mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Math

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2018-03-16, 20:18   #34
paulunderwood
 
paulunderwood's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr

D6C16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Batalov View Post
Another droid crossed my path. 260^32768+179^32768
Not proven minimal yet, though.
Firming up this result:

Code:
time ./pfgw64 -k -f0 -od -q"260^32768+179^32768" | ../../coding/gwnum/hybrid -
                              
Testing (x + 2)^(n + 1) == 7 (mod n, x^2 - x + 1)...
Likely prime!

real	3m34.502s
user	5m52.580s
sys	1m13.776s
paulunderwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-03-16, 20:28   #35
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

8,369 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRGreathouse View Post
Yes, but 216 and 109 aren't (though the former is a cube).
m=0, 2^1 + 1^1
m=1, 2^2 + 1^2
m=2, 2^4 + 1^4
m=3, 2^8 + 1^8
m=4, 2^16 + 1^16
m=5, 9^32 + 8^32
m=6, 11^64 + 8^64
m=7, 27^128 + 20^128
m=8, 14^256 + 5^256
m=9, 13^512 + 2^512
m=10, 47^1024 + 26^1024
m=11, 22^2048 + 3^2048
m=12, 53^4096 + 2^4096
m=13, 72^8192 + 43^8192

Aka

(72^2)^4096+(43^2)^4096
(53^2)^2048+(2^2)^2048
(22^2)^1024+(3^2)^1024
(47^2)^512+(26^2)^512
(13^2)^256+(2^2)^256
(14^2)^128+(5^2)^128
(27^2)^64+(20^2)^64
(11^2)^32+(8^2)^32
(9^2)^16+(8^2)^16
(2^2)^8+(1^2)^8
(2^2)^4+(1^2)^4
(2^2)^2+(1^2)^2
(2^2)^1+(1^2)^1

Minimal next level= minimal square based current level. Aka Serges previous result has a>14 or b>10 or both for the next level.

Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 2018-03-16 at 21:05
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-03-16, 23:00   #36
Batalov
 
Batalov's Avatar
 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

3×3,041 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Batalov View Post
Another droid crossed my path. 260^32768+179^32768
Not proven minimal yet, though.
Now proven minimal.

m=16, anyone?
Batalov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-03-17, 00:20   #37
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

8,369 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Batalov View Post
Now proven minimal.

m=16, anyone?
Not unless we find or can easily apply more because with opposite parity and gcd(x,y)=1, my calculations had under 9000 pairs up to (209,208) but more than 18200 up to (300,299)
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-03-17, 01:06   #38
Batalov
 
Batalov's Avatar
 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

3×3,041 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by science_man_88 View Post
my calculations had under 9000 pairs up to (209,208) but more than 18200 up to (300,299)
Yeah, my calculations also show that 209/300 ~= 0.7 is a damn good approximation of the 1/ sqrt2. Consequently, but of course, there are almost exactly 2 times more pairs for a<=300 than for a<=209. So what? The number of pairs with a<=n will be O(n2) (in reality, slightly less: the gcd criterion will help).

And under a<=600 there are ~4 times more pairs than under a<=300. So what, just keep sieving and testing! What seems to be the problem?

It is excellent that the number of tries goes quadratic -- you go almost flat in size (and in test runtime); and one likely need to test γ*2^m pairs, i.e. ~30,000 to 40,000. Just keep sieving and testing!
Batalov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-03-17, 01:59   #39
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

20B116 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Batalov View Post
Yeah, my calculations also show that 209/300 ~= 0.7 is a damn good approximation of the 1/ sqrt2. Consequently, but of course, there are almost exactly 2 times more pairs for a<=300 than for a<=209. So what? The number of pairs with a<=n will be O(n2) (in reality, slightly less: the gcd criterion will help).

And under a<=600 there are ~4 times more pairs than under a<=300. So what, just keep sieving and testing! What seems to be the problem?

