Range for k>300 that Peter Benson has searched - Page 2

kar_bon · 2009-01-13, 10:05

my vote:

do a doublecheck as you/we did it all the time for many ranges!

one point:

don't put to much work to run, better to complete first some ranges.

now running 4 Drives (coming up the 5th as Drive #8), many individual k's available and running it's work enough to do.

get some work done before starting another!!!

so if nobody will doublecheck the k=1005-1400 range i will work for it!

em99010pepe · 2009-01-13, 10:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by kar_bon

get some work done before starting another!!!

You said everything.

gd_barnes · 2009-01-13, 10:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by kar_bon

my vote:

do a doublecheck as you/we did it all the time for many ranges!

one point:

don't put to much work to run, better to complete first some ranges.

now running 4 Drives (coming up the 5th as Drive #8), many individual k's available and running it's work enough to do.

get some work done before starting another!!!

so if nobody will doublecheck the k=1005-1400 range i will work for it!

Carlos may have thought you said everything but I'm confused.

So are you saying that we should not run the 8th drive at all? Or are you saying that we should run the entire k=1005-2000 range in the 8th drive? Or something altogether different? If you're referring to another post where we talked about k=2000-4000, I agree that needs to wait a long time yet.

With Ian confirming that his vote is to run the entire thing, it's 3-1 in favor of running it all not counting your response. A 4th vote in favor of running the entire thing would about clinch the decision unless 3 people come out real fast against it.

Gary

em99010pepe · 2009-01-13, 10:57

You have 4 drives running and it's above our possibilities so why start a new one? Finish what we have now. You want to have the monopoly of all k's, people will start getting away from NPLB, trust me.

gd_barnes · 2009-01-13, 11:07

I'm still not clear on what is being implied here guys. Please be more specific on the following:

Are you saying that we should not run the 8th drive at all?

Are you saying that we should include k=1005-1400 in the 8th drive or not?

Are you saying that we should never include k=2000-4000 in NPLB?

I'm not saying that we should go up to k=4000 at this point. It was just something that I threw out on the table.

It's all about giving people many choices.

I need more specifics not inuendo.

Gary

em99010pepe · 2009-01-13, 11:17

Do you want me to make a draw?

Finish the drives started, let the 8th for the future, is it too difficult to understand?
Gary, go to sleep...tomorrow you will be fresh as new and your mind will get it...lol

You need to know NPLB limits.

Carlos

kar_bon · 2009-01-13, 11:18

ok, clearer i hope:

- no 2000<k<4000 drive

- wait with Drive #8 until Drive #9 is finished, seems to be the next 2 weeks
although Top5000 will reach about 355k or something like that, it's no need to hassle, there
are enough primes not found yet!

- then include 1005-1400 in Drive #8

- then there're 4 drives with enough work to do for k=1005-2000 upto n=500k, k=301-399 upto 1.0M or 400<k<1003 upto 1.0M

gd_barnes · 2009-01-13, 12:07

No need to be insulting Carlos. I can understand perfectly right now if you lay it out in more detail. Yes, you can make a drawing for me if you want. lol

Thanks for the specifics Karsten. Perhaps I need to be more specific.

1. We were initially shooting to finish n=50K-200K for k=1005-2000 by Jan. 20th. Right now, it looks like it will be the 23rd. [ 1.9M pairs remaining/200K pairs per day = 9.5 days from now ]. 2 of my quads will finish sieving tomorrow. I will move them over to help and get that moved up a little (will make 15 cores total of mine on port 9000).

2. We would like to start n=352K-500K for k=1005-2000 by Jan. 17th. The point is that we'd like to see the primes in the top-5000 database for historical reference. They won't help us primes-wise or score-wise because they will drop off within a few days.

3. I won't even bring up k=2000-4000 any time in the near future.

I don't think that 1 week of overlap between the drives is much and we have plenty of crunching power to keep up with it all. (Upwards of 100 cores running at all times.) Even if people start pulling cores off of the 9th drive to find bigger primes on the 8th drive, I see an overlap of 2 weeks maximum.

