mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Prime Search Projects > Sierpinski/Riesel Base 5

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2016-03-11, 08:25   #12
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
Jun 2011
Thailand

7·1,373 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gd_barnes View Post
The conjectured k-value has nothing to do with the exponent.
And now you had to spoil it...
(we worked on those bases, sieving, pfgwing, don't remember? didn't you think we know that?)
LaurV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-03-11, 10:55   #13
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

33×5×7×11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by axn View Post
Have all the k's below them been ruled out as not having a covering set? IOW, do we have actual reason to conjecture that these are in fact the smallest S/R Base 3 k's?
All k's lower than k=63064644938 for Riesel base 3 cannot be definitively ruled out as having a covering set until a prime is found for all of them just like k=509203 for Riesel base 2. That's why the projects exist...to prove that they are the lowest k's that cannot have a prime. But...we can say that for Riesel base 3 that we are as confident that that k is the lowest with a known covering as we are that k=509203 is for Riesel base 2 and k=346802 is for Riesel base 5.

So far to date for Riesel base 3, we have tested all k<=43G to n=25K. There have been no k's that have been shown to have a covering set although many k's are remaining without primes. Only k=43G-60G remains to be tested. So I can say that k=63064644938 has a 99.9% chance of being the lowest k with a known covering set for Riesel base 3.

Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2016-03-11 at 11:07
gd_barnes is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-03-11, 11:03   #14
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

33·5·7·11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurV View Post
And now you had to spoil it...
(we worked on those bases, sieving, pfgwing, don't remember? didn't you think we know that?)
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic and/or if you intentionally made the error about having the k-value as an exponent. Sorry if I misconstrued your tone. But I figured I should chime in so that we did not mislead the OP.

Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2016-03-11 at 11:06
gd_barnes is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-03-11, 16:14   #15
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

4,861 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurV View Post
And now you had to spoil it...
(again- a hot streak for LaurV!)
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-03-11, 19:23   #16
PawnProver44
 
PawnProver44's Avatar
 
"NOT A TROLL"
Mar 2016
California

C516 Posts
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurV View Post
Well, wrong again
Which one is smaller, \(3^{63064644938}\), or \(5^{346802}\)?

(why those values?)
3^555137 is way smaller than 5^501909 even though 5 has a smaller exponent.
PawnProver44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-03-11, 19:31   #17
KEP
Quasi Admin Thing
 
KEP's Avatar
 
May 2005

2·3·7·23 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PawnProver44 View Post
3^555137 is way smaller than 5^501909 even though 5 has a smaller exponent.
Yes. Now please, help yourself avoid a shitstorm, by taking up the hints and stop bugging people

@the rest of you: R3 is now completely tested to n=25K for k<=49G (uploads start tomorrow). There is no k's for k<=49G that completely get's removed from the sievefile for p<=360M (sieve depth) and nMin=20311 to nMax=25000.
KEP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-03-11, 19:43   #18
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

33×5×7×11 Posts
Default

I think PawnProver is either a troll or a young teenager trying to antagonize us.
gd_barnes is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-03-11, 22:15   #19
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

4,861 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gd_barnes View Post
I think PawnProver is either a troll or a young teenager trying to antagonize us.
Those are awfully close to synonyms. He's not far from a ban- it'll be over soon one way or the other.
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-03-11, 22:35   #20
KobyJane
 

11×17 Posts
Post

I think PawnProver44 is considering deleting his account because we think he is annoying. I saw it in this thread:

http://mersenneforum.org/showthread....799#post428799
  Reply With Quote
Old 2016-03-13, 09:52   #21
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

33×5×7×11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KobyJane View Post
I think PawnProver44 is considering deleting his account because we think he is annoying. I saw it in this thread:

http://mersenneforum.org/showthread....799#post428799
He keeps posting. I will believe it when I see it.
gd_barnes is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GMP-ECM for base-2? CRGreathouse Factoring 1 2010-12-29 08:45
Base-6 speed for prime testing vs. base-2 jasong Conjectures 'R Us 36 2010-08-03 06:25
Base 6 masser Conjectures 'R Us 2 2008-06-27 04:29
Log to what base? edorajh Math 5 2003-12-17 16:31
base 3 ET_ Puzzles 1 2003-12-13 10:45

All times are UTC. The time now is 09:07.


Sat Jul 17 09:07:31 UTC 2021 up 50 days, 6:54, 1 user, load averages: 1.41, 1.77, 1.62

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.