20090113, 10:05  #12 
Mar 2006
Germany
2767_{10} Posts 
my vote:
do a doublecheck as you/we did it all the time for many ranges! one point: don't put to much work to run, better to complete first some ranges. now running 4 Drives (coming up the 5th as Drive #8), many individual k's available and running it's work enough to do. get some work done before starting another!!! so if nobody will doublecheck the k=10051400 range i will work for it! 
20090113, 10:27  #13 
Sep 2004
2·5·283 Posts 

20090113, 10:42  #14  
May 2007
Kansas; USA
2×7^{2}×103 Posts 
Quote:
Carlos may have thought you said everything but I'm confused. So are you saying that we should not run the 8th drive at all? Or are you saying that we should run the entire k=10052000 range in the 8th drive? Or something altogether different? If you're referring to another post where we talked about k=20004000, I agree that needs to wait a long time yet. With Ian confirming that his vote is to run the entire thing, it's 31 in favor of running it all not counting your response. A 4th vote in favor of running the entire thing would about clinch the decision unless 3 people come out real fast against it. Gary Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 20090113 at 10:43 

20090113, 10:57  #15 
Sep 2004
2·5·283 Posts 
You have 4 drives running and it's above our possibilities so why start a new one? Finish what we have now. You want to have the monopoly of all k's, people will start getting away from NPLB, trust me.
Last fiddled with by em99010pepe on 20090113 at 10:58 
20090113, 11:07  #16 
May 2007
Kansas; USA
2·7^{2}·103 Posts 
I'm still not clear on what is being implied here guys. Please be more specific on the following:
Are you saying that we should not run the 8th drive at all? Are you saying that we should include k=10051400 in the 8th drive or not? Are you saying that we should never include k=20004000 in NPLB? I'm not saying that we should go up to k=4000 at this point. It was just something that I threw out on the table. It's all about giving people many choices. I need more specifics not inuendo. Gary Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 20090113 at 11:08 
20090113, 11:17  #17 
Sep 2004
101100001110_{2} Posts 
Do you want me to make a draw?
Finish the drives started, let the 8th for the future, is it too difficult to understand? Gary, go to sleep...tomorrow you will be fresh as new and your mind will get it...lol You need to know NPLB limits. Carlos Last fiddled with by em99010pepe on 20090113 at 11:22 
20090113, 11:18  #18 
Mar 2006
Germany
5317_{8} Posts 
ok, clearer i hope:
 no 2000<k<4000 drive  wait with Drive #8 until Drive #9 is finished, seems to be the next 2 weeks although Top5000 will reach about 355k or something like that, it's no need to hassle, there are enough primes not found yet!  then include 10051400 in Drive #8  then there're 4 drives with enough work to do for k=10052000 upto n=500k, k=301399 upto 1.0M or 400<k<1003 upto 1.0M 
20090113, 12:07  #19 
May 2007
Kansas; USA
2×7^{2}×103 Posts 
No need to be insulting Carlos. I can understand perfectly right now if you lay it out in more detail. Yes, you can make a drawing for me if you want. lol
Thanks for the specifics Karsten. Perhaps I need to be more specific. 1. We were initially shooting to finish n=50K200K for k=10052000 by Jan. 20th. Right now, it looks like it will be the 23rd. [ 1.9M pairs remaining/200K pairs per day = 9.5 days from now ]. 2 of my quads will finish sieving tomorrow. I will move them over to help and get that moved up a little (will make 15 cores total of mine on port 9000). 2. We would like to start n=352K500K for k=10052000 by Jan. 17th. The point is that we'd like to see the primes in the top5000 database for historical reference. They won't help us primeswise or scorewise because they will drop off within a few days. 3. I won't even bring up k=20004000 any time in the near future. I don't think that 1 week of overlap between the drives is much and we have plenty of crunching power to keep up with it all. (Upwards of 100 cores running at all times.) Even if people start pulling cores off of the 9th drive to find bigger primes on the 8th drive, I see an overlap of 2 weeks maximum. You don't need to feel like you have to keep uptodate detailed records of everything we do. We greatly appreciate your tremendous effort to keep up but from my perspective, you could entirely skip doing any kind of page for us for n=50K200K. Just entering the primes into the k=3002000 page as well as creating pages for n=200K350K and 350K500K are more than sufficient. I had never in my wildest imagination think that we would ONLY have 1 week of overlap between n=50K200K and 350K500K. I figured it would continue on for months like n=260K332K did with n=332K600K on the 1st & 2nd drives. I thought we'd just have a few cores on it while plowing into the higher range for many top5000 primes. I think it's amazing that we will have as little of overlap between the ranges as we will. Karsten, I feel your pain on keeping on with many small primes. it's tough! The base 3 effort at CRUS has had me very annoyed at times trying to keep up with the 100's of k's and small primes. One final note for all: It's 41 in favor of including the entire k=10052000 in the 8th drive so that is what we will do barring some barrage of people who want k=10051400 excluded all of a sudden. Gary Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 20090113 at 12:12 
20090113, 12:33  #20 
Nov 2003
518_{16} Posts 
I probably have a lot of results from k=10031399. If I gather these all together from their separate files, will they be useful to you? There will be gaps in what I can salvage but can you (& do you want to) exclude candidates I have residues for?

20090113, 12:36  #21  
Mar 2006
Germany
2,767 Posts 
Quote:
i can write a script to compare them, if you give me the files or something i can download! 

20090113, 14:34  #22 
I quite division it
"Chris"
Feb 2005
England
31·67 Posts 
While I'm happy to yield to the majority, here is my reasoning:
We are in fact running a project that gives its best shot at "no prime left behind" but will never be able to 'prove' that unless we have for every k/n pair either: a) a factor that has been double checked with a second program. b) matching residuals from two seperate programs. (By 'prove' I mean 'prove beyond all reasonable doubt', whatever that means.) I don't understand why a list of primes generated by P.B. is no longer sufficient to us to count as a first test (even without residues) when it is sufficient for many k<1000. Last fiddled with by Flatlander on 20090113 at 14:35 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Peter Montgomery's Thesis  mickfrancis  Computer Science & Computational Number Theory  3  20150625 14:32 
Peter Montgomery (IMPORTANT)  R.D. Silverman  Factoring  8  20140607 18:43 
Types of primes searched for.  3.14159  Miscellaneous Math  2  20101204 13:09 
Benson's prime search  Kosmaj  Riesel Prime Search  67  20090118 21:59 
k's/nranges not searched for team drives  gd_barnes  No Prime Left Behind  20  20081226 08:13 