You don't need to feel like you have to keep up-to-date detailed records of everything we do. We greatly appreciate your tremendous effort to keep up but from my perspective, you could entirely skip doing any kind of page for us for n=50K-200K. Just entering the primes into the k=300-2000 page as well as creating pages for n=200K-350K and 350K-500K are more than sufficient.

I had never in my wildest imagination think that we would ONLY have 1 week of overlap between n=50K-200K and 350K-500K. I figured it would continue on for months like n=260K-332K did with n=332K-600K on the 1st & 2nd drives. I thought we'd just have a few cores on it while plowing into the higher range for many top-5000 primes. I think it's amazing that we will have as little of overlap between the ranges as we will.

Karsten, I feel your pain on keeping on with many small primes. it's tough! The base 3 effort at CRUS has had me very annoyed at times trying to keep up with the 100's of k's and small primes.

One final note for all: It's 4-1 in favor of including the entire k=1005-2000 in the 8th drive so that is what we will do barring some barrage of people who want k=1005-1400 excluded all of a sudden.

Gary

pb386 · 2009-01-13, 12:33

I probably have a lot of results from k=1003-1399. If I gather these all together from their separate files, will they be useful to you? There will be gaps in what I can salvage but can you (& do you want to) exclude candidates I have residues for?

kar_bon · 2009-01-13, 12:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb386

I probably have a lot of results from k=1003-1399. If I gather these all together from their separate files, will they be useful to you? There will be gaps in what I can salvage but can you (& do you want to) exclude candidates I have residues for?

i think it's better to use them for checking the results together, the new Drive #8 and your results.

i can write a script to compare them, if you give me the files or something i can download!

Flatlander · 2009-01-13, 14:34

While I'm happy to yield to the majority,

here is my reasoning:

We are in fact running a project that gives its best shot at "no prime left behind" but will never be able to 'prove' that unless we have for every k/n pair either:
a) a factor that has been double checked with a second program.
b) matching residuals from two seperate programs.
(By 'prove' I mean 'prove beyond all reasonable doubt', whatever that means.)

I don't understand why a list of primes generated by P.B. is no longer sufficient to us to count as a first test (even without residues) when it is sufficient for many k<1000.

2009-01-13, 10:57	#15
em99010pepe Sep 2004 2·5·283 Posts	You have 4 drives running and it's above our possibilities so why start a new one? Finish what we have now. You want to have the monopoly of all k's, people will start getting away from NPLB, trust me. Last fiddled with by em99010pepe on 2009-01-13 at 10:58

2009-01-13, 11:07	#16
gd_barnes May 2007 Kansas; USA 3³·5·7·11 Posts	I'm still not clear on what is being implied here guys. Please be more specific on the following: Are you saying that we should not run the 8th drive at all? Are you saying that we should include k=1005-1400 in the 8th drive or not? Are you saying that we should never include k=2000-4000 in NPLB? I'm not saying that we should go up to k=4000 at this point. It was just something that I threw out on the table. It's all about giving people many choices. I need more specifics not inuendo. Gary Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2009-01-13 at 11:08

2009-01-13, 11:17	#17
em99010pepe Sep 2004 2·5·283 Posts	Do you want me to make a draw? Finish the drives started, let the 8th for the future, is it too difficult to understand? Gary, go to sleep...tomorrow you will be fresh as new and your mind will get it...lol You need to know NPLB limits. Carlos Last fiddled with by em99010pepe on 2009-01-13 at 11:22

