The Second Megabit Drive - Page 42

amphoria · 2020-03-13, 08:36

I have had a request from kuratkull to remove k=193 from this drive so that they can search it as an individual. If there have been no objections by this time next week, I will accede to this request. There will still be plenty of k's left in the drive!

kuratkull · 2020-03-13, 09:41

I have a reservation for k=195, which is the highest nash weight k<300 (nash 4106). I would also very much like to reserve k=193 (nash 760), since they are neighboring k's on relatively opposite edges of the weight spectrum. I am considering running both of those exclusively for the forseeable future and running them high. Thank you for your consideration.

VBCurtis · 2020-03-13, 16:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by kuratkull

I have a reservation for k=195, which is the highest nash weight k<300 (nash 4106). I would also very much like to reserve k=193 (nash 760), since they are neighboring k's on relatively opposite edges of the weight spectrum. I am considering running both of those exclusively for the forseeable future and running them high. Thank you for your consideration.

If you'd like to also run k=197, please let me know. I have had it reserved for years, but I have more k's than I need anymore and letting a new person have a go for a while is a nice way to trim my list a little. It's just over 3M presently. You need not decide now; I'm getting some other k's up to 3M before I continue work on 197.

kuratkull · 2020-03-13, 16:50

Thanks for the offer. Sure i'll take it. A fine little group with variable nash weights to keep me busy for a while. I currently churn through 40n/h or 970n/24h at n=3M, the lower weight k's might get a nice little bump from this.

amphoria · 2020-03-20, 07:50

I have not received any objections so I have removed k=193 from the drive and it is now reserved by kuratkull. The first message in the thread has been amended accordingly.

gd_barnes · 2021-03-20, 21:16

The sieve file attached to the first post here is missing the 2nd batch of k's. That is k=131, 133, 137, 139, 141, 143, 145, 161, 177, 181, and 187 are not included in the file.

Is this intentional? Am I missing something?

I see that k=187 had a prime in the n=2.170M-2.180M range. So perhaps the k's have not been missing for long. Is some sort of double-check needed for ranges higher than that?

amphoria · 2021-03-21, 09:30

It wasn't intentional. I have double-checked the sieve files that I used in 2019 and the extra k's were included. I have attached a corrected file for 2002-2300, produced from these sieve files. I use linux to produce the files as windows doesn't expand wildcards in the shell, and I appear to have deleted my WSL partition, so I'll produce the full file in the next couple of days. Note that unconnected did their testing before I uploaded the incorrect sieve file.

amphoria · 2021-03-21, 12:10

I have now attached the full file from 2202 to 3000 with all k's to the first post.

Thanks Gary for spotting and alerting me to the error.

2020-03-13, 09:41	#453
kuratkull Mar 2007 Estonia 3×47 Posts	I have a reservation for k=195, which is the highest nash weight k<300 (nash 4106). I would also very much like to reserve k=193 (nash 760), since they are neighboring k's on relatively opposite edges of the weight spectrum. I am considering running both of those exclusively for the forseeable future and running them high. Thank you for your consideration. Last fiddled with by kuratkull on 2020-03-13 at 09:42 Reason: typo

2021-03-21, 09:30	#458
amphoria "Dave" Sep 2005 UK 2³·347 Posts	It wasn't intentional. I have double-checked the sieve files that I used in 2019 and the extra k's were included. I have attached a corrected file for 2002-2300, produced from these sieve files. I use linux to produce the files as windows doesn't expand wildcards in the shell, and I appear to have deleted my WSL partition, so I'll produce the full file in the next couple of days. Note that unconnected did their testing before I uploaded the incorrect sieve file. Last fiddled with by amphoria on 2021-03-21 at 09:40

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Third Megabit Drive	pinhodecarlos	Riesel Prime Search	133	2021-04-08 06:44
The First Megabit Drive	Kosmaj	Riesel Prime Search	373	2020-11-12 15:48
RPS 11th Drive: Search for more megabit primes	Kosmaj	Riesel Prime Search	186	2014-12-04 14:03
Any interest in yet another sub-megabit drive?	Kosmaj	Riesel Prime Search	20	2011-11-17 04:10
The 3rd RPS Drive: low-weight Ks for megabit prime	lsoule	Riesel Prime Search	140	2009-03-02 15:01

2020-03-13, 08:36	#452
amphoria "Dave" Sep 2005 UK 2776₁₀ Posts	I have had a request from kuratkull to remove k=193 from this drive so that they can search it as an individual. If there have been no objections by this time next week, I will accede to this request. There will still be plenty of k's left in the drive!

2020-03-13, 16:50	#455
kuratkull Mar 2007 Estonia 3×47 Posts	Thanks for the offer. Sure i'll take it. A fine little group with variable nash weights to keep me busy for a while. I currently churn through 40n/h or 970n/24h at n=3M, the lower weight k's might get a nice little bump from this.

2020-03-20, 07:50	#456
amphoria "Dave" Sep 2005 UK 2³×347 Posts	I have not received any objections so I have removed k=193 from the drive and it is now reserved by kuratkull. The first message in the thread has been amended accordingly.

2021-03-20, 21:16	#457
gd_barnes May 2007 Kansas; USA 10344₁₀ Posts	The sieve file attached to the first post here is missing the 2nd batch of k's. That is k=131, 133, 137, 139, 141, 143, 145, 161, 177, 181, and 187 are not included in the file. Is this intentional? Am I missing something? I see that k=187 had a prime in the n=2.170M-2.180M range. So perhaps the k's have not been missing for long. Is some sort of double-check needed for ranges higher than that?

2021-03-21, 12:10	#459
amphoria "Dave" Sep 2005 UK 2³·347 Posts	I have now attached the full file from 2202 to 3000 with all k's to the first post. Thanks Gary for spotting and alerting me to the error.