[quote=Cybertronic;206093]Indeed Engracio, I can sing a song about this....:smile:..and now add
2000 decimal digits to your number :surprised

I believe 11467 digtis with PRIMO is the highest of emotions.[/quote]

I know, I know. You have done more difficult primes than I and it is also different to you than the other primes.:huh:

When I run all 5 runs on a test overnight, when I wake up I see 4 different digit bit next test. Which one do you pick with better chance of not backtracking?

The excel file is more important than ever now due to more backtracking of tests.

[quote=engracio;206095]
When I run all 5 runs on a test overnight, when I wake up I see 4 different digit bit next test. Which one do you pick with better chance of not backtracking?
[/quote]

When you have 4 different ways than you have luck. Ever way is important.
You start the TEST x with the lowest bit and test RUN 1,2,3,4 ... if not TEXT x+1 then you start another TEST x
Example:
You will save all 4 ways of TEST 10.
copy *.tmp to *.10_30901
copy *.tmp to *.10_30893
copy *.tmp to *.10_30907
copy *.tmp to *.10_30899

4 ways is good, you have enough margin to get no backtrack...
or you start this 4 ways similtaneous. Start with RUN 1

[quote=Cybertronic;206096]
4 ways is good, you have enough margin to get no backtrack...
or you start this 4 ways similtaneous. Start with RUN 1[/quote]

Next time I will try it. Just hate picking the wrong one and going back again.:down:

Good news - I have just finished verifying that all of the primes in our list less than Norman's 2[SUP]38090[/SUP]+47269 are indeed the smallest in their respective sequences, so we haven't wasted any Primo cycles! I expect to get most of the larger ones verified next week, but I don't expect anyone to reserve 2[SUP]56366[/SUP]+39079 before then. (It is doubtful whether Primo can even certify such a huge number, 16968 digits!)

[quote=engracio;206098]Next time I will try it. Just hate picking the wrong one and going back again.:down:[/quote]

...then it is better you start 4 ways at the same TEST. There is ever a good chance to get the next TEST. My experience.

The good news is, when you overcome the backtracks then you have "free drive" for the next 20 TESTs and the number of bits fall down to bits-500


Cheer up !


Ahhh , addition to RUN 5 . The process for larger index numbers will be slower and slower.... so the maximum I test is index=110000. (138000 is the maximum and take a lot of time for nothing)

[quote=philmoore;206099]Good news - I have just finished verifying that all of the primes in our list less than Norman's 2[sup]38090[/sup]+47269 are indeed the smallest in their respective sequences, so we haven't wasted any Primo cycles! I expect to get most of the larger ones verified next week, but I don't expect anyone to reserve 2[sup]56366[/sup]+39079 before then. (It is doubtful whether Primo can even certify such a huge number, 16968 digits!)[/quote]


Nice ,Phil ! You call the numbers as PRIME :smile:.
BTW, a 16968 digit number takes 700 days (on a Phenom 965,using 4 cores) , if PRIMO can handle this.
2250 TESTs total. Note, the energy costs are (500 EUR,700 dollars)

status report: TEST 152 34096/38091 , done maybe end of May 2010
I will report a new status every 50 TESTs.

Well after two restart because of all the backtracking, the third I guess is the charm:smile:. I have finally broke the 30 test level and moving along until I hit the next 20 test brick wall. This iteration sure feels a whole lot better than the first two. I do not know why the first two was problematic but it was.:sad:

Hello everyone.

On February 21st 2010, I did a discovery, that will maybe benefit this project greatly. In simple terms, I concluded, that any number can be proven prime using WinPFGW even if the number is of the form i.e. 2^28978+34429. So how to do it?... you may ask. "Simple"... i may not say, however it is duabel, without the use of Primo or other "bruteforce" non mathematical model prime search programs or scripts.

I concluded on February 21st 2010, that ALL numbers (at least ALL positive, and maybe even 0) but at least all numbers>0 can be converted to the proveable form of: k*b^n-1 (but not k*b^n+1) or in most cases k*(prime)b^n-1. So now I'm just awaiting to hear news from Geoff on weather or not he can make a program that can search and find a solution of the form k*b^n-1 for any number >0 and have it printed to an input file which can be used for Mprime, WinPFGW, LLR or whatever program one prefers to use as proofing program.

I'm not sure if this is of any use at the moment, but if Geoff declines to make such a program that can search for any possible solution of the form k*b^n-1 that makes a total convertion for any positive number >0, then does anyone here knows of someone else who will or would be willing to make such a program? Remember if such a program is made properly, it will very fast find a solution with an exact Log(PRPnumber)=Log(k*b^n-1 solution) match.

It is possible to find a match using a spreadsheet, but due to the limitations of only comparing the Log number to the 15th decimal, it means that it is hard to rule out many of the false solutions, wich will either be a little to big or a little too small, presented by the spreadsheet.

Sorry for this long posting, but in short terms, spare your resources currently spend on running proofs using Primo, since I think they are better spend on trying to find the remaining PRP and withhold proving the remaining PRPs untill some sort of conversion program is created.

Well this was just my 2 cents on this one, but I know for a fact that now in stead of talking trillions and trillions of years on prooving a megaPRP, it will and should actually be possible to do it (dependent on how long the solution takes to find) in a matter of days or weeks (at most) :smile:

Hope this all made sence. Else feel free to ask any questions and I'll try to give you my thoughts and answers as best as I can.

Regards

KEP

[QUOTE=KEP;206774]
I concluded on February 21st 2010, that ALL numbers (at least ALL positive, and maybe even 0) but at least all numbers>0 can be converted to the proveable form of: k*b^n-1 (but not k*b^n+1) or in most cases k*(prime)b^n-1.[/QUOTE]

I am extremely skeptical. You are saying that for for any positive q, it is possible to write q as k*b^n-1 for some k and b such that pfgw can then run a deterministic primality test. This requires a factorization of q+1 as k*b^n, and most people believe factoring q+1 is in general a MUCH more difficult problem than proving whether q is prime. Recall that even proving numbers of the form k*2^n-1 prime requires k < 2^n, which rules out most possible numbers q. So even if we don't need to factor k itself, finding a base b seems most unlikely.

If you still think you are on to something, try presenting a small example to show us how your method works.

[QUOTE=KEP;206774]
I concluded on February 21st 2010, that ALL numbers (at least ALL positive, and maybe even 0) but at least all numbers>0 can be converted to the proveable form of: k*b^n-1 (but not k*b^n+1) or in most cases k*(prime)b^n-1. [/QUOTE]

What do you mean with [COLOR="Red"]k*(prime)b^n-1[/COLOR] ?

Luigi