2009-01-13, 12:07	#19
gd_barnes May 2007 Kansas; USA 3³·5·7·11 Posts	No need to be insulting Carlos. I can understand perfectly right now if you lay it out in more detail. Yes, you can make a drawing for me if you want. lol Thanks for the specifics Karsten. Perhaps I need to be more specific. 1. We were initially shooting to finish n=50K-200K for k=1005-2000 by Jan. 20th. Right now, it looks like it will be the 23rd. [ 1.9M pairs remaining/200K pairs per day = 9.5 days from now ]. 2 of my quads will finish sieving tomorrow. I will move them over to help and get that moved up a little (will make 15 cores total of mine on port 9000). 2. We would like to start n=352K-500K for k=1005-2000 by Jan. 17th. The point is that we'd like to see the primes in the top-5000 database for historical reference. They won't help us primes-wise or score-wise because they will drop off within a few days. 3. I won't even bring up k=2000-4000 any time in the near future. I don't think that 1 week of overlap between the drives is much and we have plenty of crunching power to keep up with it all. (Upwards of 100 cores running at all times.) Even if people start pulling cores off of the 9th drive to find bigger primes on the 8th drive, I see an overlap of 2 weeks maximum. You don't need to feel like you have to keep up-to-date detailed records of everything we do. We greatly appreciate your tremendous effort to keep up but from my perspective, you could entirely skip doing any kind of page for us for n=50K-200K. Just entering the primes into the k=300-2000 page as well as creating pages for n=200K-350K and 350K-500K are more than sufficient. I had never in my wildest imagination think that we would ONLY have 1 week of overlap between n=50K-200K and 350K-500K. I figured it would continue on for months like n=260K-332K did with n=332K-600K on the 1st & 2nd drives. I thought we'd just have a few cores on it while plowing into the higher range for many top-5000 primes. I think it's amazing that we will have as little of overlap between the ranges as we will. Karsten, I feel your pain on keeping on with many small primes. it's tough! The base 3 effort at CRUS has had me very annoyed at times trying to keep up with the 100's of k's and small primes. One final note for all: It's 4-1 in favor of including the entire k=1005-2000 in the 8th drive so that is what we will do barring some barrage of people who want k=1005-1400 excluded all of a sudden. Gary Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2009-01-13 at 12:12

2009-01-13, 14:34	#22
Flatlander I quite division it "Chris" Feb 2005 England 31×67 Posts	While I'm happy to yield to the majority, here is my reasoning: We are in fact running a project that gives its best shot at "no prime left behind" but will never be able to 'prove' that unless we have for every k/n pair either: a) a factor that has been double checked with a second program. b) matching residuals from two seperate programs. (By 'prove' I mean 'prove beyond all reasonable doubt', whatever that means.) I don't understand why a list of primes generated by P.B. is no longer sufficient to us to count as a first test (even without residues) when it is sufficient for many k<1000. Last fiddled with by Flatlander on 2009-01-13 at 14:35

2009-01-13, 10:05	#12
kar_bon Mar 2006 Germany 2³×3×11² Posts	my vote: do a doublecheck as you/we did it all the time for many ranges! one point: don't put to much work to run, better to complete first some ranges. now running 4 Drives (coming up the 5th as Drive #8), many individual k's available and running it's work enough to do. get some work done before starting another!!! so if nobody will doublecheck the k=1005-1400 range i will work for it!

2009-01-13, 11:18	#18
kar_bon Mar 2006 Germany 2³·3·11² Posts	ok, clearer i hope: - no 2000<k<4000 drive - wait with Drive #8 until Drive #9 is finished, seems to be the next 2 weeks although Top5000 will reach about 355k or something like that, it's no need to hassle, there are enough primes not found yet! - then include 1005-1400 in Drive #8 - then there're 4 drives with enough work to do for k=1005-2000 upto n=500k, k=301-399 upto 1.0M or 400<k<1003 upto 1.0M

2009-01-13, 12:33	#20
pb386 Nov 2003 2³·163 Posts	I probably have a lot of results from k=1003-1399. If I gather these all together from their separate files, will they be useful to you? There will be gaps in what I can salvage but can you (& do you want to) exclude candidates I have residues for?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Peter Montgomery's Thesis	mickfrancis	Computer Science & Computational Number Theory	3	2015-06-25 14:32
Peter Montgomery (IMPORTANT)	R.D. Silverman	Factoring	8	2014-06-07 18:43
Types of primes searched for.	3.14159	Miscellaneous Math	2	2010-12-04 13:09
Benson's prime search	Kosmaj	Riesel Prime Search	67	2009-01-18 21:59
k's/n-ranges not searched for team drives	gd_barnes	No Prime Left Behind	20	2008-12-26 08:13