![]() |
|
|
#12 |
|
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the
24·397 Posts |
I have a hacked (cough) version of srfile which can take a file argument with -d. This allows one to use the following command:
srfile -w sr_63.pfgw -d pfgw.log to remove all k with found primes with one call to srfile. Since sr_63.pfgw can be very large (depending upon the number of k you have in it), this saves a lot of I/O (and time) if you alternate between PRP testing and sieving. If interested, PM me and I can send you the code changes or a Windows exe. I'll send my changes to Geoff. Hopefully he will incorporate them in his next release. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Nov 2009
2·52·7 Posts |
I would like to reserve group 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
May 2007
Kansas; USA
101·103 Posts |
In a manner similar to the way I double checked Riesel base 3 for n<=25K when KEP reserved a large range for n=25K-100K, I have double checked all k's remaining on S63 for k<14M for n<=1K so far. Just like R3 for the k=500M-820M range, I found 2 problems. They are:
Both k=9632032 and 12224450 still remain. I attempted to quickly resolve the situation by searching them to n=5K without sieving. One went down: 9632032*63^1612+1 is prime So fortunately k=9632032 (the group that would have contained it is reserved by Lennart) is now not a problem but k=12224450 will need to be added to the appropriate group here or done separately. Mark, it's up to you how it gets addressed. Fortunately it has not been reserved yet. Kenneth, can you check your primes list for both of these two k's and see what you have for them? I'm wondering why you did not have them remaining. Neither are MOB so that confusion (since your search was done before the current starting bases script was done) is not a possibility. Based on finding these 2 problems, I suspect there will be more. Therefore I will slowly continue my double check and attempt to stay ahead of the reservations. All-in-all, this really isn't bad at all. On both R3 and S63, I had expected to find many more problems than I did because the ranges that I double checked were done before we had the automated starting bases script. It was not easy at all on these huge-conjectured new bases to get everything right before we finally got the starting bases script set up mostly correctly. On another note, I went ahead and gave this thread the visibility it deserves and stickied it. Can anyone say 2 pages of stickies? :-) Anyone wondering why admining this stuff takes a little time? ![]() Gary Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2010-04-26 at 10:26 |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 | |
|
Quasi Admin Thing
May 2005
2·3·7·23 Posts |
Quote:
? ![]() Kenneth |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Quasi Admin Thing
May 2005
2×3×7×23 Posts |
It just crossed my mind, that I actually had you download the n=1-1000 primelist for S63, from my adrive account. Maybe you can retrieve the list and see if there is in fact primes for the 2 k's mentioned. Or did you never reach to download it (though I recall it as you did)?
Kenneth |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 | |
|
May 2007
Kansas; USA
101×103 Posts |
Quote:
That was another reason that I'm doing the doublecheck...so that I could have a comprehensive list of all of the S63 primes. It's what I eventually do on all of the large-conjectured bases since it would be unreasonable and ineffective to have people forward me millions of very small primes. There's no telling how many more problems that I will find. It could be none or it could be 10 or more or it could be 4. I was pretty impressed by the time I got to k=9M with no problems. I was beginning to think there was going to be none. Mark, be sure and add k=12224450 to the appropriate group here if that is how you choose to. I suppose someone could just search it from n=5K-10K. We would then just have to remember that it is remaining even though it's not in the k's that we're searching with this drive. Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2010-04-26 at 23:39 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 | |
|
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the
24·397 Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Nov 2009
2·52·7 Posts |
Primality testing 12224450*63^6893+1 [N-1, Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge]
Running N-1 test using base 3 Calling Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge with factored part 53.00% 12224450*63^6893+1 is prime! (34.7063s+0.0082s) Sure right after rogue's post |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
May 2007
Kansas; USA
101·103 Posts |
Good one Mathew. It figures that the prime would be just a little bit larger than the n-limit that I chose to search to.
![]() When I update the pages for S63, I'll show just the 2 primes on the k's remaining that were missed since I'll keep the # of k's remaining the same. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 | |
|
May 2007
Kansas; USA
101×103 Posts |
Quote:
Gary |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 | |
|
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the
18D016 Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Sierp base 6 - team drive #3 | gd_barnes | Conjectures 'R Us | 373 | 2014-06-11 21:31 |
| Sierp base 16 - team drive #1 | gd_barnes | Conjectures 'R Us | 254 | 2014-06-10 16:00 |
| Sierp base 3 - mini-drive II | gd_barnes | Conjectures 'R Us | 46 | 2009-10-26 18:19 |
| Sierp base 3 - mini-drive Ib | gd_barnes | Conjectures 'R Us | 43 | 2009-03-06 08:41 |
| Sierp base 3 - mini-drive Ia | gd_barnes | Conjectures 'R Us | 170 | 2008-11-11 05:10 |