New repunit (PRP) primes found, 5794777 and 8177207 decimal digits (PRP records)
 

The last two known repunits were found back in 2007. Welcome, the year 2021.

With Ryan Propper, we decided to give a boost to the project which changed [URL="http://www.elektrosoft.it/matematica/repunit/repunit.htm"]a few homes[/URL] over the years. (We don't know the latest live site. [I]skoberne[/I] site is defunct. Perhaps, [URL="https://www.kurtbeschorner.de/#rprimes"]Kurt's subpage[/URL].)

So, we might go up to p<10,000,000 and so far found one. We are using MT llr and gr-mfaktc to 64 bits for presieve.
It is submitted [URL="http://www.primenumbers.net/prptop/prptop.php"]to PRPtop[/URL], to [URL="https://mathworld.wolfram.com/RepunitPrime.html"]Mathworld[/URL] and [URL="https://primes.utm.edu/glossary/page.php?sort=Repunit"]to UTM[/URL] (in category of thesaurus of primes). [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repunit#Decimal_repunit_primes"]Wikipedia[/URL] and OEIS [OEIS]004023[/OEIS] will be updated when sourced with other pages.

It is R[SUB]5794777[/SUB], and perhaps unsurprisingly it has 5794777 decimal digits (all "1"s).

It also happens to be the largest currently known PRP.

[QUOTE=Batalov;576285]R[SUB]5794777[/SUB]
[/quote]

That is one hell of a PRP. Congrats on such a large find. :smile:

Nice, congrats.

Wow, heck of a find! Not a whole lot of more-than-million-decimal-digit PRPs known.

Hmm. OEIS lists R[sub]p[/sub] exponents as 2, 19, 23, 317, 1031, 49081, 86453, 109297, 270343, ...

and gives 2007 for last two. It seems that 1031 is the largest exponent for which primality is actually proved

So, have all primes 270343 < p < 5794777 been ruled out as exponents for decimal repunit primes? That too would be a heck of an achievement.

Kurt's site ascertains that region below 4300447 is finished.
We have not double-checked that region. We will check all eligible candidates in range 4,300,447 < p < 10,000,000 (or maybe less, -- whatever resources will allow).

[QUOTE=Batalov;576285]We are using MT llr and gr-mfaktc to 64 bits for presieve.[/QUOTE]
How does LLR performance compare with P95/mprime on this type? Do you have any data?

[QUOTE=Batalov;576285].
It is R[SUB]5794777[/SUB], and perhaps unsurprisingly it has 5794777 decimal digits (all "1"s).
[/QUOTE]
Wowww So Big. Congratulations!

[QUOTE=axn;576311]How does LLR performance compare with P95/mprime on this type? Do you have any data?[/QUOTE]
It is almost the same, but operationally speaking, running single jobs is cleaner with LLR2. (Prime95 stays running forever after worktodo.txt is spent/empty, and needs to be killed, or source tampered with and recompiled - but that would only converge its evolution into a clone of LLR). Ryan prefers LLR. Currently using sllr from Jean's site. (Also trying the one with 30.6 gwnum as the engine, off-line, as a test.)

LLR does the Prime95 computational trick since a few releases back - i.e. PRP-tests the [C](k*b^n+c)/e[/C] form using [C](k*b^n+c)[/C] transform, nor a general transform. With monic (k=1), c=-1, it is of course ridiculously fast compared to general form, -- theoretically as fast as testing Mersennes of the same size.

Good one!

Maybe it will be clear when the PRP Top entry becomes visible, but what types of PRP tests has this one "passed", as of now?

/JeppeSN

[QUOTE=Batalov;576322]It is almost the same, but operationally speaking, running single jobs is cleaner with LLR2. (Prime95 stays running forever after worktodo.txt is spent/empty, and needs to be killed, or source tampered with and recompiled - but that would only converge its evolution into a clone of LLR). Ryan prefers LLR. Currently trying the one with 30.6 gwnum as the engine.

