far above, the predicted. I would recommend testing from the last found prime on the line. i.e. n = 2639439 I have a dat file dated 2007-04-29. Does anyone have a more recent version? If you have a dat or ABCD file, could you send it to factrange at yahoo dot com? I can compare it with what I have. If anyone has factor files, I would appreciate it you would send them. I have PERL scripts set up to parse them and apply them to dat/ABCD files. The goal is to get as up to date a sieve file as possible. I am also working on parsing lresult files and using them to trim the sieve file. Yes, this is risky, but it would allow for a jump start for some LLR work. [CODE]#left k n Discoverer Date 135 267763 264115 Dave Linton 19 Feb 2000 134 27253 272347 Ray Ballinger 10 Oct 1998 133 130139 280296 Dale Andrews 02 Feb 2002 132 159371 284166 Janusz Szmidt 14 Jan 2002 131 245051 285750 Tom Kuechler 15 Nov 2000 130 39269 287048 Richard Heylen 25 Mar 2002 129 376993 293603 Reto Keiser 08 Sep 2002 128 235601 295338 Helmut Zeisel 06 Mar 2003 127 220063 306335 Olivier Haeberlé 03 Sep 1999 126 42779 322908 Ray Ballinger 26 Jul 1999 125 189463 324103 Dave Linton 15 Jul 2000 124 104917 340181 Janusz Szmidt 13 Nov 1999 123 148901 360338 Mark Rodenkirch 05 Mar 2002 122 443857 369457 Nuutti Kuosa 27 Aug 2001 121 398533 419107 Dave Linton 04 Sep 2002 120 416413 424791 Dave Linton 28 Apr 2003 119 46271 428210 Patrick Pirson 29 Apr 2001 118 299617 428917 Dave Linton 22 Jul 2002 117 277153 429819 Jeff Wolfe 21 Nov 2002 116 382691 431722 Ray Ballinger 27 Feb 2003 115 201193 457615 Daval Davis 03 Feb 2003 114 401617 470149 Dave Linton 27 Dec 2002 113 465869 497596 Lucas Schmid 27 Jan 2003 112 144643 498079 Richard Heylen 12 Dec 2000 111 43541 507098 Ray Ballinger 01 Oct 2000 110 401143 532927 Olivier Haeberlé 11 Jun 2003 109 458743 547791 Olivier Haeberlé 22 Oct 2003 108 98939 575144 Olivier Haeberlé 30 Nov 2001 107 89707 578313 Richard Heylen 02 Apr 2003 106 357491 609338 Lucas Schmid 17 Jan 2003 105 222997 613153 Olivier Haeberlé 28 Nov 2001 104 103259 615076 Olivier Haeberlé 23 Dec 2002 103 279703 616235 Dhumil Zaveri & RSP 07 Jan 2004 102 126667 626497 Ray Ballinger 09 Jun 2003 101 109897 630221 Olivier Haeberlé 22 Apr 2003 100 215503 649891 Olivier Haeberlé 28 Apr 2003 99 261221 689422 Sean Faith & RSP 22 Dec 2003 98 204223 696891 Olivier Haeberlé 23 Mar 2003 97 220033 719731 Olivier Haeberlé 19 Apr 2004 96 212893 730387 Olivier Haeberlé 15 Oct 2003 95 246299 752600 Kevin O'Hare & RSP 23 Jan 2004 94 460139 779536 Drew Bishop & RSP 26 Mar 2004 93 659 800516 Dave Linton 01 Mar 2004 92 93997 864401 Guido Stolz & RSP 01 Apr 2004 91 170591 866870 Drew Bishop & RSP 15 Apr 2004 90 309817 901173 Helmut Michel & RSP 07 Jun 2004 89 150847 1076441 Darren Wallace & RSP 15 Aug 2004 88 412717 1084409 Holger Meissner & RSP 22 Aug 2004 87 504613 1136459 Magnus Mischel & RSP 17 Oct 2004 86 500621 1138518 Darren Wallace & RSP 18 Oct 2004 85 350107 1144101 Sean Faith & RSP 24 Oct 2004 84 152713 1154707 Ray Ballinger 23 Oct 2004 83 71009 1185112 Drew Bishop & RSP 05 Dec 2004 82 502541 1199930 Ryan Sefko & RSP 21 Dec 2004 81 192089 1395688 Guido Stolz & RSP 10 May 2004 80 149797 1414137 Peter van Hoof & RSP 13 Mar 2005 79 325627 1472117 Will Fisher & RSP 05 Apr 2005 78 234847 1535589 Darren Wallace & RSP 09 May 2005 77 110413 1591999 Will Fisher & RSP 08 Jun 2005 76 469949 1649228 Steven Wong & RSP 28 Oct 2007 75 357659 1779748 Drew Bishop & RSP 25 Sep 2005 74 417643 1800787 Greg Childers & RSP 05 Oct 2004 73 345067 1876573 Dave Linton 13 Nov 2005 72 467917 1993429 Steven Wong & RSP 25 Dec 2005 71 196597 2178109 Auritania Du & RSP 09 May 2006 70 114487 2198389 Bruce White & RSP 23 May 2006 69 450457 2307905 Jeff Smith & RSP 28 Mar 2006 68 275293 2335007 Japke Rosink & RSP 21 Sep 2006 67 26773 2465343 Anonymous & RSP 01 Dec 2006 66 342673 2639439 Dhumil Zaveri & RSP 28 Apr 2007 65 113983 3201175 Ian Keogh & RSP 01 May 2008 64 485767 3609357 Chris Cardall & RSP 24 Jun 2008[/CODE] |
see Wilfrid Keller's page [url=http://www.prothsearch.net/rieselprob.html]here[/url] or my overview with all primes for n>8191 [url=http://www.rieselprime.de/Related/Riesel.htm]here[/url].
