[QUOTE=gd_barnes;428734]The conjectured k-value has nothing to do with the exponent.[/QUOTE]
And now you had to spoil it...
(we worked on those bases, sieving, pfgwing, don't remember? didn't you think we know that?)

[QUOTE=axn;428736]Have all the k's below them been ruled out as not having a covering set? IOW, do we have actual reason to conjecture that these are in fact the smallest S/R Base 3 k's?[/QUOTE]

All k's lower than k=63064644938 for Riesel base 3 cannot be definitively ruled out as having a covering set until a prime is found for all of them just like k=509203 for Riesel base 2. That's why the projects exist...to prove that they are the lowest k's that cannot have a prime. But...we can say that for Riesel base 3 that we are as confident that that k is the lowest with a known covering as we are that k=509203 is for Riesel base 2 and k=346802 is for Riesel base 5.

So far to date for Riesel base 3, we have tested all k<=43G to n=25K. There have been no k's that have been shown to have a covering set although many k's are remaining without primes. Only k=43G-60G remains to be tested. So I can say that k=63064644938 has a 99.9% chance of being the lowest k with a known covering set for Riesel base 3.

[QUOTE=LaurV;428746]And now you had to spoil it...
(we worked on those bases, sieving, pfgwing, don't remember? didn't you think we know that?)[/QUOTE]

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic and/or if you intentionally made the error about having the k-value as an exponent. Sorry if I misconstrued your tone. But I figured I should chime in so that we did not mislead the OP.

[QUOTE=LaurV;428746]And now you had to spoil it...
[/QUOTE]

:tu: (again- a hot streak for LaurV!)

[QUOTE=LaurV;428728]Well, wrong again :razz:
Which one is smaller, \(3^{63064644938}\), or \(5^{346802}\)?

[URL="http://www.noprimeleftbehind.net/crus/Riesel-conjectures.htm"](why those values?)[/URL]

[URL="http://www.noprimeleftbehind.net/crus/Riesel-conjectures.htm"][/URL][/QUOTE]

3^555137 is way smaller than 5^501909 even though 5 has a smaller exponent.

[QUOTE=PawnProver44;428785]3^555137 is way smaller than 5^501909 even though 5 has a smaller exponent.[/QUOTE]

Yes. Now please, help yourself avoid a shitstorm, by taking up the hints and stop bugging people :smile:

@the rest of you: R3 is now completely tested to n=25K for k<=49G (uploads start tomorrow). There is no k's for k<=49G that completely get's removed from the sievefile for p<=360M (sieve depth) and nMin=20311 to nMax=25000.

I think PawnProver is either a troll or a young teenager trying to antagonize us.

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;428787]I think PawnProver is either a troll or a young teenager trying to antagonize us.[/QUOTE]

Those are awfully close to synonyms. He's not far from a ban- it'll be over soon one way or the other.

I think PawnProver44 is considering deleting his account because we think he is annoying. I saw it in this thread:

[url]http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=428799#post428799[/url]

[QUOTE=KobyJane;428809]I think PawnProver44 is considering deleting his account because we think he is annoying. I saw it in this thread:

[URL]http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=428799#post428799[/URL][/QUOTE]

He keeps posting. I will believe it when I see it.