[QUOTE=SaneMur;267281]I tried running the NewPGen output for k = 11235813213455 into LLR, but apparently LLR can't parse the header NewPGen created:

[CODE]
ABC 5*389*5776767719*2^$b-1 //NewPGen:3598503246:M:0:2:322
[/CODE]

5*389*5776767719 = 11235813213455, and NewPGen required entering it into the app in that format.

Does this header need to be tweaked in any way to have it read by LLR?

Any ideas what might be wrong?[/QUOTE]

NewPGen will create such ABC-file because (as suggested) the k-value is too big and should be typed as factorization instead.
So the result file also contains such lines.

Edit the resultfile with the 'normal' header for LLR like:
1:M:1:2:258

and replace the wrong k-value with "11235813213455".

Easier way: use srsieve.

Call srsieve as follows:
srsieve -f -G -N 1000000 -P 100000000 "11235813213455*2^n-1"

-f write found factors to srfactors.txt (not needed really)
-G create a prp-resultfile called "t17_b2.prp"
-N max n-value (-n 0 omitted)
-P max sieve depth
and the sequence to search for.

You'll get something like
[code]
47345069:M:1:2:258
11235813213455 4
11235813213455 28
11235813213455 60
11235813213455 64
11235813213455 108
11235813213455 124
11235813213455 160
[/code]

in t17_b2.prp.

Please read more about the options of srsieve and the tool srfile to convert result-files.

Srsieve is much faster and will find small primes (n-values < 50, NewPGen won't!) for such a sequence.

[QUOTE=kar_bon;267289]

Easier way: use srsieve.

Call srsieve as follows:
srsieve -f -G -N 1000000 -P 100000000 "11235813213455*2^n-1"

-f write found factors to srfactors.txt (not needed really)
-G create a prp-resultfile called "t17_b2.prp"
-N max n-value (-n 0 omitted)
-P max sieve depth
and the sequence to search for.

{...snip...}

Srsieve is much faster and will find small primes (n-values < 50, NewPGen won't!) for such a sequence.[/QUOTE]

Wow!

You are not kidding, thanks! I sieved the exponent up to 1,000,000 and the prime max to 10,000,000,000 and it didn't even take half an hour!

That is what I call [I]really [/I]fast!

I left off the [B]-f[/B] option but I did pipe the entire console window output to a text file with:

srsieve -G -N 1000000 -P 10000000000 "11235813213455*2^n-1" [B]> my_results.txt

[/B]I couldn't read anything as it flew by!

This program is really awesome, thanks again.

Riesel primes with k = 11235813213455 are prime with n =

4,28,108,124,2524,2540,7388,11584,14196,16948,
20796,38184,46592,64464

Still searching up to n = 100K.

Riesel primes with k = 1123581321345589 are prime with n =

17, 19, 125, 449, 565, 1339, 2767, 8237, 9665, 17849

still searching up to 100K

So kar_bon doesn't go crazy :smile:



PRIME REPORT (updates in [B]bold[/B])

Riesel primes with [U]k = 11235813[/U]
exist for n =

2, 23, 26, 28, 80, 83, 98, 127, 152, 182,
347, 388, 392, 400, 416, 542, 830, 839, 1292, 1436,
2572, 4280, 9724, 13843, 15992, 17084, 34076, 44483, 45692, 52036,
85864, 97640, 113716, 161927

Searched up to: [B]270K[/B]

--------------------

Riesel primes with [U]k = 1123581321[/U]
exist for n =

33, 42, 117, 157, 177, 373, 870, 2077, 2977, 6874,
7065, 10663, 11410, 16705, 17973, 35698, 52353, 64050, 64702, 64857

Searched up to: [B]100K[/B]

--------------------

Riesel primes with [U]k = 11235813213455 [/U]
exist for n =

4, 28, 108, 124, 2524, 2540, 7388, 11584, 14196, 16948,
20796, 38184, 46592, 64464, [B]77260[/B]

Searched up to: [B]100K[/B]

--------------------

Riesel primes with [U]k = 1123581321345589[/U]
exist for n =


17, 19, 125, 449, 565, 1339, 2767, 8237, 9665, 17849, [B]67987[/B]

Searched up to: [B]68K[/B]

[QUOTE=SaneMur;267311]So kar_bon doesn't go crazy :smile:
[/QUOTE]

Don't worry, all is online! :grin:

Another hint and a help for me:

If an odd k-value is divisible by 3, there could exist twin primes for the n-values found (i.e. k*2^n-1 [b]and[/b] k*2^n+1 are prime).

You can easily test this:

edit the header of your LLR-input file from

xxxx:M:1:2:258

into

xxxx::P:1:2:257

and run this 'new' file as input for LLR (with a new output file for the primes).

Posting both side primes will save me some time here.

Thanks.

SaneMur:
You don't need to post updates on your progress on a daily basis. I suggest posting found primes when you reach 500k, or whatever the cutoff is for top-5000 list (currently 667k, I believe), or perhaps both. Any results that can be found in a day or two amount to clutter in the forum- but a monthly update is most welcome, even if you don't reach 500k in that time.
If you read through this thread you are posting in, you'll see that updates are not terribly frequent, yet are still somewhat regular either by Big Round Number or by time.
-Curtis
Edit: Even better, use the "post small primes here and tell us about your progress" thread for these updates below 667k- that thread is designed exactly for folks like you who are just starting out and playing with small primes.

[QUOTE=kar_bon;267312]
Posting both side primes will save me some time here.

Thanks.[/QUOTE]

Sure I can do that.

Also:

[B]Reserving k = 10000000001[/B]

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;267321]SaneMur:
I suggest posting found primes when you reach 500k, or whatever the cutoff is for top-5000 list (currently 667k, I believe), or perhaps both. Any results that can be found in a day or two amount to clutter in the forum- but a monthly update is most welcome, even if you don't reach 500k in that time.

{snip}

Edit: Even better, use the "post small primes here and tell us about your progress" thread {snip}[/QUOTE]

Sure thing!

[QUOTE=kar_bon;267312]
edit the header of your LLR-input file from

xxxx:M:1:2:258

into

xxxx::P:1:2:257
[/QUOTE]

Shouldn't it be the LLR [B]output[/B] file (containing the primes), which he shall use as input for the "plus" side?
Otherwise he would rerun the whole file, which is obviously not properly sieved for the k*2^n+1 side...

[QUOTE=Thomas11;267361]Shouldn't it be the LLR [B]output[/B] file (containing the primes), which he shall use as input for the "plus" side?
Otherwise he would rerun the whole file, which is obviously not properly sieved for the k*2^n+1 side...[/QUOTE]

Sure, misleading used phrase of mine. Thanks for the remark.