Riesel base 16 - team drive #2

[mdettweiler]

Originally Posted by em99010pepe

Done.

Thanks!

[em99010pepe]

user=gd_barnes
[02/18/08 17:49:58]
33723*16^102191-1 is prime!

[mdettweiler]

As part of my processing for LLRnet results, I'm going to need the full sieve files for all of the k's from this drive for n=100K-110K; can someone please either post that here or send it to me?

Thanks!

[mdettweiler]

In the meantime, since I have enough of the sieve file to process results up to n=100K, LLRnet has completed 97.5K-100K. lresults are attached.

Edit: whoops, forgot the attachment.

[mdettweiler]

Originally Posted by Anonymous

As part of my processing for LLRnet results, I'm going to need the full sieve files for all of the k's from this drive for n=100K-110K; can someone please either post that here or send it to me?

Thanks!

Never mind that, I just got a PM from Gary saying that he was able to get the lowest-outstanding-n information (which is what I would use the sieve file to determine) from Carlos a different way.

[gd_barnes]

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Never mind that, I just got a PM from Gary saying that he was able to get the lowest-outstanding-n information (which is what I would use the sieve file to determine) from Carlos a different way.

I think we're all still confused. Namely me.

That info. from Carlos was not meant to replace us checking to make sure that all k/n pairs are in the results files. We cannot bypass doing that. Also, what he gave me was where LLRnet testing was at at the time on the Sierp side. It had nothing to do with the Riesel side.

I will post the n=100K-110K file here shortly. The results still need to be checked vs. the sieve file.

In the future, I will just run one test on the LLRnet server to find out where server testing is at. That's all that I wanted all along.

We do know this: The n-max, that is the max n that has been tested on Riesel base 16 is now at n=110K because the server has intentially been run dry at that point. I nor nobody knows where the n-min is, that is the max n that has been tested with no gaps below it. We won't know that for sure until the results files are verified with the sieve files.

There's some 'growing pains' associated with the LLRnet server and its verification. (Mostly on my side I think.) I'll put together a procedure that needs to be followed by all of us to avoid any future confusion.


Sorry for the confusion...


Gary

[gd_barnes]

Here is a link to the n=100K-110K file: 100K-110K

[gd_barnes]

Reserving n=110K-114K (2 files)

[mdettweiler]

Originally Posted by gd_barnes

Here is a link to the n=100K-110K file: 100K-110K

Thanks!

[mdettweiler]

Originally Posted by gd_barnes

I think we're all still confused. Namely me.

That info. from Carlos was not meant to replace us checking to make sure that all k/n pairs are in the results files. We cannot bypass doing that. Also, what he gave me was where LLRnet testing was at at the time on the Sierp side. It had nothing to do with the Riesel side.

I will post the n=100K-110K file here shortly. The results still need to be checked vs. the sieve file.

In the future, I will just run one test on the LLRnet server to find out where server testing is at. That's all that I wanted all along.

We do know this: The n-max, that is the max n that has been tested on Riesel base 16 is now at n=110K because the server has intentially been run dry at that point. I nor nobody knows where the n-min is, that is the max n that has been tested with no gaps below it. We won't know that for sure until the results files are verified with the sieve files.

There's some 'growing pains' associated with the LLRnet server and its verification. (Mostly on my side I think.) I'll put together a procedure that needs to be followed by all of us to avoid any future confusion.


Sorry for the confusion...


Gary

Okay, I'll be sure to run the lowest-outstanding-n tests with the file you just gave me.

Actually, the reason why I didn't have a copy of the exact sieve file that was placed into the server is because that file was reserved when this project was pretty new to LLRnet, so I probably didn't think to keep it around at the time. That shouldn't be a problem any more.

Anon

[gd_barnes]

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Okay, I'll be sure to run the lowest-outstanding-n tests with the file you just gave me.

Actually, the reason why I didn't have a copy of the exact sieve file that was placed into the server is because that file was reserved when this project was pretty new to LLRnet, so I probably didn't think to keep it around at the time. That shouldn't be a problem any more.

Anon

Not a problem. I knew LLRnet was new at the time. I would foward you the entire sieved file for n=110K-200K except for one issue. I remove k's as we find primes but not k's from the LLRnet server files. I only remove them from k's on files that are ABOVE the highest range reserved by the LLRnet server files.

Carlos initially indicated that it would be too big of a hassle to have a rally here due to have to remove k's where primes were found. I responded that I thought it was more hassle than what it was worth to remove k's from LLRnet files and that it wouldn't be necessary for a rally. After all, if we keep a k in there for a little too long, we might find a 2nd top-5000 prime on it! So we have decided to not mess with it, at least at these lower n-ranges. Now, if n>1M base 2, that may be a different story!

I just thought of something. CRUS is certainly not the first Conjectures project to use LLRnet. Both base 5 and the prime Sierp project deal with it too. You might ask Masser at base 5 how they deal with the removal of k's while still matching up the original sieved files with results files. I'm wondering if there is even any matching done on the larger projects like RieselSieve and SOB. Perhaps not and that is part of why they end up with missing primes.

Let me know if you do that. If not, I'll contact him at some point.


Thanks,
Gary