435-440 is almost done: no primes to 439,800 :sad:

But I'd like to try one more range, and I'm taking 440-445 to test.

I completed tests of all candidates in the 435-450 range and found no primes.

I'll appreciate if Cyrix kindly tell us what' going on in his range (415-420) and when can we expect results. If there are no primes there than there is a large gap 315-450 with no primes and the next one should be around the corner. The only problem is which corner, 450 or 500k or higher :-)

oh,
it´s my fault... There are no more primes in my range.
i appreciate .

cyrix

Cyrix, thank you.

Now I'm taking the 455-460 range to test.

455-460 is almost done.

Ahead to the 460-465 range... :yawn: :coffee:

I guess I could do some more testing here.
So I'll take 465-470 range.

Joss

Joss,
Welcome back to the 210885 domain :cool: No action here recently but IMO the next prime is imminent, and it's going to be a 140,000 digits number! I just crossed the 460k boundary. I hope both me and you find primes in our respective ranges :smile: Good luck! I wonder whether SlashDude, Thomas and/or somebody else will join the party (?) BTW, I'm going to report my first 100k digit number in a few hours :cool: (now running the primality test) but it's not 15k.

[QUOTE=Kosmaj]BTW, I'm going to report my first 100k digit number in a few hours :cool: (now running the primality test) but it's not 15k.[/QUOTE]

I guess I know where it comes from... ;-)

Luigi

I'd like to reserve the 475-480 range. No primes in my range up to 464,100. It will be completed during the weekend but I must feed the client now.

Luigi, it was a General Woodall prime.

[QUOTE=Kosmaj]
Luigi, it was a General Woodall prime.[/QUOTE]

I checked it on Prime list... well done! :smile:

Luigi

After 14 ranges and more than 7500 checked candidates no new primes for k=210885... I just completed the last available range (495-500) last night. Not sure whether Slash Dude has more candidates n>500k. Even if he does I'm not sure it's a good idea to go on. True, the next prime can be at n=501k but maybe it's at n=701k. Maybe we wait for the new version of LLR supporting larger k's (?)