[QUOTE=gd_barnes;458672]I will do that when you show that you are serious by (1) creating a web page to show all of this info. -and- (2) posting links to the latest software to use for sieving and searching.

Regardless base 63 has a huge conjecture on both sides. The entire primes file would be multiple gigabytes. I will still consider sending base 63 if you will do the above.[/QUOTE]

Since for these bases, the CK in extended conjecture are less than the CK in original conjecture, especially SR63, you do not need to give all k's for these bases.

I only need these k's below:

[CODE]
base
S22 k<2253
S46 k<881
S58 k<488
S63 k<1589
R22 k<2738
R28 k<3769
R46 k<928
R58 k<547
R63 k<857
[/CODE]In fact, except R28, I only need the primes in the "remaining k to find prime" column of my word files (please see my word files). e.g. for S22, I only need primes for these k's: [FONT=&quot]22, 346, 461, 464, 740, 942, 953, 1161, 1343, 1496, 1611, 1726, 1754, 1772, 1793, 1814, 1862, 1908, 2186, 2232 (if they are in CRUS, i.e. if they satisfy that gcd(k+1,22-1) = 1), and for R22 I only need primes for these k's: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]185, 208, 211, 355, 436, 574, 697, 763, 883, 898, 976, 997, 1013, 1036, 1082, 1119, 1335, 1483, 1588, 1732, 1885, 1933, 2050, 2083, 2116, 2161, 2230, 2276, 2278, 2347, 2434, 2529, 2536, 2623, 2719 [/FONT][FONT=&quot](if they are in CRUS, i.e. if they satisfy that gcd(k-1,22-1) = 1).

However, I need all primes for [/FONT][FONT=&quot]k<3769 for R28, since I cannot fill the "top 10 primes" column for R28 if I only have the top 10 primes in the original R28 conjecture. [/FONT]

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;458671]I need some examples to understand this. It appears that the divisor would be different for every k on a single base. That doesn't make sense to me. How could it easily be searched?

I need possibly two sets of examples:
1. An example of the divisor for several consecutive k's on a single base.
2. If I'm not understanding it and the divisor is the same for all k's on a single base, I need an example of the divisor for several consecutive bases.[/QUOTE]

At least, can you sieve these forms?

(269*10^n+1)/9 (currently at n=24K)
(71*25^n+1)/24 (currently at n=10K)
(67*33^n+1)/4 (currently at n=6K)
(203*33^n+1)/4 (currently at n=6K)
(407*33^n+1)/8 (currently at n=6K)
(1814*36^n+1)/5 (currently at n=6K)
(197*7^n-1)/2 (currently at n=29K)
(257*33^n-1)/32 (currently at n=6K)
(339*33^n-1)/2 (currently at n=6K)
(13*43^n-1)/6 (currently at n=5K)
(37*61^n-1)/12 (currently at n=4K)
(53*61^n-1)/4 (currently at n=4K)
(100*61^n-1)/3 (currently at n=4K)

[QUOTE=sweety439;458702]See page 12 of [URL]https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~cbright/reports/mepn.pdf[/URL], you can use srsieve to sieve (a*b^n+c)/d for all fixed integers a, b, c, d.[/QUOTE]

You should read carefully:

[quote]
[...]The program had to be modified slightly to remove a check which would prevent it from
running in the case when a, b, and c were all odd (since then 2 | abn + c, but 2 may not divide
(abn + c)/d).
[...]
[/quote]

So you can't use the standard srsieve.exe!
Run pfgw.exe upto n=100k and you'll see how much work to do.
(197*7^30009-1)/2 is running ~40s to prove composite/prime with pfgw, (197*7^100161-1)/2 ~350-600s.

Make your own tests and stop asking people to do your work.

[QUOTE=kar_bon;458709]You should read carefully:



So you can't use the standard srsieve.exe!
Run pfgw.exe upto n=100k and you'll see how much work to do.
(197*7^30009-1)/2 is running ~40s to prove composite/prime with pfgw, (197*7^100161-1)/2 ~350-600s.

Make your own tests and stop asking people to do your work.[/QUOTE]

No, my computer cannot run these programs, see the post [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=450322&postcount=66"]#66.[/URL]

I'm running pfgw on Win 10 here, too (and Win 7 Pro on others).
No need of other DLLs or programs, only the one (Win)pfgw.exe (32 or 64 bit) so where is the failure on your rack?

There are also Windows versions of all the sr*sieve programs that can be easily found, so there's really no excuse.

Windows 10 has a very nice bash shell you can use to run Linux executables...

[QUOTE=ET_;458757]Windows 10 has a very nice bash shell you can use to run Linux executables...[/QUOTE]

Also this.

Win 7 too. But ye don't need to.
We all windoze guys here still use sr*sieve ".exe" (i.e. for windoze), and are very happy with it...
Edit: them... :razz:

[QUOTE=sweety439;458740]No, my computer cannot run these programs, see the post [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=450322&postcount=66"]#66.[/URL][/QUOTE]

Yes your computer can run these programs since it is Windows10. It is you who do not know how to run them. Are you familiar with the DOS command prompt? Srsieve, sr1sieve, and sr2sieve must be run at the DOS command prompt. All Windows operating systems have a way to get to the command prompt.

If you have never run a program from the command prompt then google "how to run program from command prompt in Windows".

[QUOTE=sweety439;458705]At least, can you sieve these forms?

(269*10^n+1)/9 (currently at n=24K)
(71*25^n+1)/24 (currently at n=10K)
(67*33^n+1)/4 (currently at n=6K)
(203*33^n+1)/4 (currently at n=6K)
(407*33^n+1)/8 (currently at n=6K)
(1814*36^n+1)/5 (currently at n=6K)
(197*7^n-1)/2 (currently at n=29K)
(257*33^n-1)/32 (currently at n=6K)
(339*33^n-1)/2 (currently at n=6K)
(13*43^n-1)/6 (currently at n=5K)
(37*61^n-1)/12 (currently at n=4K)
(53*61^n-1)/4 (currently at n=4K)
(100*61^n-1)/3 (currently at n=4K)[/QUOTE]

No I cannot. As I stated before I will not run these forms until you create a web page that shows all ongoing search depths, statuses, and reservations in one place that can be updated instantly. Furthermore as the administrator of your own project here, you must learn how to run srsieve, LLR, and PFGW. When you create the web page and can demonstrate that you know how to run srsieve then I will consider helping out and sending you some of CRUS's primes that you need.

As I stated in the last post, I think the problem is that you have never run a program from the command prompt. Srsieve, sr1sieve, and sr2sieve must be run from the command prompt. There is some good news for you though: PFGW and LLR have a nice Windows GUI and do not have to be run at the command prompt although I believe they are slightly quicker when run from the command prompt.