I've checked Gary's file with primes of the form k*b^b+1 against those from Kevin.

Here the result:

Kevin missed 69 primes in his list and reported 2 primes twice!

@Kevin:
You've not verified your list with PFGW 3.3.6 but also missed primes because of copy/paste (see twice listed primes and no prime found for b=576).

Your results are not very trustable. Perhaps you should rethink your work and check your results more!

Here's list:
[code]
primes missed
8394*269^269+1
5903*276^276+1
6087*276^276+1
6328*276^276+1
7605*276^276+1
9348*276^276+1
6802*280^280+1
7195*280^280+1
7306*280^280+1
8977*280^280+1
9319*280^280+1
9436*280^280+1
9456*280^280+1
9639*280^280+1
8598*368^368+1
9505*368^368+1
4821*390^390+1
5166*390^390+1
5799*390^390+1
6195*390^390+1
6239*390^390+1
7331*390^390+1
7427*390^390+1
7605*390^390+1
7618*390^390+1
8221*390^390+1
8563*390^390+1
9150*390^390+1
9649*390^390+1
7788*400^400+1
9703*400^400+1
7636*406^406+1
8191*406^406+1
9433*406^406+1
9697*406^406+1
7527*430^430+1
8530*430^430+1
9069*430^430+1
9643*430^430+1
3146*503^503+1
4878*503^503+1
6540*503^503+1
510*507^507+1
690*507^507+1
5490*507^507+1
8066*507^507+1
8594*507^507+1
9614*507^507+1
5505*558^558+1
8044*558^558+1
8465*558^558+1
197*576^576+1
351*576^576+1
438*576^576+1
1088*576^576+1
1400*576^576+1
2657*576^576+1
3658*576^576+1
3833*576^576+1
4238*576^576+1
4373*576^576+1
5196*576^576+1
5897*576^576+1
5923*576^576+1
6540*576^576+1
7101*576^576+1
7896*576^576+1
8276*576^576+1
9238*619^619+1


primes listed twice
8222*546^546+1
1659*918^918+1
[/code]

[B]That is a bald-faced lie. I provided the data for b = 576 on post 100. I provided the data for 417, and 467 as well. [/B]

[QUOTE=Karsten]You've not verified your list with PFGW 3.3.6 but also missed primes because of copy/paste (see twice listed primes and no prime found for b=576).
[/QUOTE]

Working on it; I'll redo 2-1000.

[QUOTE=3.14159;229696][B]That is a bald-faced lie. I provided the data for b = 576 on post 100. I provided the data for 417, and 467 as well. [/B][/QUOTE]

You missed data for bases 417, 467, and 576, and provided the information after kar_bon (as I recall) double-checkedthe results. Now he's found 50+ other examples of primes you've missed, along with two others.

I don't see how this amounts to a misrepresentation, let alone a "bald-faced lie".

[QUOTE=Charles]I don't see how this amounts to a misrepresentation, let alone a "bald-faced lie".
[/QUOTE]

He made it seems as if I had posted nothing at all; There is blatant misrepresentation in that.

he did not unless you can prove it's all the primes in the range you can not even in the slightest prove that claim you make of blatant lie.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;229779]he did not unless you can prove it's all the primes in the range you can not even in the slightest prove that claim you make of blatant lie.[/QUOTE]

He made it seem like I posted nothing at all. It is misrepresentation. He claimed that I missed values, and I posted these values. Pretending that I did nothing is disingenuous at best.

[QUOTE=3.14159;229787]He made it seem like I posted nothing at all. It is misrepresentation. He claimed that I missed values, and I posted these values. Pretending that I did nothing is disingenuous at best.[/QUOTE]

Ok, sorry for the pairs you posted separatly with the files, but nevertheless, you missed many primes (better: most of them I found) and not double-checked them after the error was known!

This is not the data I will make publicly available: They have to be perfect!
Sure, typos can occur, but that much missing or even double primes are not as usual!

[QUOTE=Karsten]This is not the data I will make publicly available: They have to be perfect!
Sure, typos can occur, but that much missing or even double primes are not as usual![/QUOTE]

Copy-paste errors. I am a mere human. I am prone to errors.

[quote=3.14159;229789]Copy-paste errors. I am a mere human. I am prone to errors.[/quote]

If a computer is programmed correctly, the software has no errors, and a human simply attaches a file put out by that program to a posting, there are no errors. That is a 100% guarantee. That is exactly what I did.

You make this like it is rocket science but it is child's play to write that simple PFGW script that I posted.

Get a grip Kevin and learn to program the computers correctly. The simple PFGW script that I posted correctly outputed all primes. I now see why you have been banned from several forums. This thread is why I asked you to leave CRUS.

One more thing: Quit using NewPGen and learn to use srsieve, sr1sieve, sr2sieve, and multisieve! NewPGen is pointless except for exotic fixed-n searches on twins, trips, quadrrupltes, Sophie-Gemains, etc. People will just laugh at you if you continue to use it for efforts like this.

Karsten, I have now run k*b^b+1 through PFGW 3.3.6. There were no differences in the primes. It can now be considered a complete and accurate list. :smile:

[quote=3.14159;229697]Working on it; I'll redo 2-1000.[/quote]

Why? I have already done it.

Gad, 130 posts to run a simple script. Unbelievable. A moderator should delete about 90% of the posts in this thread.