i wrote there, the remaining 64 k's left got no prime less than 3.2M, because that was the last border i was aware when RieselSieve was working, but not for sure for all k's! |
So, it looks like there's a new subproject and forum section this morning on Primegrid called "The Riesel Problem"... is this project being taken over by Primegrid?
|
[QUOTE=Dougal;207517]KEP,i split the file into 5 smaller files,but i only have 4 cores on it,so 1 file is completely untested.i only have about 2000-3000 tests done.[/QUOTE]
It is actually pretty good job. Do you have an estimate on how long each test approximately takes and at what n they take the time you can/cannot give? KEP |
takes about 17-18000 seconds(that figure is off the top of my head,but is fairly acurate) at n=2950000 on a 3.00 GHZ pentium4.
|
looks to me that Primegrid have started an effort on this,and are sieving it,surely it has enough sieving done for the forseeable future?
|
Looks like PrimeGrid isn't convinced that they either can use the sieve file (that it's good) or that they should (that they have permission).
But it looks like [url=http://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=1734]they are interested[/url] in any factors or residues you may have lying about.:smile: |
So what is the thinking here? Should we attempt anything? We would need some sort of excellent stats tracking system to generate enough interest to make it worthwhile. I have the sieved file and a main public server machine that is used for NPLB and CRUS with a commercial-grade internet set up. I can load the file into an LLRnet server at any time.
Hasn't the file already been sieved into the ground? That was the problem with RieselSieve. They spent way to many resources on sieving and too little on searching. Why is PrimeGrid sieving and looking for factors? It's time to search. You can knock out candidates a lot faster at n=3M than you can sieving at this point. It's almost like people are afraid to search it. IMHO, the search should start at an even n=3M on all k's except perhaps k=2293 and other known k's where there is verifiable evidence that it was searched to n=~4M or some other depth above n=3M. BTW, I have renamed this thread to "Riesel base 2 discussion" because RieselSieve no longer exists. Gary |
[quote=gd_barnes;207848]So what is the thinking here? Should we attempt anything? We would need some sort of excellent stats tracking system to generate enough interest to make it worthwhile. I have the sieved file and a main public server machine that is used for NPLB and CRUS with a commercial-grade internet set up. I can load the file into an LLRnet server at any time.
Hasn't the file already been sieved into the ground? That was the problem with RieselSieve. They spent way to many resources on sieving and too little on searching. Why is PrimeGrid sieving and looking for factors? It's time to search. You can knock out candidates a lot faster at n=3M than you can sieving at this point. It's almost like people are afraid to search it. IMHO, the search should start at an even n=3M on all k's except perhaps k=2293 and other known k's where there is verifiable evidence that it was searched to n=~4M or some other depth above n=3M. BTW, I have renamed this thread to "Riesel base 2 discussion" because RieselSieve no longer exists. Gary[/quote] According to the thread ken_g6 linked to, they're actually doing the sieving from scratch. Here's why: [quote]The primary reason is that this is PrimeGrid's first venture into the Riesel problem. Prior to this, we did not have a sieve file. This one was started from scratch for the 64 k's remaining for n<50M. We have a complete history with this file and have a record of all factors to our current sieve depth. We are aware that there exists a sieve file from a previous effort. However, that project ended quite abruptly and we are not privy to the final bounds reached in the sieve file. Also, access to the file was never granted to PrimeGrid, and the file only went to n=20M. [/quote] If anyone here has a copy of the old sieve file, they may want to post to that effect in the PrimeGrid forum thread; since the file is already sieved so extremely far anyway, I'd just say heck on the exact depth, let's take what we've got and roll with it. :smile: It sounds like they don't have a copy of the RS sieve file, so if they could get their hands on one they may do just that. Nonetheless, though, I can see the wisdom of starting from scratch. That way they'll have full records of all residuals and factors: i.e., they'll know for sure that they're not missing anything, which is more than they can say for the old file (for which the original factors and residuals are largely lost). And with PrimeGrid's firepower, I imagine they can quite feasibly re-do what was already done in quick enough time that it's probably the way to go. |
OK, they've taken it over. Let them have it.