LLR does the Prime95 computational trick since a few releases back - i.e. PRP-tests the [C](k*b^n+c)/e[/C] form using [C](k*b^n+c)[/C] transform, nor a general transform. With monic (k=1), c=-1, it is of course ridiculously fast compared to general form, -- theoretically as fast as testing Mersennes of the same size.[/QUOTE]
Cool.

BTW, mprime does have the ability to exit when out of work (conveniently called ExitWhenOutOfWork). Not sure if that was done for other platforms as well.

[QUOTE=Batalov;576309]Kurt's site ascertains that region below 4300447 is finished.
We have not double-checked that region. We will check all eligible candidates in range 4,300,447 < p < 10,000,000 (or maybe less, -- whatever resources will allow).[/QUOTE]If you click on an interval in the Details section on the [url=https://www.kurtbeschorner.de/#rprimes]page you link to[/url], you get all the results - factors or PRP test residues.

It appears that there's a typo on the line with the big announcement:

[center][b][color=blue]10ˆ600000 . . . . . . R5794777 = PRP . . . . . . S. Batalov - Ryan Propper (Apr 2021)[/color][/b][/center]

I believe the exponent should be 6000000 rather than 600000.

Serge, one question. Does LLR use standard PRP test, 3^(N-1) == 1, or does it do 3^10^p == 3^10?

[QUOTE=JeppeSN;576325]Good one!

Maybe it will be clear when the PRP Top entry becomes visible, but what types of PRP tests has this one "passed", as of now?

/JeppeSN[/QUOTE]
We finished 3-PRP, 7-PRP, 11-PRP, 13-PRP (and their SPRP chasers are still running, the Lucas+Frobenius test phases -- they are ~10x slower even on 32 threads).

[QUOTE=Batalov;576367]We finished 3-PRP, 7-PRP, 11-PRP, 13-PRP (and their SPRP chasers are still running, the Lucas test phase).[/QUOTE]

I am currently testing it for Lucas over x^2-4*x+1

[QUOTE=axn;576360]Serge, one question. Does LLR use standard PRP test, 3^(N-1) == 1, or does it do 3^10^p == 3^10?[/QUOTE]
I'll have to doublecheck in the source, but as far as I remember the code does the honest modular exponentiation of b^(N-1) using (in this case) mod (10^p-1) and then converts to giants and does a slow/careful mod ((10^p-1)/9) and expects unit.
For N not being near a power of 2, there is no expected savings of doing exponentiation to N-1, to N or to N+1 (for Mersennes, for example). N-1 is just a binary string of both "1"s and "0"s, no difference from N or even 9N.

[QUOTE=Batalov;576371]For N not being near a power of 2, there is no expected savings of doing exponentiation to N-1, to N or to N+1 (for Mersennes, for example). N-1 is just a binary string of both "1"s and "0"s, no difference from N or even 9N.[/QUOTE]
But 9N+1 = 10^p = 5^p*2^p has a lot more zeros than 1s. Honestly, I don't know what is the impact of simple squaring vs squaring*3. Once upon a time, I recall there being low single digit % difference in performance between LLR and PRP on Riesel numbers (all 1s), but I could be mistaken.

Congratulation , this is so cool ! :bow:

[QUOTE=axn;576374]But 9N+1 = 10^p = 5^p*2^p has a lot more zeros than 1s. Honestly, I don't know what is the impact of simple squaring vs squaring*3. Once upon a time, I recall there being low single digit % difference in performance between LLR and PRP on Riesel numbers (all 1s), but I could be mistaken.[/QUOTE]
True, but we might hit some other 9th root of unity. (we can then rule the false positive out, of course, with subsequent traditional tests; no false [I]negatives [/I]should result).
Worth trying; interesting. llr is not doing it now, but we can hack a patch, and test the speed gain (if it exists).

