Thread: Double checking
View Single Post
Old 2007-08-21, 03:14   #2
Kosmaj
 
Kosmaj's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

2×1,811 Posts
Default

This is a short reply to your question. I'll try to elaborate later.

1) All k<300 were double checked by David Broadhurst in 2004 to n=100k.

2) As the next step, for n>100k, it will be nice to double check all ranges (intervals) not marked as tested on Keller's page (open the searched intervals link).

3) Thomas Ritschel and I began double cheking such intervals of all k's tested in the 4th Drive and we completed all of them except the following:
k=109, n=100-350k (k=109 is low-weight)
k=203, 100-260k
k=205, 100-250k
k=215, 110-250k
k=217, 100-260k
k=257, 130-260k

We haven't reported our completed ranges to Keller yet, but we found no missing primes.

4) I'll publish a similar list of k's from the 5th Drive soon, but you can begin your double checking with 6 k's above. Others are welcome to join, but for double-checking please your most stable machine preferably with no over-clocking (or with very conservative OC settings), and with no history of LLR errors of any kind. It will be nice to report your results to W. Keller using your full name.

5) I cannot say anything about accuracy of "Prime Search" results for k's in the 300-1000 range, and I don't intend to do or coordinate any double search there. k<300 are more than enough for me and my current resources
Kosmaj is offline   Reply With Quote