I completely disagree on 2 things: First, I think the former RieselSieve's file is good. It doesn't matter if we don't know the depth. That can be concluded by attempted searches at different depths. But who cares about the depth until it has been searched to at least n=5M or more? We all know that it has been sieved into the ground. Both KEP and I have the file. I got it from KEP. He got it from the project at least a year before it went away. Second, as anyone who's been around me for any length of time would know, I completely disagree with sieving n<50M. The original 20M was too large to start with back in 2002-03 or whenever RieselSieve started but that would be a good depth now. Do they think this is SOB with 5 k's remaining? There's a monster difference between searching 5 k's and 64 k's. Sieving 5 k's to n=50M when at a current search depth of n=~14M at this time makes sense (a.k.a. SOB). Sieving 64 k's to n=50M when at a current search depth of n=~3M does not (a.k.a PrimeGrid). I'll reiterate for the umpteenth time: Doing too much of tomorrow's work when machines/software will be faster with today's slower resources is very inefficient in the long run. It's even more inefficient for conjecture searches where a large part of the file won't be needed for many k's. They should sieve only n<20M now to an optimal depth and start prime searching. Sieving and testing to n=20M will still take 10s of thousands of CPU years. When they reach n=10M-12M in testing, which will likely take at least 10 years (possibly 15-20), THEN they can perhaps begin a sieve for n=20M-50M when computer capacity and software have likely increased 10-fold or more. Any large efficiency gain by sieving a large n-range now is completely wiped out and overwhelmed by future increases in capacity/speed of hardware/software. I can demonstrate this with an example: Had RieselSieve sieved n<10M to a proper optimum depth, cut off sieving, and spent the last 4-5 years using those same amount of resources doing nothing but primality searching, I bet they easily would have reached n=5M by now. And within the next 1-2 years when they reached n=6M, they could then start a sieve for n=10M-25M that runs concurrently with primality testing. And that sieve would have been conducted 6-7 years later then the original sieve during which time I know for a fact that sr2sieve (I know they used something different but the point still applies) has increased its speed at least 3 times and likely 5-6 times. I've only been in prime searching long enough to know for sure that its speed has increased 3 times. Increases in computer speed/capacity have also likely increased 5 times or more during that time. Multiply them together and it's 25 times more efficient to sieve now than 6-7 years ago. Even if both have increased only 3 times, it's 9 times more efficient. Sieveing n<50M will take 60% longer to sieve to the same depth as n<20M. I wish we had the resources to just start searching. I cannot understand why people think things have to be sieved for such huge ranges or so deep for multi-year or multi-decade efforts with today's resources. You cannot and I will yell it CANNOT find primes by sieving! (Well, at least no primes larger than the sieve depth squared, which might be what, 30-35 digits or so? :smile:) Enough of the rant. I suppose it will be several more years before another Riesel base 2 conjecture prime is found. It kind of disgusts me but it's not for me to worry about anymore. I have to remind myself to choose my battles. :-) CRUS will just keep plodding along on all other bases sieving moderate-size ranges, searching, sieving some more, searching some more, etc. We won't use 2010 computers/software to sieve efforts that won't be worked on until 2020 or 2030 for team efforts anyway. Individuals are welcome to do what they want. One good thing though: CRUS is still keeping the 2 remaining even k's. The way Prof. Caldwell defined the conjectures in a math paper that he had published in late 2008-early 2009 (I believe) as well as the way that CRUS adopted them, k's that are multiples of the base are considered. Therefore, from our perspective, there are 66 k's remaining. Sometime in the near future, I'll update the CRUS pages to show all of the k's searched to n=3M except for our 2 even k's that are near n=1M and k's known to be searched to a higher depth by individuals coordinating with the former RieselSieve project such as k=2293 that is at n>4M. I'll also show that PrimeGrid now has the other 64 k's reserved. Gary |
Does anyone have a program to convert a dat file to an input file that can server as input for prp/llrnet?
