Low weight stats page.

[SB2]

All the K's I test are started from the n value reported as last tested by the previous tester on the website. (Mostly from Joss's efforts back in 2004/2005).

If it's not obvious, I am now working straight down the list with the exception of those k values reserved by others. As for the few k's showing testing on hold, I'll restart those once I reach that level in the list. I will be testing all to at least 1000k.

[gd_barnes]

Originally Posted by SB2

All the K's I test are started from the n value reported as last tested by the previous tester on the website. (Mostly from Joss's efforts back in 2004/2005).

If it's not obvious, I am now working straight down the list with the exception of those k values reserved by others. As for the few k's showing testing on hold, I'll restart those once I reach that level in the list. I will be testing all to at least 1000k.

Yes, it was clear that you're working down your list but that doesn't help us here. What we really need is for you to tell us exactly where you started on each k. We have no way to know where other people left off at because the summary site has already been updated with what you tested through.

Specifically, what we need for you to do is to look back in your LLR results files for the specific k's that I mentioned and tell us exactly where you started your testing.

I'm asking about those particular 6 k's that I brought up before, those being 239857, 248047, 306251, 320107, 334147, and 808477, because in my verification efforts, on all of those, there are missing small primes. The problem is that it appears on all but one of them on the summary site that they have been fully tested from n=1 up to at least 427K.

By getting that info. from you, I can recheck up to the point that you started at and then we'll have accurate and complete lists of primes with as little duplication of effort as possible. This will also help us get to the bottom of what is happening here.


Thanks again,
Gary

[gd_barnes]

I feel compelled to mention this now because what is causing the problem is becoming increasingly obvious...

I strongly recommend that anyone who begins testing a low-weight k from where someone else left off, IF the k has no primes found below n=100K, then you should probably run a test at least from n=1 to n=10K and if you can, from n=1 to n=100K, to see if there are missing small primes. That is unless you can somehow get ahold of a results file that proves that the range has already been tested.

After finding 5 low weight k's with missing small primes for 10K < k < 200K, I'm finding many more than that for 200K < k < 1M that appear to be tested up to high values of n but that have no (or few) primes listed. I think the above appears to be the large part of what is causing missing small primes on low-weight k's.

I suspect that way back when at some point, people weren't dilligent about testing at low ranges. They were more interested in top-5000 primes. So when they said they 'tested thru 200K (or 300K or whatever), what it really meant is that they probably started at n=100K or at whatever point it took to make the top-5000 list and tested through their aforementioned point.

I will get into the specifics of the problem k's when I've completed my preliminary double-checking, which should be in the next 2-3 days.

By doing the suggested testing, even if it turns out to be double-work, it will help us keep all lists of primes complete and accurate.


Thank you,
Gary

[VBCurtis]

I think it's more a case that some of us simply didn't know NewPGen deleted small n's when sieving. I used to just run NewPGen, then LLR... I had no idea there were missing n's.

On the k I had missing primes (131707), I had them listed in a results file, but had never posted them. Perhaps again because nobody cared... that was my first k ever.

-Curtis

[gd_barnes]

Originally Posted by VBCurtis

I think it's more a case that some of us simply didn't know NewPGen deleted small n's when sieving. I used to just run NewPGen, then LLR... I had no idea there were missing n's.

On the k I had missing primes (131707), I had them listed in a results file, but had never posted them. Perhaps again because nobody cared... that was my first k ever.

-Curtis

That makes sense and is a very good point. We didn't have Karsten around at that time to post all of the primes somewhere. Cheers to Karsten! So we didn't necessarily post small primes anywhere.

I will say this...It appears to be much more than just NewPgen removing small factors, although that is clearly part of the issue. I'm seeing missing primes up has high as n=100K, with many between 100 and 1000, which is much higher than NewPGen would remove them.

Regardless, I'll keep following up with the double-checks on low-weight k's at low values of n, regardless of reservation status. I doubt anyone will be offended if I find a few small ones and point them out. I only check the ones that don't have a low n and wouldn't post any on a reserved k where someone had not done at least some testing on them, such that it appears that they were missed.

And on another note, these low-weight k's are kind of fun. Tons of them can be tested in short order like SB2 is doing. I may reserve a few myself in the near future to go after a top-5000 prime more quickly. I see Karsten added a bunch of new ones in the last summary update so there are many to go around. They'll be a nice change from the 10-12 heavy-weight k's that I'm testing that seem to take forever!


Gary

[Cruelty]

I think I'll take a look at k=10949 from n=481000... till I find a prime
geeez, I have missed low-weight thread
can someone move my post where it belongs?

[SB2]

Originally Posted by Cruelty

I think I'll take a look at k=10949 from n=481000... till I find a prime
geeez, I have missed low-weight thread
can someone move my post where it belongs?

You might want to choose another, 10949 has been tested from n=481000 and is currently at the n=955000 level.

[Cruelty]

Are you still working on it? If yes then, what about k=70079?
I see you are sieving 70079 and some others too.
What about those?

3343 - Done to 1000k no new primes
3817 - Done to 1000k no new primes
4813 - Done to 1000k no new primes

[kar_bon]

to Cruelty:
that's what i wanted to avoid: i think you saw the ooooooold low weight stats page under www.15k.org menu (http://www.15k.org/lowweight.htm)!!!
there is 10949 tested to 481k by Joss!
this page is not updated anymore because i included all low-weight k's in the new summary-pages. Kosmaj wanted to have this page available for all who are interested only in low weights.
perhaps a reason to delete this link in the menu.
Karsten

[Cruelty]

Well,
both pages actually include mostly the same information concerning low-weight "k", and both suffer from lack of update. I know that several people are involved in updating 15k pages, but IMO it would be more efficient if anyone who is working on a given "k" and has login+password could update information on this pages. Right now we are posting our progress on this forum and then someone has to transfer it to 15k.org.
What do you think?

[gd_barnes]

SB2, can you check and see where you started your testing on your k=239857, 248047, 306251, 320107, 334147, and 808477? I know you started where someone else left off at. It's just that I don't know where that point is.

I'd really appreciate it. It'd save me from duplicate checking of past efforts for low primes.


Thanks,
Gary