[quote=Flatlander;189174]I notice that my file for 224-226 includes k*6^226000+1.
I had assumed that this would be included in the next file, 226-228.

Now that we are carving slices ourselves from a communal file, I think we should clarify whether we should stop each range at xxx999 or xxx000; to avoid missing candidates or a repetition of work. (Also for Riesels of course.)

For instance, I have just loaded 375-376 (the end of my reservation) into PFGW for the Riesel side and never thought to include n=376000.
:smile:[/quote]
I believe Gary clarified this over in the Riesel thread. It's somewhat of an arbitrary thing, though it's good to remain consistent within a project. At NPLB and CRUS we use the convention of starting at 001 and ending at 000; for example, a range of 5K-10K would be 50001-10000. (That is assuming that every n has a representative in the sieve file; if not, then of course those are simply skipped.)

[quote=mdettweiler;189184]for example, a range of 5K-10K would be 50001-10000.[/quote]
No, that range would be 50K-10K, which doesn't make much sense. :whistle:

[QUOTE=mdettweiler;189184]At NPLB and CRUS we use the convention of starting at 001 and ending at 000;[/QUOTE]
Okay, I'll stick to that.

To beat a dead horse:deadhorse:

I've often been confused why people would do xxx000-xxx999 instead of xxx001-xxx000 when searching ranges. If you've only searched through n=149999, then you can NOT say that you're "at n=150000" like people usually do. You'd only be "at n=149999".

Also, we don't start searching at n=0. If you did xxx000-xxx999, you'd only search an n=999 range from n=1 thru n=999, which is inconsistent with the n=1000 range for all other files of that size.

That's why the files at NPLB and CRUS are that way.


Gary

[quote=gd_barnes;189195]If you've only searched through n=149999, then you can NOT say that you're "at n=150000" like people usually do. You'd only be "at n=149999".[/quote]
That depends on whether you consider "at n=150000" to mean "I have just finished n=150000" or "I am about to start n=150000".

[quote=Mini-Geek;189187]No, that range would be 50K-10K, which doesn't make much sense. :whistle:[/quote]
Ah, whoops...thanks. :smile:

[quote=Mini-Geek;189196]That depends on whether you consider "at n=150000" to mean "I have just finished n=150000" or "I am about to start n=150000".[/quote]

I suppose "at" is ambiguous so that was a bad example. I mentally think of it as "done through" but I can see how it could be interpreted as "about to start". Oddly, I will use "at" when I'm going to continue with an existing reservation and "to", as in "complete to" (or "complete thru") when I'm finishing a reservation. So there is no (or little) ambiguity when I'm done with my reservation.

It becomes like the old century debate. Is the 20th century 1900-1999 or 1901-2000? If you assume no year 0, which I believe most scholars do, then it would have to be 1901-2000. I did an about face on this after I was so heavily involved in fixing programs with the Y2K bug. Before 2000, to me, the 20th century "had" to be 1900-1999. When it was pointed out to me that there was no year 0, then I was convinced the other way.


Gary

222-228 is complete. (With k=68195 removed.)
(217-222 should finish in about a day. Sorry, I 'misunderestimated' the time on my slower PC.)

[quote=Lennart;188855]230k-232k. Complete 1 Prime

Lennart[/quote]
Lennart, I'm missing your results for this range. Could you please post them or email them to me? Thanks.

[quote=Flatlander;189213]222-228 is complete. (With k=68195 removed.)
(217-222 should finish in about a day. Sorry, I 'misunderestimated' the time on my slower PC.)[/quote]

"misunderestimated"

Hum, interesting. You need to be more specific. Does that mean that you underestimated by more than you expected to underestimate or by less than you expected to underestimate by?

Personally, I usually under underestimate but on occassion, I will over underestimate.


:missingteeth:

[quote=mdettweiler;189248]Lennart, I'm missing your results for this range. Could you please post them or email them to me? Thanks.[/quote]

Sorry :smile: Could be that it was i prime there :smile:

Lennart