Regards C. Found it on my pc! Posted it on my site!: [url]http://users.skynet.be/bk261068/RieselConvert.exe[/url] |
A riesel.dat file is uploaded to
[url]http://users.skynet.be/bk261068/riesel.zip[/url] It can be converted with RieselConvert to input files for LLR |
[QUOTE=CedricVonck;208160]A riesel.dat file is uploaded to
[url]http://users.skynet.be/bk261068/riesel.zip[/url] It can be converted with RieselConvert to input files for LLR[/QUOTE] I really don't think that we should start up any of our own efforts on this conjecture, since PG is going to sieve for a while and then they will overtake whatever we can achieve when it comes to using LLR in maybe as little as 1-2 years. I know that if we focused on a highweight k or even 3 or 4 k's we might be able to stay ahead of PG untill we reaches n=20M, if we decide to focus all our resources on running only those 5 k's and do nothing else for an entire decade. Well that was my 2 cents, however "the morale of the story" (thank you Gary for letting me quote you on this one :smile:), is that there can be too many hands and computers doing the same kind of job, and eventually end up waisting a LOT of resources that could be better spent, so my suggestion is that CRUS focuses on some other conjectures than Riesel Base 2 conjecture. Heck there is also plenty of work to do elsewhere :smile: KEP |
[quote=KEP;208176]I really don't think that we should start up any of our own efforts on this conjecture, since PG is going to sieve for a while and then they will overtake whatever we can achieve when it comes to using LLR in maybe as little as 1-2 years. I know that if we focused on a highweight k or even 3 or 4 k's we might be able to stay ahead of PG untill we reaches n=20M, if we decide to focus all our resources on running only those 5 k's and do nothing else for an entire decade. Well that was my 2 cents, however "the morale of the story" (thank you Gary for letting me quote you on this one :smile:), is that there can be too many hands and computers doing the same kind of job, and eventually end up waisting a LOT of resources that could be better spent, so my suggestion is that CRUS focuses on some other conjectures than Riesel Base 2 conjecture. Heck there is also plenty of work to do elsewhere :smile:
KEP[/quote] Agreed completely. It's PrimeGrid's to do with as they see fit now. We have plenty of work. If they want to sieve from scratch, then that's their perogative. It's just too bad that we'll end up with a 3-4 year streatch (inlcuding the last 1-2 years) where no primes at all will have been found because people were either too busy sieving way too deep or sieving a much larger range than should be sieved. |
[QUOTE=gd_barnes;208843]Agreed completely. It's PrimeGrid's to do with as they see fit now. We have plenty of work. If they want to sieve from scratch, then that's their perogative. [B]It's just too bad that we'll end up with a 3-4 year streatch (inlcuding the last 1-2 years) where no primes at all will have been found because people were either too busy sieving way too deep or sieving a much larger range than should be sieved[/B].[/QUOTE]
Or maybe not (I looked around and didn't see this posted anywhere else here): Current primegrid news post: [QUOTE=primegrid.com]Mega Prime found for The Riesel Problem On 21 Nov 2010, 11:14:00 UTC, PrimeGrid’s The Riesel Problem project eliminated k=191249 by finding the Mega prime: [B][URL="http://primes.utm.edu/primes/page.php?id=96689"]191249*2^3417696-1[/URL][/B] The prime is 1,028,835 digits long and enters Chris Caldwell's [B][URL="http://primes.utm.edu/primes"]The Largest Known Primes Database[/URL][/B] ranked 29th overall. This is the 2nd largest prime found in The Riesel Problem and the first k elimination in over 2 1/2 years. 63 k's now remain. The discovery was made by [B]Jonathan Pritchard[/B] of the United Kingdom using an AMD Phenom 9950 with 8GB RAM, running Windows 7. This computer took 7 hours and 31 minutes to complete the prime test using LLR. Jonathan is a member of the [B][URL="http://www.primegrid.com/team_display.php?teamid=1995"]Turan@BOINC[/URL][/B] team.[/QUOTE] |
Oh, sorry, I was 6 months off. It's been 2 years and 6 months since the last prime in June 2008. :smile:
|
Heck of a month. Primegrid found primes for 4 more k values in May of 2011, bringing their total number of ks eliminated to 7.
