Thread: High weight k's
View Single Post
Old 2008-11-28, 12:41   #3
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

3·3,457 Posts
Default

Here is the most erroneous post in the history of prime searching:
http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpos...&postcount=153.

The post states that the person searched k=890505 to n=132K without finding any primes. The post contains 85 errors because that is how many primes there are!!

Primes for k=890505 up to n=132K:
Code:
1, 2, 4, 6, 11, 18, 19, 23, 25, 32, 41, 45, 48, 68, 86, 90, 100, 115, 116,
125, 146, 166, 174, 184, 191, 232, 235, 249, 268, 273, 274, 311, 321, 417,
664, 725, 765, 770, 991, 1005, 1022, 1142, 1344, 1353, 1512, 1592, 1673,
1688, 1881, 1955, 2394, 2513, 2680, 3377, 3690, 3743, 3902, 4276, 4453,
4880, 4937, 6142, 6754, 6805, 6901, 8768, 9814, 12533, 12734, 12772,
14405, 18155, 20434, 35891, 38963, 41645, 43042, 43436, 52140, 56169,
56182, 62125, 68888, 69112, 109446

Moral of the story: Please be specific in the ranges that you have searched and make note of the context of the wording in your post. If the above k had been previously searched prior to this Sept. 3rd, 2003 post, it would have been obvious where the person had started searching. (Likely started searching at n>110K.) Alas, there was no indication in that entire thread that it had ever been searched previously thereby leading one to assume that there are no primes up to n=132K for a k with a weight of ~5000, as currently indicated on rieselprime.org!


Gary
gd_barnes is offline   Reply With Quote