[QUOTE=Batalov;576285]It is R[SUB]5794777[/SUB], and perhaps unsurprisingly it has 5794777 decimal digits (all "1"s).[/QUOTE]

Yaay! Congrats Serge and Ryan!

:party:

[QUOTE=Batalov;576383]True, but we might hit some other 9th root of unity. (we can then rule the false positive out, of course, with subsequent traditional tests; no false [I]negatives [/I]should result).
Worth trying; interesting. llr is not doing it now, but we can hack a patch, and test the speed gain (if it exists).[/QUOTE]

Worth pointing out: after computing 3^5^p, the remaining p squarings can be protected with GEC.

PS:- In theory, even the 3^5^p could be protected by GEC, but it will cost 50% extra -- worth it only if used as an alternative for double checks

[QUOTE=axn;576395]Worth pointing out: after computing 3^5^p, the remaining p squarings can be protected with GEC.

PS:- In theory, even the 3^5^p could be protected by GEC, but it will cost 50% extra -- worth it only if used as an alternative for double checks[/QUOTE]

Much less extra cost, say you want a^(b^n) mod N using error checking, then choose e>0 and set a larger new base: B=b^e, for simplicity assume that e divides n, then

a^(b^n)=a^(B^(n/e))

and you can do the error checking using this new base, if we count only the squarings then the extra cost of using B>2 is
ceil(log2(B))/log2(B)-1 in 1 part.
[for B=2 this is zero].

One small drawback here is that when you would want to choose very large e so large B to lower the overhead then you can't error check that very frequently.

[QUOTE=Batalov;576285]The last two known repunits were found back in 2007. Welcome, the year 2021.

With Ryan Propper, we decided to give a boost to the project which changed [URL="http://www.elektrosoft.it/matematica/repunit/repunit.htm"]a few homes[/URL] over the years. (We don't know the latest live site. [I]skoberne[/I] site is defunct. Perhaps, [URL="https://www.kurtbeschorner.de/#rprimes"]Kurt's subpage[/URL].)

So, we might go up to p<10,000,000 and so far found one. We are using MT llr and gr-mfaktc to 64 bits for presieve.
It is submitted [URL="http://www.primenumbers.net/prptop/prptop.php"]to PRPtop[/URL] (but has not showed up yet), to [URL="https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Repunit.html"]Mathworld[/URL] and [URL="https://primes.utm.edu/glossary/page.php?sort=Repunit"]to UTM[/URL] (in category of thesaurus of primes). [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repunit#Decimal_repunit_primes"]Wikipedia[/URL] and OEIS [OEIS]004023[/OEIS] will be updated when sourced with other pages.

It is R[SUB]5794777[/SUB], and perhaps unsurprisingly it has 5794777 decimal digits (all "1"s).

It also happens to be the largest currently known PRP.[/QUOTE]


Congratulations on finding the next repunit prime, well done.
I can give some infos on the current repunit search that our team is doing:


I extended the original database from skoberne (with complete new structure), but it is not publicly available. So every few weeks I send a new excerpt to Kurt, so his website [URL="https://www.kurtbeschorner.de/#rprimes"]Kurt's subpage[/URL] is officially the new live site, but so far only up to n=6000000. The database itself contains all prime exponents up to 10000000, including known factors, Res64 and/or Res2048 values plus the current bit-depth of sieving. If somebody is interested I can send him a complete dump, or extract the needed information, just send me a PM.

As of today we have tested all of the exponents up to 4880957, with the exception of very few numbers around 4300459 (still waiting for the results of one user).

So how was the new number found, by random selection or systematic search? If you are still in favor of a systematic search we could combine our efforts. Currently I am doing a manual reservation of exponents via email, nothing like the professional search for Mersenne primes.

