FANTASTIC!!!

FANTASTIC!!!

Congratulations!
I wondered why you posted just after me. I thought I'd overlapped your range.

:toot::toot::toot::toot::toot::toot:

(I double-posted instead of edited in my excitement!)

[QUOTE=Batalov;192160]57023*6^483xxx-1 is 3-PRP! (3729.6409s+0.0354s)
:w00t:
...veryfying now![/QUOTE]

Congratulations, Serge! Now this really is 5 or Bust! (Assuming it tests out, but if it doesn't you will have a record size 3-pseudoprime, probably even more astounding.) Since Ben seems to have a monopoly on the prp's in our project, I'm very happy that you found a nice-sized one here.

[quote=Batalov;192160]57023*6^483xxx-1 is 3-PRP! (3729.6409s+0.0354s)
:w00t:
...veryfying now![/quote]
HOLY COW! :shock: Two primes in an n=25K range! Absolutely amazing! Talk about beating the odds. :smile:

I will copy all the program and project data as done already by Flatlander, as in p256, [URL]http://primes.utm.edu/bios/code.php?code=p258[/URL]
(with my* code, though)

_____
*...my prec-ssss-ious... :smile:

ASTOUNDING in such a small n-range!! A huge congrats to Serge! Only 5 to go now.

All of a sudden, we're ahead of normal on # of primes. I seemed to recall that we expected ~3.5 primes for the entire n=150K-1M range and that's if we left the k's in the entire file even after a prime was found for them so the true expection was probably a prime for just a little over 3 k's. Let's now see if we can make it 4 or 5 by 1M and bring it down to 3 or 4 k's remaining. :smile:

And now for 5 of my favorite celebration guys:

:george::george::george::george::george:

One for each k remaining for good luck on knocking them out. lol

You know I was just thinking of something: I think Phil is good luck. Whenever he hangs around a project for a little while, it finds a huge prime; 3 out of 5 on 5-or-bust, which is definitely better than expected. Phil, hang around for a bit. Maybe we'll bring it down to 2 k's remaining by n=1M. :smile:


Gary

57023*6^483561-1 is prime
 

[FONT=Arial Narrow]PFGW Version 20090809.Win_Dev (Beta 'caveat utilitor') [GWNUM 25.12][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]Primality testing 57023*6^483561-1 [N-1/N+1, Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge]
Running N-1 test using base 5
Special modular reduction using zero-padded FFT length 160K on 57023*6^483561-1
Running N+1 test using discriminant 11, base 2+sqrt(11)
Special modular reduction using zero-padded FFT length 160K on 57023*6^483561-1
Running N+1 test using discriminant 11, base 3+sqrt(11)
Special modular reduction using zero-padded FFT length 160K on 57023*6^483561-1
Calling N+1 BLS with factored part 100.00% and helper 0.00% (300.00% proof)
57023*6^483561-1 is prime! (37237.2034s+0.0236s)
:fusion:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]...submitting![/FONT]

[quote=Batalov;192220][FONT=Arial Narrow]PFGW Version 20090809.Win_Dev (Beta 'caveat utilitor') [GWNUM 25.12][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial Narrow]Primality testing 57023*6^483561-1 [N-1/N+1, Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]Running N-1 test using base 5[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]Special modular reduction using zero-padded FFT length 160K on 57023*6^483561-1[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]Running N+1 test using discriminant 11, base 2+sqrt(11)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]Special modular reduction using zero-padded FFT length 160K on 57023*6^483561-1[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]Running N+1 test using discriminant 11, base 3+sqrt(11)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]Special modular reduction using zero-padded FFT length 160K on 57023*6^483561-1[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]Calling N+1 BLS with factored part 100.00% and helper 0.00% (300.00% proof)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]57023*6^483561-1 is prime! (37237.2034s+0.0236s)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]:fusion:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]...submitting![/FONT][/quote]
Sweet! :tu:

BTW, for future reference, you don't need to do a full N+1/N-1 test on the number (-tc in PFGW); only a -t (N-1) test is required for these numbers because k*b^n+1-1 (i.e. k*b^n) factors trivially.

[QUOTE=Batalov;192220][FONT=Arial Narrow]...
57023*6^483561-1 is prime! (37237.2034s+0.0236s)
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT][/QUOTE]
That's a beautiful sight. :smile:

P.S. I ran -tp on one computer, and -tc on another (with diff.binaries, too). The N-1 part is kinda useless, but it only takes ~1 hr for this size, while N+1 takes ~5 hrs and may need many runs, as everyone surely knows. Additional benefit is that plain -tp uses different p,q.

[quote=Batalov;192226]P.S. I ran -tp on one computer, and -tc on another (with diff.binaries, too). The N-1 part is kinda useless, but it only takes ~1 hr for this size, while N+1 takes ~5 hrs and may need many runs, as everyone surely knows. Additional benefit is that plain -tp uses different p,q.[/quote]
Er...why would the N-1 part be useless? :confused: