mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Prime Search Projects > No Prime Left Behind

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-11-26, 16:17   #23
Mini-Geek
Account Deleted
 
Mini-Geek's Avatar
 
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA

17·251 Posts
Default

I just finished checking on the list of Proth primes for Riesel counterpart twins for the 2010-11-24 list. No new primes found.
Mini-Geek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-11-29, 16:44   #24
Mini-Geek
Account Deleted
 
Mini-Geek's Avatar
 
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA

17×251 Posts
Default

16294579238595022365*2^7±1 are prime (22 digits)
I've finished checking the Riesel list of 2010-11-26. This was the only new twin prime.
Mini-Geek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-11-29, 19:54   #25
kar_bon
 
kar_bon's Avatar
 
Mar 2006
Germany

2×32×157 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mini-Geek View Post
16294579238595022365*2^7±1 are prime (22 digits)
I've finished checking the Riesel list of 2010-11-26. This was the only new twin prime.
This twin was in the 'old' list, too, as I can see.
I've nothing changed on the 10^10 Summary page since 2010-10-18.
kar_bon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-11-29, 20:00   #26
Mini-Geek
Account Deleted
 
Mini-Geek's Avatar
 
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA

17×251 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kar_bon View Post
This twin was in the 'old' list, too, as I can see.
I've nothing changed on the 10^10 Summary page since 2010-10-18.
Oh, yeah you're right. Not sure how that happened...perhaps I accidentally included some numbers for testing that shouldn't have been, so when I found that I thought it was new and didn't properly check if it existed.
Mini-Geek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-11-29, 20:05   #27
kar_bon
 
kar_bon's Avatar
 
Mar 2006
Germany

2·32·157 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mini-Geek View Post
Oh, yeah you're right. Not sure how that happened...perhaps I accidentally included some numbers for testing that shouldn't have been, so when I found that I thought it was new and didn't properly check if it existed.
I've checked my saved history-files and this twin is included since 2008-10-01.

But thanks for the checking of the twin list.
kar_bon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-17, 16:10   #28
Mini-Geek
Account Deleted
 
Mini-Geek's Avatar
 
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA

17·251 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gd_barnes View Post
Another interesting effort would be to check k*b^n-1 primes for k*b^n-3 primes to make a twin in that manner. Of course you could not prove anything that would make the top 20 but you probably could prove n<=10K in a reasonable amount of time and the chances are very small that you would find anything larger than that anyway.
I am checking for -3 (from Riesel primes) and +3 (from Proth primes) twins for the Riesel list of 2010-11-26 and the Proth list of 2010-11-24. I have found 4470 primes or PRPs so far, the largest being 5789*2^15513+3 (4674 digit PRP, and the Primo primality test is queued; of course 5789*2^15513+1 is a known prime, so this makes a twin PRP/prime pair). None so far are of a reportable size, either for being a top 10000 PRP or being a top 20 twin. I'm sure most of the small ones are already known, just because they're so small you wouldn't have to notice their somewhat special form to run across them, but there are still a good number that are hundreds to thousands of digits that were most likely not previously known. All primes are attached, in two files. The ones in pfgw-prime.log were trivially proven to be prime by PFGW, the ones in pfgw.log were found to be PRP. Of the 1773 PRPs there, I have verified the 1755 smallest and submitted the certificates to the FactorDB. (it actually took close to 30 of those and verified the rest itself; it doesn't bother taking outside certificates for primes under 300 digits, but it does enter it into its system for it to verify) The rest are still running in Primo.
The PRP testing is currently at n=475K. There are 275 candidates remaining. In the event (with a dismally low chance of under 3%) that one of those is prime, I'll have found a probable twin prime. AFAIK that would only be officially recognized as a non-twin PRP on the top PRPs list, as it would be too large to prove, but it would still be highly likely to be the largest pair of twin primes known.
Attached Files
File Type: zip primes.zip (13.7 KB, 116 views)

Last fiddled with by Mini-Geek on 2011-01-17 at 16:55
Mini-Geek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-17, 19:55   #29
henryzz
Just call me Henry
 
henryzz's Avatar
 
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT)

13·19·23 Posts
Default

What is the record for a non +-1 twin prime? Is there a type non +-1 that is easy to prove and sieve?
henryzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-17, 21:50   #30
Mini-Geek
Account Deleted
 
Mini-Geek's Avatar
 
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA

102538 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by henryzz View Post
What is the record for a non +-1 twin prime? Is there a type non +-1 that is easy to prove and sieve?
The top 20 twin primes list consists solely of k*b^n+-1 (all but one have b=2). I don't know of any non +-1 that are easy to prove, because AFAIK efficient primality proving algorithms are generally based on N+1 or N-1 being factored to 33.33% (or PFGW's 'combined' test that uses largely-but-not-quite-33% factored N+1 and N-1, and of course things like Primo/ECPP that can work on any, but I wouldn't call ECPP 'efficient' in this context), so for twin primes, choosing (smooth number)+-1 is a clear choice. I don't know if a record list exists for non +-1 twin prime, or (probably the same) a pair of twin primes/PRPs, where at least one is only known to be a PRP. Given the obscurity of that, I'd guess my 5789*2^15513+1, +3 pair have a good chance of being that.
Status:
PRPing: n=513365, 209 candidates remain, sieving more before continuing.
proving PRPs: n=4414, 11 candidates remain. (over 1 hour per test; I'm not sure I'll go all the way with this, 2^15513 is starting to look pretty large...might take a few days just for that test)