I would also suggest that you try out running the PRP test with prime95/mprime, it should be faster than llr. E.g. running the test for the found prp has the worktodo entry
[C]PRP=1,10,5794777,-1,99,0,3,1,"9"[/C]
I am currently running the test with mprime on an 8 Core AMD, will post the results here once finished.


Cheers,
Danilo


PS.: @Batalov, I didn't see your comment on LLR vs mprime, only later. I should compare again, last time I tested mprime was like 10% faster. Also I am using it to get the Res2048 value, does LLR has the similar option to get the long residue?

mprime check confirmed that it is a prime:
[C][Work thread Apr 22 02:26] (10^5794777-1)/9 is a probable prime! Wh8: FCA5F7FA,00000000


[Thu Apr 22 02:26:59 2021]
{"status":"P", "k":1, "b":10, "n":5794777, "c":-1, "known-factors":["9"], "worktype":"PRP-3", "fft-length":1146880, "error-code":"00000000", "security-code":"FCA5F7FA", "program":{"name":"Prime95", "version":"30.5", "build":2, "port":8}, "timestamp":"2021-04-22 00:26:59"}

[/C]

[QUOTE=paulunderwood;576369]I am currently testing it for Lucas over x^2-4*x+1[/QUOTE]

It failed. I am rerunning with 3 FFT sizes bigger. ETA 3 days.

Sergei and Ryan: Congratulations to both of you! This is an incredible achievement!
:party:

We now have 4 proven repunits and 5 PRP

This one took almost 14 years to come to light.

I can only hope that in the next 14 years someone proves R49081 to be a prime.

[QUOTE=rudy235;576527]
I can only hope that in the next 14 years someone proves R49081 to be a prime.[/QUOTE]

I am 10.5 months into certification -- I now guess it will be done by Christmas :smile:

[QUOTE=paulunderwood;576528]I am 10.5 months into certification -- I now guess it will be done by Christmas :smile:[/QUOTE]

That is so cool! How are you going about it?:spinner:

[QUOTE=rudy235;576529]That is so cool! How are you going about it?:spinner:[/QUOTE]

Primo on a 3990X 24/7.

[QUOTE=paulunderwood;576528][QUOTE=rudy235;576527]I can only hope that in the next 14 years someone proves R49081 to be a prime.[/QUOTE]I am 10.5 months into certification -- I now guess it will be done by Christmas :smile:[/QUOTE]I was wondering whether anyone was trying to prove it prime. I decided getting enough factors of N-1 was probably hopeless, but that Primo had an outside chance, but it might take a long time. IIRC, if successful it would more than double[sup]†[/sup] the number of decimal digits for the largest number proved prime by Primo.

Best of luck, brave Sir!

[b]EDIT:[/b] [sup]†[/sup]If I'd bothered checking my own post [url=https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=564525&postcount=2]here[/url] which I was incorrectly remembering, I would have seen

Partition(1289844341)

which is 40000 decimal digits (not 20000)

was the largest number proved prime by Primo, and by our intrepid prime-prover in the present instance.

R5794777 is "officially" the [URL="http://www.primenumbers.net/prptop/prptop.php?page=1"]top PRP[/URL]. :smile:

I have had 3 failed Lucas tests (x^2-4*x+1) at increasing FFT sizes for R5794777. All used the special mod reduction, but no slow/safe iterations at the beginning and end. I am now trying general mod reduction with an increase in FFT size of 6, but this will take weeks.

Serge, have you completed any tests with a Lucas component yet?

... and Frobenuis, too!

Yes. Several trifectas obtained. (a = 3, 7, 11 and 17.)

[QUOTE=Batalov;577048]... and Frobenuis, too!

Yes. Several trifectas obtained. (a = 3, 7, 11 and 17.)[/QUOTE]

Thanks. I give up on running generic mod reduction. It would be better to spend a few hours writing slow intro and outro into my code.

... and.....................
 

