Bases 501-1030 reservations/statuses/primes

[dannyridel]

Unreserving R747, no results to email.

[rebirther]

S613 tested to n=300k (100-300k)

2 primes found, 4 remain

Results emailed - Base released

[rebirther]

Reserving R535 as new base using the new-base script up to 2.5k and sieving to 10k (1G) with srsieve2

[gd_barnes]

Originally Posted by sweety439

Why not include the prime 1007*1008^4091-1 in R1008? See https://www.rieselprime.de/ziki/Williams_prime_MM_least, like we include the prime 718*717^37506+1 in S717.

Originally Posted by sweety439

Also 12*312^21162+1, 3*432^16002-1, 10*537^7117+1 and 12*478^2902-1, their tests also went only up to 2.5k, but they are included.

We would greatly appreciate it if you would butt out of our project and efforts since you don't seem to get the intent of me deleting most of your posts and you provide no resources to the project. You only want to continue to irritate us with your continual nonsensical project goals that would take multiple years to accomplish and little nit-picky errors that don't amount to much of anything on our pages.

As an explanation to others (not you) the difference here is one of trusted projects.

CRUS has not searched R1008 nor S717 up to the n-value found prime by the non-trusted project that you posted a link to. The primes are not trusted as being the lowest because the project itself is not trusted. Hence their associated k's should not be removed from our pages. The k-value found prime for S717 should not have been removed. That is my mistake. I will remove the prime on the CRUS page and add it back to the sieve file.

CRUS has searched S312, R432, S537, and R478 up to the n-value found prime with the k=2 thru 12 effort shown in a separate thread by that name; mostly searched by yours truly. All primes found there are subsequently removed from our main pages.

In other words if random seachers just come by and say so-and-so is prime and so should be removed from our pages we don't trust it unless they provide us results files showing testing done up to the prime itself. The opposite is true for large established projects.

[gd_barnes]

Ian and I have completed R737 to n=300K; no primes were found for n=200K-300K; 2 k's still remain; base released.

[VBCurtis]

Why is only a lowest prime for a k accepted? Isn't the point to find *any* prime for a k to remove it from a conjecture worklist?

Perhaps I misunderstood the context...

[gd_barnes]

Originally Posted by VBCurtis

Why is only a lowest prime for a k accepted? Isn't the point to find *any* prime for a k to remove it from a conjecture worklist?

Perhaps I misunderstood the context...

Partly the context there. The comments came from a major irritant of the project. That said, any prime is acceptable to remove it from the conjecture...just that the smallest prime is preferred. Example if so-and-so lucky Joe comes along and finds a 5-million digit prime that happens to hit one of our k's remaining on a base that has only been searched to n=2500 it would be preferrable to search it further on our end.

Early on in the project we had the cases of some random old Riesel base 3 primes that were in the top-5000 database that were able to eliminate some of the k's remaining that we had searched to n=10K. I made it a point to at least search those k's to n=25K before accepting that the larger old top-5000 primes were fine to eliminate the k's.

So I guess bottom line: If a prime is found in a random search space on an unrelated project that could potentially eliminate one of our k's, let's at least search it to n=25K before accepting the prime as eliminating our k.

[VBCurtis]

Thank you for the explanation. I ask because, at least on the annual bases (2020 presently), when I find a prime in, say, 45-50k testing I remove the k from the folder testing 40-45k also. So there's a small chance I found some second-smallest primes.

Honestly, I'm usually too lazy to do the removal, but I have done it once in a while.

[NHoodMath]

Originally Posted by VBCurtis

Thank you for the explanation. I ask because, at least on the annual bases (2020 presently), when I find a prime in, say, 45-50k testing I remove the k from the folder testing 40-45k also. So there's a small chance I found some second-smallest primes.

Honestly, I'm usually too lazy to do the removal, but I have done it once in a while.

If you are using LLR, remove k's from testing by manually adding ks(k-value)=1 to llr.ini (ex ks1968=1 for k=1968 removal)

[LaurV]

Originally Posted by NHoodMath

If you are using LLR, remove k's from testing by manually adding ks(k-value)=1 to llr.ini (ex ks1968=1 for k=1968 removal)

and back-up the ini from time to time (like once, twice per week, depending on how long one test takes, more often for fast runners) - cllr has the bad habit to erase the file if the system crash (like electricity break, etc).

[rebirther]

R535 tested to n=2.5k + sieved to 1G (2.5-10k)

5286 remain

Results emailed - Base released