[quote=Flatlander;191737]78959*6^45xxxx-1 is 3-PRP.
Confirmation will take a few hours.

At >350k digits this is my and CRUS's biggest ever.

:george::george::george::george::george::george::george::george::george:[/quote]
Congratulations! :w00t: We were definitely quite due for another one.

BTW, now that Batalov has taken 482K-500K, we've exhausted our available files up to n=500K. Gary, did you get around to calculating an optimal depth for the next chunk, or am I getting this confused with some other base?

OUTSTANDING!! 6 to go! I can't wait to see the submission and subsequent prime score. It should be a doozy!!

:george::bow wave:

Chris, when you've officially proven the prime and submit it to top 5000, I'll remove it from the master sieve file. That should reduce the optimum sieve depth for n=500K-1M. At the same time, you and/or Batalov can remove k=78959 from the file(s) that you are currently testing (if you want to).


Gary

[quote=mdettweiler;191748]Congratulations! :w00t: We were definitely quite due for another one.

BTW, now that Batalov has taken 482K-500K, we've exhausted our available files up to n=500K. Gary, did you get around to calculating an optimal depth for the next chunk, or am I getting this confused with some other base?[/quote]

Look around and you'll answer your own question. Hint: Sieving drive. :smile:

[quote=gd_barnes;191751]Look around and you'll answer your own question. Hint: Sieving drive. :smile:[/quote]
Duh, I see it now...should have figured it was there. :smile:

78959*6^458114-1 (356487 digits) is confirmed. :smile:

(I suppose I was more likely to be hit on the head by an meteorite while simultaneously being strike by lightning than it not being prime.)

[quote=Flatlander;191778]78959*6^458114-1 (356487 digits) is confirmed. :smile:[/quote]
Congrats on the prime!
[quote=Flatlander;191778](I suppose I was more likely to be hit on the head by an meteorite while simultaneously being strike by lightning than it not being prime.)[/quote]
Unless there were other PRP(s) ran (preferably on entirely different hardware/software, like the Mersenne prime DCs...but probably just another machine with similar architecture) that returned probable prime, I'd say the second-most-likely scenario (the first being that it really is prime, which at this point is practically 100%) is that your computer had some error that resulted in it erroneously calling it a PRP.

[QUOTE](I suppose I was more likely to be hit on the head by an meteorite while simultaneously being strike by lightning than it not being prime.)[/QUOTE]

I guess the burning question is, would you feel both? If not, which one?

[quote=Mini-Geek;191783]Congrats on the prime!

Unless there were other PRP(s) ran (preferably on entirely different hardware/software, like the Mersenne prime DCs...but probably just another machine with similar architecture) that returned probable prime, I'd say the second-most-likely scenario (the first being that it really is prime, which at this point is practically 100%) is that your computer had some error that resulted in it erroneously calling it a PRP.[/quote]


This is very true and I've seen it talked about somewhere. The chances of a PRP of any reasonable size being composite are FAR FAR less than the chance of a computer error erroneously saying that a composite is PRP. I think on some of the former "small" PRP's (i.e. n=~30K-45K base 2) that they've been working on proving at 5 or bust have a chance of being composite of less than 1 in 10^80! I think the most recent PRP that they found (n>2M base 2) has something like < 1 in 10^900 of being composite!!

More about potential computer errors: By far the most likely scenario with a computer error is that a PRP (or prime) will be considered composite. Any kind of error at any point in the testing process would render a PRP composite whereas it would take a very specific error for a composite to be rendered a PRP. Even so, that specific error is still much more likely than a "true" PRP being found composite for > 300,000 digits.

Once again, congrats Chris on a monster! There's more to where that came from. :-) I see that it has a score of 19 at top 5000. You just found the equivalent of ~15 if of my n=~485K primes at NPLB. lol But even better, yours will still be on there for a few years.


Gary

Another bit of good news about the big prime: It knocks another k remaining out of Riesel base 36. Only 92 k's to go! lol Although it appears to make little difference for that base, to put a better perspective on it: There are now only 2 Riesel base 36 k's remaining that effectively convert from the as of now 6 Riesel base 6 k's remaining. They are k=1597 and k=43994. The former is the lowest weight k remaining for base 6 and converts to k=9582 base 36. 6 of the top 10 Riesel base 36 primes are now converted from base 6.

One more thing: I believe k=78959 was the heaviest weight k remaining for base 6. Knocking it out knocked out over 20% of the remaining candidates to test, which is why the optimum sieve depth dropped so much.

where is there a link to gary's odds spreadsheet?

[quote=henryzz;191911]where is there a link to gary's odds spreadsheet?[/quote]
[url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=9675[/url]