Ryan keeps suspense, but now [B]there is one more. [/B]
(apparently 5.7 million digits was not enough)

[SPOILER]and pssst, ...it has several 7s again in the exponent :-)[/SPOILER]

Updated [URL="https://primes.utm.edu/glossary/page.php?sort=Repunit"]plot for Prof.Caldwell[/URL] is attached:

But, Serge, you have not told what it is! Why the suspense?

OMG, over 8 million digits!

Bigger than M42, and if it was proven 11th largest prime.

We have the same scrutiny as GIMPS has. Especially given its size...
We are checking SPRP in 3-4 bases first (the best we can do for this PRP.)

(b | N) = -1 for b = {7, 11, 23, 41, ...}.

[QUOTE=paulunderwood;578044]But, Serge, you have not told what it is! Why the suspense?

OMG, over 8 million digits!

Bigger than M42, and if it was proven 11th largest prime.[/QUOTE]
[YOUTUBE]W4aKukcKdjQ[/YOUTUBE]

Based on the clues, I have narrowed it down to:
[SPOILER]8172707
8177207
8267747
8272787
8367707
8373377
8373767
8549777
8674727
8709377
8771207
8772347
8774897
8775947
8779217
8779937[/SPOILER]

[B][SIZE="3"]It is R[SUB]8177207[/SUB][/SIZE][/B]

[QUOTE=Batalov;578079][B][SIZE="3"]It is R[SUB]8177207[/SUB][/SIZE][/B][/QUOTE]

:party:

[QUOTE=Batalov;578079][B][SIZE="3"]It is R[SUB]8177207[/SUB][/SIZE][/B][/QUOTE]I see that OEIS A004023 has been updated accordingly.

Congratulations on a new record PRP!

:bow:

:beer2: :beer2: :beer2: :beer2:

:party:

I'm speechless !


:groupwave:


Curios, the previous exponent have also a lot of 7s !

[QUOTE=Batalov;578046]We have the same scrutiny as GIMPS has. Especially given its size...
We are checking SPRP in 3-4 bases first (the best we can do for this PRP.)

(b | N) = -1 for b = {7, 11, 23, 41, ...}.[/QUOTE]

You can do a Lucas test with LLR ? (For some reason -q does not work for me in LLR 3.8.23)
cllr64.exe -d -oLucasPRPtest=1 input.txt

input.txt:
ABC(10^$a-1)/9
8177207

or the BPSW version of Lucas test if you use LLR 3.8.24:
cllr.exe -d -oLucasPRPtest=1 -oBPSW=1 -q"(10^8177207-1)/9"

[QUOTE=Batalov;578079][B][SIZE=3]It is R[SUB]8177207[/SUB][/SIZE][/B][/QUOTE]
:w00t:That's amazing, truly amazing!!
[SIZE=1](Would like to insert a picture of an anime character by the name of Enzo Garcia here, but I doubt anybody here knows him and shares my specific amazement : )[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][SIZE=2]... and even more so the fact that we'll hopefully soon know if R49081 really is a prime! Been waiting for this for almost two decades now.[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]

[QUOTE=ATH;578089]You can do a Lucas test with LLR ? (For some reason -q does not work for me in LLR 3.8.23)
cllr64.exe -d -oLucasPRPtest=1 input.txt

input.txt:
[CODE]ABC (10^$a-1)/9
8177207[/CODE]

or the BPSW version of Lucas test if you use LLR 3.8.24:
cllr.exe -d -oLucasPRPtest=1 -oBPSW=1 -q"(10^8177207-1)/9"[/QUOTE]
There is a better form, and llr treats it optimally
[CODE]ABC ($a*$b^$c$d)/$e
1 10 8177207 -1 9[/CODE]
LLR ver >= 3.8.24 will indeed create $temp.npg exactly like that, but even with earlier versions you can use the ABC file above.

Thank you.

I was actually responding to your line:
"[I]We are checking SPRP in 3-4 bases first (the best we can do for this PRP.)[/I]"

which I found curious since you can also do Lucas test + Frobenius test with LLR.


