mersenneforum.org Low weight stats page.
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2020-04-04, 00:22 #342 Cruelty     May 2005 2×809 Posts status report k=6883 tested till n= 10.7M
 2020-05-12, 14:13 #343 storm5510 Random Account     Aug 2009 U.S.A. 2·32·73 Posts 10207*2^980053-1 is prime! (295030 decimal digits).
 2020-06-10, 18:03 #344 storm5510 Random Account     Aug 2009 U.S.A. 2·32·73 Posts Over the past few months, the following k's were tested to 1M: 10079, 22783, 20057, 10207, 81089, 100087, and 100207. k = 100045 was tested to 1,045,000. k = 90119 was tested to 1M. I have a sieve to continue this to 1.2M k = 100211 is in process and k = 100213 is in my queue with a sieve to 3T. There is a problem with k = 10001. I reserved it in the Wiki on April 6. At that time, it had been tested to 20K. I tested it to 935K. Other data was added later which caused me to stop. 10001*2^3075602-1 is prime. It is now listed a having a missing range. Whoever tested it to 3,075,602 had to cover this range. This needs to be corrected. Last fiddled with by storm5510 on 2020-06-10 at 18:07 Reason: Additional
2020-06-11, 10:03   #345
Happy5214

"Alexander"
Nov 2008
The Alamo City

2·173 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by storm5510 There is a problem with k = 10001. I reserved it in the Wiki on April 6. At that time, it had been tested to 20K. I tested it to 935K. Other data was added later which caused me to stop. 10001*2^3075602-1 is prime. It is now listed a having a missing range. Whoever tested it to 3,075,602 had to cover this range. This needs to be corrected.
Not necessarily. There are plenty of known Riesel primes at high n values that we cannot say with certainty were tested completely below said n values. In fact, there are many that we know have not been tested completely. It doesn't appear the person who found the new prime (which was discovered before you reserved it) posted a reservation or any progress reports in this forum, so who knows how much work he did. Continued work on this k is useful, even if it's only a double-check, until we can actually verify that the entire range below that n has been tested.

 2020-06-11, 11:29 #346 kar_bon     Mar 2006 Germany 2×3×11×43 Posts I've got an e-mail from R.Eckhard about his work done on the Riesel side. Included in the Wiki now all n-Max values and his found primes for k=10001 to 10009 in 2018/2019. The range k<10000 is currently in progress by PrimeGrid, so those were the first k-values not reserved officially. Those k-values weren't reserved in this forum, either as I know, so nothing done wrong by R.Eckhard. There's no duty to post your reservation in this forum, but this makes it harder to avoid doublechecks. Another point for such Wiki: everyone can reserve their own k-values and results can be found easily.
2020-06-12, 01:19   #347
storm5510
Random Account

Aug 2009
U.S.A.

2×32×73 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Happy5214 ...Continued work on this k is useful, even if it's only a double-check, until we can actually verify that the entire range below that n has been tested.
I performed a double-check on this particular n:

Quote:
 10001*2^3075602-1 is prime! (925853 decimal digits)
Verification of this entire range, from where I stopped to the n above, could take some time, even on a powerful CPU. I take it from this that it may be possible someone started testing at 3M, for example, and did not test everything below?

2020-06-12, 06:08   #348
kar_bon

Mar 2006
Germany

2·3·11·43 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by storm5510 (...) I take it from this that it may be possible someone started testing at 3M, for example, and did not test everything below?
Read the post above and see the history for Riesel k=10001 in the Wiki.

2020-06-12, 17:58   #349
storm5510
Random Account

Aug 2009
U.S.A.

2·32·73 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by kar_bon Read the post above and see the history for Riesel k=10001 in the Wiki.
I have looked at it more than a few times. The reason being is that before I log in, it shows as still being assigned to me. After signing in, it is no longer there. This is on my "Person" page.

Last fiddled with by storm5510 on 2020-06-12 at 17:58

 2020-06-12, 19:36 #350 Happy5214     "Alexander" Nov 2008 The Alamo City 15A16 Posts Based on my experience with Wikipedia, the caching for logged-in users is different than for anonymous users, so that probably explains the difference. I purged your person page, which should clear the cache for anons.
2020-06-13, 22:56   #351
storm5510
Random Account

Aug 2009
U.S.A.

131410 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Happy5214 Based on my experience with Wikipedia, the caching for logged-in users is different than for anonymous users, so that probably explains the difference. I purged your person page, which should clear the cache for anons.
Thank you! I just came from there. I am considering sieving the difference for this k and attaching the sieve file to its page. Perhaps "P" to 3e12 or 35e11. I have done a couple to 4e12.

2020-06-14, 10:44   #352
Happy5214

"Alexander"
Nov 2008
The Alamo City

2×173 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by storm5510 Thank you! I just came from there. I am considering sieving the difference for this k and attaching the sieve file to its page. Perhaps "P" to 3e12 or 35e11. I have done a couple to 4e12.
What difference? Karsten implicitly said the whole range below n=3440042 was already fully tested, as described on that k's page on the wiki. Unless you want to DC the whole range from where you stopped to n=3440042, doing another sieve would be a waste of resources.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Oddball Twin Prime Search 0 2011-10-29 18:34 ET_ PrimeNet 0 2009-01-10 15:02 mdettweiler Prime Sierpinski Project 3 2008-08-27 18:34 Old man PrimeNet Lounge 15 2003-11-25 02:09 Deamiter Software 1 2002-11-09 06:24

All times are UTC. The time now is 09:35.

Mon Aug 3 09:35:51 UTC 2020 up 17 days, 5:22, 0 users, load averages: 1.43, 1.36, 1.29