Last fiddled with by Mini-Geek on 2011-01-17 at 22:09
Mini-Geek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-18, 17:09   #31
henryzz
Just call me Henry
 
henryzz's Avatar
 
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT)

568110 Posts
Default

If you give in before 5789*2^15513+1, +3 then I would do it. This one is worth testing because it is the largest we know of in its class.
henryzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-18, 18:18   #32
Mini-Geek
Account Deleted
 
Mini-Geek's Avatar
 
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA

102538 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by henryzz View Post
If you give in before 5789*2^15513+1, +3 then I would do it. This one is worth testing because it is the largest we know of in its class.
Ok, I'll leave that one to you. I am also not proving 7027*2^13017-3 and 755*2^13474-3. You or anyone else can do those, or they could stay just PRPs for a while (until someone wants to prove them).
For clarity, here are the largest PRPs I found and who has them reserved for proving:
Code:
517*2^6098+3 and below Mini-Geek (done, certificates in DB)
7315*2^6423-3 Mini-Geek (done, certificate in DB)
1381*2^6512+3 Mini-Geek (done, certificate in DB)
7027*2^13017-3 [unreserved]
755*2^13474-3 [unreserved]
5789*2^15513+3 henryzz
The first 1767 (all before 517*2^6098+3) took about 19 hours. The last one I completed, 517*2^6098+3, took a little over 5 hours. I'd guess the next two I'm doing are 6-8 hours each and the largest three are several days to a few weeks each (unless you do multicore Primo or a distributed ECPP).
Also, a status on my PRPing:
I have split it into 3 parts and am running it on Prime95, (multiple cores and automatic P-1 makes it much better than PFGW when the numbers are this size ) the lowest is at n=819630, and there are 29 candidates left to PRP. The largest one alone will probably take a couple days, since it is so large: 2^13466917-3. If that turns out PRP, that would be incredible! Besides being the largest PRP, with 4053946 digits, it would (probably) be a twin with a Mersenne prime. Unfortunately that is extremely unlikely...

Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2011-01-21 at 09:05 Reason: update completion status
Mini-Geek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-20, 11:53   #33
Mini-Geek
Account Deleted
 
Mini-Geek's Avatar
 
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA

10AB16 Posts
Default

Code:
1381*2^6512+3 and below Mini-Geek (done, certificates in DB)
7027*2^13017-3 [unreserved]
755*2^13474-3 [unreserved]
5789*2^15513+3 henryzz
Done PRPing all candidates and proving all candidates I said I would. All results I saved (started a little after n=20K) along with all primes in pfgw.log or pfgw-prime.log according to current proven status are attached.

2^13466917-3 would have taken a little over two days, but I put it on two cores for most of it, so it took closer to one day. Because it wasn't sieved very well, (only to 5 billion, or about 2^32) Prime95 chose P-1 bounds that gave it a 20% chance of finding a factor. Unfortunately it did not find a factor, even with such generous bounds, so I had to test it. Alas, the largest known twin Mersenne prime (i.e. 2^p-1 and (2^p-3 or 2^p+1) are prime) is just p=5: 29 and 31.
Just for fun, here are all known primes that are twin Mersenne or Fermat primes:
Code:
2^16+1, +3 (65537, 65539)
2^4+1, +3 (17, 19)
2^5-1, -3 (29, 31)
3, 5, and 7, by various formulas (3=2^1+1=2^2-1, 5=2^1+3=2^2+1=2^3-3, 7=2^2+3=2^3-1)
I'd guess that such twin pairs are finite and fully listed there, even if there are infinite Mersenne, Fermat, and twin primes. AFAICT from a quick googling, the last time someone looked for Mersenne Twin Primes was in 1999, when the highest p known to make 2^p-1 prime was 3021377.
Attached Files
File Type: zip results.zip (63.4 KB, 135 views)

Last fiddled with by Mini-Geek on 2011-01-20 at 12:22
Mini-Geek is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
left shifted S0 value ATH Software 13 2012-09-30 07:19
any mid -level sequence left? firejuggler Aliquot Sequences 5 2012-02-09 11:02
Nothing left to discover? Flatlander Science & Technology 3 2011-09-22 11:19
Less than 10,000 left.... petrw1 PrimeNet 311 2010-04-06 05:18
New 'No Prime Left Behind' project gd_barnes Lounge 0 2008-01-21 09:05

All times are UTC. The time now is 10:20.

Sun Jul 12 10:20:38 UTC 2020 up 109 days, 7:53, 0 users, load averages: 1.63, 1.68, 1.65

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.