View Single Post
Old 2008-12-27, 09:02   #33
gd_barnes's Avatar
May 2007
Kansas; USA

280116 Posts

Originally Posted by mdettweiler View Post
Oh, duh--I had forgotten at the time about how we have already been using the "plus x other" notation for primes found in an individual-k reservation on team-drive bases. Thanks for reminding me.

One other question, though: When I marked it down I counted it in the "this drive started with x k's, has found x k's with primes, and has x k's remaining" section. Is this correct? Or do we not count it there for non-drive k's?
Yes, we definitely remove the k from that count even though we haven't technically searched up to that range yet. I checked that and you had it correct. The reasoning:

1. Balancing: The # of k's remaining shown in the 1st post must equal the # of k's we started with minus the # of primes found as shown in that post. I use that constantly as a double-check against k's remaining on my web pages that include far more ranges than just this drive.

2. Several other prior efforts: There were a # of top-5000 and other previous base 3 primes that we used to eliminate k's before searching for n>25K. The montra was: Search everything to n=25K and see what remains to attempt to find the lowest primes. For the k's remaining at that point, then use higher primes found from other efforts to eliminate them. In this case, Mike's effort is one of those "other" efforts.

I'm not going to be overly anal about finding the lowest prime on all k's; just most of them. lol Had Mike's prime been n>~100K, I would have had us remove it from the rest of our drive like we, in effect did, for other efforts before the drive started. But since we're close, we may as well see if it is the lowest. The thinking being that we don't want to spend too much extra CPU time to find the lowest prime but a little bit is OK.


Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2008-12-27 at 09:03
gd_barnes is online now