[B][U]Primes found at PrimeGrid[/U][/B] [B][URL="http://primes.utm.edu/primes/page.php?id=96689"]191249*2^3417696-1[/URL][/B] by Jonathan Pritchard on 21 Nov 2010. [B][URL="http://www.primegrid.com/download/trp-191249.pdf"]Official Announcement[/URL][/B] [B][URL="http://primes.utm.edu/primes/page.php?id=97496"]428639*2^3506452-1[/URL][/B] by Brett Melvold on 14 Jan 2011. [B][URL="http://www.primegrid.com/download/trp-428639.pdf"]Official Announcement[/URL][/B] [B][URL="http://primes.utm.edu/primes/page.php?id=99479"]65531*2^3629342-1[/URL][/B] by Adrian Schori on 5 Apr 2011. [B][URL="http://www.primegrid.com/download/trp-65531.pdf"]Official Announcement[/URL][/B] [B][URL="http://primes.utm.edu/primes/page.php?id=100051"]123547*2^3804809-1[/URL][/B] by Jakub Łuszczek on 8 May 2011. [B][URL="http://www.primegrid.com/download/trp-123547.pdf"]Official Announcement[/URL][/B] [B][URL="http://primes.utm.edu/primes/page.php?id=100064"]415267*2^3771929-1[/URL][/B] by Alexey Tarasov on 8 May 2011. [B][URL="http://www.primegrid.com/download/trp-415267.pdf"]Official Announcement[/URL][/B] [B][URL="http://primes.utm.edu/primes/page.php?id=100232"]141941*2^4299438-1[/URL][/B] by Scott Brown on 26 May 2011. [B][URL="http://www.primegrid.com/download/trp-141941.pdf"]Official Announcement[/URL][/B] [B][URL="http://primes.utm.edu/primes/page.php?id=100283"]353159*2^4331116-1[/URL][/B] by Jaakko Reinman on 31 May 2011. [B][URL="http://www.primegrid.com/download/trp-353159.pdf"]Official Announcement[/URL][/B] |
[QUOTE=wolfemancs;262927]Heck of a month. Primegrid found primes for 4 more k values in May of 2011, bringing their total number of ks eliminated to 7.
[B][U]Primes found at PrimeGrid[/U][/B] [B][URL="http://primes.utm.edu/primes/page.php?id=96689"]191249*2^3417696-1[/URL][/B] by Jonathan Pritchard on 21 Nov 2010. [B][URL="http://www.primegrid.com/download/trp-191249.pdf"]Official Announcement[/URL][/B] [B][URL="http://primes.utm.edu/primes/page.php?id=97496"]428639*2^3506452-1[/URL][/B] by Brett Melvold on 14 Jan 2011. [B][URL="http://www.primegrid.com/download/trp-428639.pdf"]Official Announcement[/URL][/B] [B][URL="http://primes.utm.edu/primes/page.php?id=99479"]65531*2^3629342-1[/URL][/B] by Adrian Schori on 5 Apr 2011. [B][URL="http://www.primegrid.com/download/trp-65531.pdf"]Official Announcement[/URL][/B] [B][URL="http://primes.utm.edu/primes/page.php?id=100051"]123547*2^3804809-1[/URL][/B] by Jakub Łuszczek on 8 May 2011. [B][URL="http://www.primegrid.com/download/trp-123547.pdf"]Official Announcement[/URL][/B] [B][URL="http://primes.utm.edu/primes/page.php?id=100064"]415267*2^3771929-1[/URL][/B] by Alexey Tarasov on 8 May 2011. [B][URL="http://www.primegrid.com/download/trp-415267.pdf"]Official Announcement[/URL][/B] [B][URL="http://primes.utm.edu/primes/page.php?id=100232"]141941*2^4299438-1[/URL][/B] by Scott Brown on 26 May 2011. [B][URL="http://www.primegrid.com/download/trp-141941.pdf"]Official Announcement[/URL][/B] [B][URL="http://primes.utm.edu/primes/page.php?id=100283"]353159*2^4331116-1[/URL][/B] by Jaakko Reinman on 31 May 2011. [B][URL="http://www.primegrid.com/download/trp-353159.pdf"]Official Announcement[/URL][/B][/QUOTE] An impressive haul. Congrats to PrimeGrid! :smile: |
[QUOTE=wolfemancs;262927]Heck of a month. Primegrid found primes for 4 more k values in May of 2011, bringing their total number of ks eliminated to 7.
[/QUOTE] As listed on my page [url=www.rieselprime.de/Related/Riesel.htm]here[/url] (and in the thread [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=89]Riesel Prime Data Collecting (k*2^n-1)[/url], see News there) or on W.Keller's page [url=http://www.prothsearch.net/rieselprob.html]here[/url], too. |
| All times are UTC. The time now is 10:19. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.