[quote=gd_barnes;207506]Max, to put conjectured efforts on the pages, I've generally asked that people search them to at least n=10K. Otherwise it takes too long to update everything. Before starting any effort, can you please take that into account? Thanks.

I now see that David has searched them all to at least n=10K so I'll show them when I have time.


Gary[/quote]
Ah, sorry about that. I'll keep that in mind for the future.

Reserving Riesel 635, 688 and 741 as new to n=25K.

Reserving Riesel 506 and Sierp 506 as new to n=25K

David,

You asked me to ask where you are at on Sierp bases 784, 785, and 788 shortly before I update the pages. I expect to do at least a partial updating of them by late Monday afternoon U.S. So if you can let me know their status sometime by ~6-8 PM GMT, that would work.


Thanks,
Gary

[quote=gd_barnes;207716]David,

You asked me to ask where you are at on Sierp bases 784, 785, and 788 shortly before I update the pages. I expect to do at least a partial updating of them by late Monday afternoon U.S. So if you can let me know their status sometime by ~6-8 PM GMT, that would work.


Thanks,
Gary[/quote]
The three primes i have found:(including already posted)
8*788^11407+1
105*784^14268+1
139*784^23965+1

My currently search depth is 34.7k.:smile: I hopefully will remember to post nearer the time you said with completion to 35k.:smile:

Reserving S780 to 50K.

[quote=henryzz;207729]I hopefully will remember to post nearer the time you said with completion to 35k.:smile:[/quote]
Completed to 35k

Serge reported in an Email on March 2nd:

R729 is at n=61.9K; continuing to n=100K

Serge, you might check this one. I had to extrapolate from the 24*729^n-1 reservation to your 8*3^n-1 testing.

You said you were going to the next n=50K on all of your reservations. So I'm taking that to mean that you'll be testing this one to n=100K base 729, which would be n=600K base 3. Is that correct?


Gary

R784
 

Yes. I've sieved to 900K but will have a look how slow it will be at 600K.

base-3 is testing faster (PFGW doesn't decompose the base and goes into awkward FFT sizes).
example:

[FONT=Arial Narrow]-f0 -l../Bextra -q8*3^200017-1[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]Output logging to file ../Bextra[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]No factoring at all, not even trivial division[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]Special modular reduction using FFT length [B]20K[/B] on 8*3^200017-1[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]8*3^200017-1 is composite: RES64: [2A3BFDAF3B7C8E79] ([B]96.7036s[/B]+0.0059s)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]Done.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial Narrow]-f0 -l../Bextra -q24*729^33336-1[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]PFGW Version 3.3.1.20100111.Win_Dev [GWNUM 25.13][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]Output logging to file ../Bextra[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]No factoring at all, not even trivial division[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]Special modular reduction using FFT length [B]40K[/B] on 24*729^33336-1[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]24*729^33336-1 is composite: RES64: [2A3BFDAF3B7C8E79] ([B]196.6488s[/B]+0.0059s)[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]For the same reduction reason, I'd like to reserve R784 to 50K (in base-28, 100K). Will try to get it to a single-k status.[/FONT]


[COLOR=green]P.S. I've been doing the same with S961 as far as I remember, when I first found this. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=green]I thought that the new version was immune to that, but found the same after testing.[/COLOR]

[quote=rogue;207336]I have finally finished this base to n=10000. This has been the most difficult base I've tackled.

Here is a summary. The conjectured k is 32514. This base has 19 MOB, 11048 are trivially factored, 20569 primes, and 834 k remaining.

I will continue this base a while longer, possibly as far as n=25000.

The difficulty in this base comes from two factors. First, the numbers take longer to test than a smaller base (such as base 58, which I completed a few weeks ago). Second, this base does not produce as many primes below n=10000. Most bases have < 1% of k remaining at n=10000. This base has a little more than 2.5% remaining.

Here is a question for Gary or anyone else in "the know". Which bases have the highest percent of remaining k at n=25000 where the conjuectured k > 100?[/quote]


Mark,

Did you want to post the primes and k's remaining on R928? If so, I'll show them on the pages.


Gary

[quote=Batalov;207793]Yes. I've sieved to 900K but will have a look how slow it will be at 600K.

base-3 is testing faster (PFGW doesn't decompose the base and goes into awkward FFT sizes).
example:

[FONT=Arial Narrow]-f0 -l../Bextra -q8*3^200017-1[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]Output logging to file ../Bextra[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]No factoring at all, not even trivial division[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]Special modular reduction using FFT length [B]20K[/B] on 8*3^200017-1[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]8*3^200017-1 is composite: RES64: [2A3BFDAF3B7C8E79] ([B]96.7036s[/B]+0.0059s)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]Done.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial Narrow]-f0 -l../Bextra -q24*729^33336-1[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]PFGW Version 3.3.1.20100111.Win_Dev [GWNUM 25.13][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]Output logging to file ../Bextra[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]No factoring at all, not even trivial division[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]Special modular reduction using FFT length [B]40K[/B] on 24*729^33336-1[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]24*729^33336-1 is composite: RES64: [2A3BFDAF3B7C8E79] ([B]196.6488s[/B]+0.0059s)[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]For the same reduction reason, I'd like to reserve R784 to 50K (in base-28, 100K). Will try to get it to a single-k status.[/FONT][/quote]


Now, THAT is surprising! Here is what I suspect:

PFGW (or LLR for that matter) can reduce it to a smaller base OR it can reduce it to a smaller k in order to save testing time, but it cannot do both.

Nice job finding that out.

For everyone's reference: Although it's fairly rare that you could reduce both the k and the base on a form as is the case with 24*729^n-1, if you can reduce them, it can save a lot of testing time!

I wonder if this happens for powers-of-2 bases? The main forms that I can think of that come to mind here at CRUS are:

19464*4^n-1 and 19464*16^n-1

They would reduce to:
2433*2^(2n+3)-1 and 2433*2^(4n+3)-1

Anyone care to test those and see if there is a timing difference?


Gary