![]() |
|
|
#67 |
|
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the
24·397 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#68 |
|
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the
11000110100002 Posts |
Here is a better list (bug fixed) with differences listed:
Code:
8*86^n+1 1017 848
32*87^n+1 342 342
8*182^n+1 389 269
27*252^n+1 2164 1855
8*263^n+1 363 298
27*328^n+1 870 758
8*353^n+1 613 613
8*426^n+1 1288 802
8*428^n+1 655 397
8*497^n+1 943 738
8*758^n+1 549 501
8*785^n+1 588 410
8*828^n+1 1136 529
8*930^n+1 1645 1144
8*953^n+1 1155 795
4*72^n-1 1211 838
8*321^n-1 1017 817
8*328^n-1 915 774
9*636^n-1 2840 1758
8*665^n-1 1582 972
9*688^n-1 1252 641
32*702^n-1 2339 2216
8*761^n-1 1527 2285
8*867^n-1 836 475
|
|
|
|
|
|
#69 |
|
May 2007
Kansas; USA
101×103 Posts |
We should never have a k remaining on the pages where algebraic factorization would bring the weight to 0. Those should always be shown as eliminated by "partial algebraic factorization". I see that is no longer the case with your corrected code so that is a good thing.
Still...please check your code again. You'll need to enlighten me on how any n's are removed due to algebraic factors on 8*761^n-1. On a sieve with srsieve to P=511 for n=100001-110000, there are 2285 n's remaining, none of which are divisible by 3. (Maybe I'm missing something.) That's one of only 3 that I spot checked. Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2012-01-11 at 08:15 |
|
|
|
|
|
#70 | |
|
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the
24×397 Posts |
Quote:
Fortunately I haven't been affected with the bases (but was close). I had sieved a couple of k that I had reserved, but hadn't loaded them into my server yet. I just need to resieve them, costing me about 1 week on a single core per k. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#71 | |
|
May 2007
Kansas; USA
101·103 Posts |
Quote:
I'm out of town for about 9-10 more days. After inspecting these a little closer after I get back, I'll change the first post to account for the n's removed due to algebraic factors. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#72 | |
|
Just call me Henry
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)
16F916 Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#73 | |
|
May 2007
Kansas; USA
101×103 Posts |
Quote:
![]() Gary |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#74 |
|
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the
24×397 Posts |
With my latest changes to srsieve, some of these get to change once again. I don't think that any of the Sierpinski ones are affected, but some of the Riesel ones are, notably those where k=16 (2^4 and 4^2) and k=64 (2^6, 4^3, and 8^2). I computed these weights. Would someone care to see if I've made a mistake?
64*177^n-1 1016 64*425^n-1 948 16*333^n-1 1389 64*741^n-1 2016 |
|
|
|
|
|
#75 |
|
May 2007
Kansas; USA
101×103 Posts |
These look good but wouldn't the previous version of srsieve have picked up k=16 correctly since it is only a perfect square? (Or perhaps it was just overlooked in the scheme of things in these lists?) I can see why the previous version would have missed picking up some algebraic factors for k=64 since it is both a square and cube.
I have changed the first post. Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2012-02-04 at 03:34 |
|
|
|
|
|
#76 | |
|
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the
11000110100002 Posts |
Quote:
Last fiddled with by rogue on 2012-02-04 at 05:00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#77 |
|
May 2008
Wilmington, DE
22·23·31 Posts |
Added 24*123^n-1 reserved in the PRPNet2 drive to n=250K
Weight is 2758 Last fiddled with by MyDogBuster on 2012-03-08 at 04:55 |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| P-1 factoring attempts at smallest-remaining Mersenne numbers with no known factors | UberNumberGeek | Factoring | 51 | 2017-02-13 20:30 |
| 20 Easy Pieces - The Remaining 29-bit Jobs | swellman | XYYXF Project | 5 | 2016-02-27 22:35 |
| Discussion about CPU time needed and k's remaining | Siemelink | Conjectures 'R Us | 41 | 2008-07-11 23:05 |
| Easiest Remaining Cunninghams | R.D. Silverman | Factoring | 1 | 2008-03-12 03:34 |
| distribution of remaining candidates | thommy | 3*2^n-1 Search | 41 | 2004-04-11 22:05 |