:rolleyes:

Templus informed me that he is only working on k=25935.
so i canceled all his other reservations in the summary-page!

another:
i saw that for k=131707 there're no primes at all in the summary, but it's not a riesel-number so there must be some!
VBCurtis informed me that he found no prime so he tested all n<100k and found primes for n=345 and n=6321.
don't know if there is any gap.

Primes for k=1019370495 n=100K-150K; continuing
 

I've now tested k=1019370495 from n=100K to 150K. This is the one that previously had a gap between n=17K and 135K that I've now filled.

I confirmed 3 primes that were already found at n=135236, 143070, and 149904 and found one more for a total of 97 primes up through n=150K. The prime that I found was:

1019370495*2^116240-1

I'll keep this one reserved for now. Now sieving on k=3428677395...


Gary

k=111546435
 

Karsten,

I created a confusion on k=111546435 for the latest update on the summary page. When I stated that I tested to n=110K to 'fill a gap', I should have stated to 'completely fill the gap'. This k has no gap at 110K. The prior list of primes on the summary site showed no gap in that range and so I only tested it up to n=110K.

But just to be sure, I did a quick test from n=110K to 121K and confirmed only the prime already shown at n=120718.


Gary

Status on k=289
 

I'm still testing away on k=289 to fill the gap between n=300K and 500K. I am still testing from n=260K to 520K to verify the ranges on both sides of it.

One core has completed testing from n=260K to 350K -and- the other core has completed testing from n=400K to 450K with some interruptions for me to work on twin primes at times. No primes have been found yet. :mad: I'm also posting progress for the ranges at Prime Search. I'm estimating 7-10 more days to complete.

I'm amazed that this k can have such a density of primes for n<100K and for n>500K but potentially may not have any in between. Ah, such is primes for you! Maybe I'll get lucky and it'll have one in the small ranges that are left, but it's looking increasingly unlikely.


Gary

No primes for k=3428677395 n=150K-175K; continuing
 

I've now tested k=3428677395 from n=150K to 175K. There were no more primes found. We're still standing at 84 primes so far.


Upcoming testing in the order that I'll be working on it:
1. k=775784295 from n=175K to 200K.
2. k=686701125 from n=175K to 200K.



Gary

1256369595
 

trying to fill some small primes in the summary like this:
1256369595 (93 primes 0-50k). here they are:
3, 4, 8, 16, 21, 29, 30, 41, 44, 48, 53, 68, 79, 102, 116, 166, 168, 170, 201, 206, 236, 243, 272, 274, 285, 293, 318, 328,
336, 348, 354, 418, 421, 471, 486, 558, 562, 588, 596, 822, 850, 875, 894, 971, 1102, 1259, 1510, 1672, 1712, 1724, 1758,
1818, 1920, 2546, 2654, 2708, 2992, 3752, 3868, 3881, 3903, 3919, 4586, 4970, 5144, 5218, 5285, 5592, 6350, 6360, 6505,
7534, 8696, 10886, 11163, 12820, 14633, 14691, 15562, 15775, 21620, 21744, 21762, 22441, 23525, 24040, 25314, 26361, 29718
31600, 36754, 43749, 47242
i'm not reserving this k.
karsten

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;109411]Karsten,

I created a confusion on k=111546435 for the latest update on the summary page. When I stated that I tested to n=110K to 'fill a gap', I should have stated to 'completely fill the gap'. This k has no gap at 110K. The prior list of primes on the summary site showed no gap in that range and so I only tested it up to n=110K.

But just to be sure, I did a quick test from n=110K to 121K and confirmed only the prime already shown at n=120718.


Gary[/QUOTE]

Gary

This value has been tested to over 300,000 (no gaps) back in 2002 see my web page [url]http://home2.btconnect.com/rwsmith/pp/page4a.htm[/url] under 23#. The values differ by one because of the conventions used - 111546435 is 23#/2

All of the primoproths were looked at up to 5093 plus and minus. 23# was the star which is why it was taken quite high.

Whilst I did a huge amount of work with payam numbers in 2003/04, I concentrated only on the + side. I have done a little work on the higher -ve values. Phil Carmody did tons more on the -ve side. I tend to only get interested with values which produce 100 primes by n=10000. They are not hard to find, especially in and around the E(52), E(58), E(60), E(66) and E(82) levels. This could do with a coordinated approach, but who has the CPU cycles?

Regards

Robert

[quote=robert44444uk;109511]Gary

This value has been tested to over 300,000 (no gaps) back in 2002 see my web page [URL]http://home2.btconnect.com/rwsmith/pp/page4a.htm[/URL] under 23#. The values differ by one because of the conventions used - 111546435 is 23#/2

Regards

Robert[/quote]


Robert,

OK, thanks. Not a problem. It's just that there were 2 different gaps below n=100K on our summary site and neither I nor Karsten (I think) who maintains the site were aware of it. Isolue also had taken it even further to at least n=328183 since your efforts. I'm the 'official gap filler' here so if I see a gap on a good k, I'm all over it! :smile:

I checked your n values vs. ours for 23#. There was one difference (other then the difference of 1 between our 2 sites that you mentioned). You have listed a value of n=38485. That should be n=39485. Ours shows n=39486 so I ran a quick test on both values and verified that ours is correct.


Gary

Karsten/Kosmaj; see Robert's site on primoral test
 

Karsten and Kosmaj,

See Robert's last note here that has a link to a website that shows primes on primoral testing back in 2002. Note that his values of n are 1 less than ours because they did not divide the k by 2 when posting the values of n.

I verified that our k = 23#/2 = 111546435 is in sync with his but he has many primoral tests listed on the site. You might want to see if we have all of his primes. Who knows, it might fill some gaps! :smile:


Gary

primoproth
 

i've looked at that pages and tried to put the missing data in the summary but for #13 and #17 i found some errors:
#17 7052 -> 7054
#13 56160 -> 56159 also 65043, 73677,and 80887 are different to the summary (n in summary must be n-1 in primoproth).
so to be sure which value of n is correct i'll have to test it before.
takes some time but another hint to fill some gaps and new k's!