Congratulations on this huge PRP! :grin:

[QUOTE=ATH;578109]Thank you.

I was actually responding to your line:
"[I]We are checking SPRP in 3-4 bases first (the best we can do for this PRP.)[/I]"

which I found curious since you can also do Lucas test + Frobenius test with LLR.


Congratulations on this huge PRP! :grin:[/QUOTE]

I'll gladly run it. Starting now.

[QUOTE=ATH;578109]which I found curious since you can also do Lucas test + Frobenius test with LLR.
:[/QUOTE]
But who said that we didn't?

Q: What happens if you simply run a test with llr?
A: it runs PRP, then Lucas and finally Frobenius tests. By default, [I]no special CLI options are needed[/I]
[QUOTE=paulunderwood;578110]I'll gladly run it. Starting now.[/QUOTE]
By all means, sure, - run them. They have already been run, but why not run them once again? :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Batalov;578113]But who said that we didn't?

Q: What happens if you simply run a test with llr?
A: it runs PRP, then Lucas and finally Frobenius tests. By default, [I]no special CLI options are needed[/I]

By all means, sure, - run them. They have already been run, but why not run them once again? :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

Hah. I'll abort my run,

One thing that I didn't know, is that FBase=a=<some base> is honored by llr when set as Fermat base, that is no surprise.
But! -- what follows (i.e. L+F tests) is decoupled from the choice of a, so Lucas test happens to be all the same in all runs, so one is enough.
[CODE]Starting probable prime test of (10^8177207-1)/9
Using AVX-512 FFT length 1600K, Pass1=1K, Pass2=1600, clm=1, 24 threads, a = 23
(10^8177207-1)/9 is base 23-Fermat PRP! (8177207 decimal digits) Time : 25493.017 sec.
Starting Lucas sequence
Using AVX-512 FFT length 1600K, Pass1=1K, Pass2=1600, clm=1, 24 threads, P = 6, Q = 2
_____________...and so on...___________
Using AVX-512 FFT length 1600K, Pass1=1K, Pass2=1600, clm=1, 16 threads, a = 5
10^8177207-1)/9 is base 5-Fermat PRP! (8177207 decimal digits) Time : 25663.426 sec.
Starting Lucas sequence
Using AVX-512 FFT length 1600K, Pass1=1K, Pass2=1600, clm=1, 16 threads, P = 6, Q = 2
_____________...and so on...___________
Starting probable prime test of (10^8177207-1)/9
Using AVX-512 FFT length 1600K, Pass1=1K, Pass2=1600, clm=1, 16 threads, a = 7
(10^8177207-1)/9 is base 7-Fermat PRP! (8177207 decimal digits) Time : 25609.258 sec.
Starting Lucas sequence
Using AVX-512 FFT length 1600K, Pass1=1K, Pass2=1600, clm=1, 16 threads, P = 6, Q = 2
_____________...and so on...___________
Starting probable prime test of (10^8177207-1)/9
Using AVX-512 FFT length 1600K, Pass1=1K, Pass2=1600, clm=1, 16 threads, a = 11
(10^8177207-1)/9 is base 11-Fermat PRP! (8177207 decimal digits) Time : 25643.544 sec.
Starting Lucas sequence
Using AVX-512 FFT length 1600K, Pass1=1K, Pass2=1600, clm=1, 16 threads, P = 6, Q = 2
_____________...and so on...[/CODE]
I'll try to (as Mike likes to say) ...
:all:
...options:
FBase=
PBase=
FermatBase=
LucasBaseP=
isLucasBaseQ=
genLucasBaseQ=
generalLucasBase=
genLucasBaseP=
...
[code]sllr -oLucasBaseP=12 -oLucasPRPtest=1 -oBPSW=1 -d in
Starting Lucas sequence
Using FMA3 FFT length 1600K, Pass1=640, Pass2=2560, clm=1, 24 threads, P = 1, Q = 4 <<< looks like can be controlled
[/code]
P = 1, Q = 4 is good: kronecker(-15,Rn) = -1
P = 6, Q = 2 is good: kronecker(28,Rn) = -1

[QUOTE=Batalov;578113]But who said that we didn't?[/QUOTE]

It was clearly a language communication issue:
"We are checking SPRP in 3-4 bases first (the best we can do for this PRP.)"