It is excellent that the number of tries goes quadratic -- you go almost flat in size (and in test runtime); and one likely need to test γ*2^m pairs, i.e. ~30,000 to 40,000. Just keep sieving and testing!
I might see if I can figure out my additive inverse property to help. It may even be relatable to the arithmetic mean of the pair.
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-03-17, 02:39   #40
Batalov
 
Batalov's Avatar
 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

3×3,041 Posts
Default

Aw well, m=16 was too easy. Even a pair for the good measure:
124^65536+57^65536
143^65536+106^65536
Batalov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-03-17, 02:58   #41
axn
 
axn's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

2·13·181 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Batalov View Post
Aw well, m=16 was too easy. Even a pair for the good measure:
124^65536+57^65536
143^65536+106^65536
Are all of these being reported to TOP PRP site? I know you're not reporting them to factordb.
axn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-03-17, 03:08   #42
paulunderwood
 
paulunderwood's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr

22·859 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Batalov View Post
Aw well, m=16 was too easy. Even a pair for the good measure:
124^65536+57^65536
143^65536+106^65536
Tests for Serge's latest finds:
Code:
time ./pfgw64 -k -f0 -od -q"124^65536+57^65536" | ../../coding/gwnum/hybrid -
                             
Testing (x + 1)^(n + 1) == 2 + 3 (mod n, x^2 - 3*x + 1)...
Likely prime!

real	8m40.139s
user	15m28.568s
sys	1m48.060s
Code:
time ./pfgw64 -k -f0 -od -q"143^65536+106^65536" | ../../coding/gwnum/hybrid -
                              
Testing (x + 2)^(n + 1) == 7 (mod n, x^2 - x + 1)...
Likely prime!

real	8m29.679s
user	15m1.912s
sys	1m47.804s
paulunderwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-03-17, 03:45   #43
Dr Sardonicus
 
Dr Sardonicus's Avatar
 
Feb 2017
Nowhere

3·7·132 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Batalov View Post
Yeah, my calculations also show that 209/300 ~= 0.7 is a damn good approximation of the 1/ sqrt2. Consequently, but of course, there are almost exactly 2 times more pairs for a<=300 than for a<=209. So what? The number of pairs with a<=n will be O(n2) (in reality, slightly less: the gcd criterion will help).
The number of pairs (a, b) with 1 <= a <= b <= N, and gcd(a, b) = 1, is SUM, b = 1 to N, eulerphi(b). This is the number of fractions in the Farey sequence of order N.

Asymptotically, this is 6/pi^2 * N^2. Long known.

The additional condition that a + b is odd, knocks out the pairs (a, b) with a and b both odd. In this case, b - a is even and gcd(b - a, b) = 1, so for odd b > 1, the condition knocks out exactly 1/2*eulerphi(b) pairs. For b = 1 it knocks out the pair (1, 1).

I'm too lazy to work out the modified asymptotic. I'm sure it is long known, but alas I'm also too lazy to look it up
;-)

Last fiddled with by Dr Sardonicus on 2018-03-17 at 03:53
Dr Sardonicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-03-17, 04:28   #44
Batalov
 
Batalov's Avatar
 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

912310 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by axn View Post
Are all of these being reported to TOP PRP site? I know you're not reporting them to factordb.
Sure did.
Batalov is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is there a prime of the form...... PawnProver44 Miscellaneous Math 9 2016-03-19 22:11
OEIS A071580: Smallest prime of the form k*a(n-1)*a(n-2)*...*a(1)+1 arbooker And now for something completely different 14 2015-05-22 23:18
Smallest prime with a digit sum of 911 Stargate38 Puzzles 6 2014-09-29 14:18
Smallest floor of k for cullen prime Citrix Prime Cullen Prime 12 2007-04-26 19:52
Smallest ten-million-digit prime Heck Factoring 9 2004-10-28 11:34

All times are UTC. The time now is 01:16.

Tue Oct 20 01:16:26 UTC 2020 up 39 days, 22:27, 0 users, load averages: 2.91, 2.19, 2.12

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.