I understood "(the best we can do for this PRP.)" as "That is all we can do for this PRP, only SPRP tests and nothing else."

Dear Andreas, yes, it is a language communication issue.
Do you disagree with the phrase: "say anything, - and you will be misinterpreted by at least one"?
Or in other phrasing "A thought, once spoken, is a lie." (Fyodor Tyutchev, translated by Vladimir Nabokov)

At least the thread title, I hope, is unequivocal.

Congratulations. I wonder, in the course of your search are you recording residues and factors for posterity?

[QUOTE=GP2;578221]Congratulations. I wonder, in the course of your search are you recording residues and factors for posterity?[/QUOTE]As previously mentioned in [url=https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=576356&postcount=11]this post[/url], the Details section on [url=https://www.kurtbeschorner.de/#rprimes]this page[/url], which [b][color=blue]Batalov[/color][/b] supplied in [url=https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=576285&postcount=1]this post[/url], has that information.

Discussion of definitions (once again supporting the earlier observation that "A thought, once spoken, is a lie") is moved to [URL="https://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=26793"]a separate thread[/URL].

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;578253]As previously mentioned in [URL="https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=576356&postcount=11"]this post[/URL], the Details section on [URL="https://www.kurtbeschorner.de/#rprimes"]this page[/URL], which [B][COLOR=blue]Batalov[/COLOR][/B] supplied in [URL="https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=576285&postcount=1"]this post[/URL], has that information.[/QUOTE]


But unluckily our results displayed on Kurt's site do not include the results of Serge and Ryan (except for the new PRPs). The dump includes just the results from our own search. I would really like to extend our page with the new results though, but currently it seems we will not get the residues or new factors.

I have just received a snapshot of current results from Ryan (because we chatted about that request; usually I hear only about hits).
I also have lists of factors elsewhere; will post later. I also currently sieve in 10-12M region (to 64 and to 67-68 bits eventually).

And here it is - attached.

[QUOTE=Batalov;578293]I have just received a snapshot of current results from Ryan (because we chatted about that request; usually I hear only about hits).
I also have lists of factors elsewhere; will post later. I also currently sieve in 10-12M region.

And here it is - attached.[/QUOTE]


Thank you very much! I will put them into the database and and publish them on Kurt's site.



Cheers,
Danilo

I will probably grep for all factors that are not present in the site (even though to be safe we started from scratch), to keep the factor "delta" file size to minimum. (I also have a pari script to check all factors, no matter from which origin.)

I put all known factors from prime exponents with p > 4300000 into one file, this should make it easier to grep for new factors.
Format is (one line per factor)
[C]exponent factor[/C]

I just checked all of them, all are prime and really divide the corresponding repunit R[exponent]

[CODE]awk '{print "if(Mod(10,"$2")^"$1"!=1,print("$1"))"}' factors-from-4.3M.txt |gp -q[/CODE]
Cool beans. They are all good. I will attach here new factors, a bit later.

R8177207 is an [URL="http://www.primenumbers.net/prptop/prptop.php?page=1"]official top PRP[/URL].

Currenlty it does not appear on [URL="https://primes.utm.edu/top20/page.php?id=57"]PrimePages's repunit page[/URL].

missing an entry here


[url]https://primes.utm.edu/top20/page.php?id=57[/url]


Norman

Chris might be on a vacation or something similar.
We haven't heard back (but we did send in the news and the updated graph).