mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Prime Search Projects > Riesel Prime Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2015-01-08, 11:52   #45
pinhodecarlos
 
pinhodecarlos's Avatar
 
"Carlos Pinho"
Oct 2011
Milton Keynes, UK

456310 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by diep View Post

RPS i assume has finished up to 2.5M by now meaning everything for 69 * 2^n - 1 up until 3.56M has been checked once.
You are right. RPS finished k=69 to n=2.5M.
pinhodecarlos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-02-17, 02:03   #46
diep
 
diep's Avatar
 
Sep 2006
The Netherlands

67410 Posts
Default

Good Early Morning! Fearing my hack in tool producing what to test for 69 * 2^n - 1 has bug

3M - 4M had roughly 53892 exponents to test and range am starting now at a few cores
4M - 5M has roughly 53990 exponents to test

Sounds weird to me such "huge" range has more exponents to test.

http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthr...t=18255&page=5
shows both ranges sieved to 400P.

Note i might have used tad older abcd file for 3m-4m range to do this quick compare, whereas in reality i had upgraded in between testing the abcd file, so i suddenly had less to test then.

Yet i'm bit confused why this difference is there, anyone?
diep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-02-17, 06:27   #47
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

417210 Posts
Default

Both ranges span 1 million, both sieved to the same level, and the number of tests differs by 100. What is it you find strange? Can you rephrase your question?
VBCurtis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-02-17, 09:27   #48
Thomas11
 
Thomas11's Avatar
 
Feb 2003

1,901 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by diep View Post
3M - 4M had roughly 53892 exponents to test
4M - 5M has roughly 53990 exponents to test
From the latest sieve file for 3M-4M I get a slightly different number: only 53812 exponents.
And (just for comparison) for the range 5M-6M there are 53731 exponents.

As VBCurtis already mentioned: The difference is quite small and is just the typical fluctuation in the distribution of surviving exponents after sieving.
Thomas11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-02-17, 10:30   #49
unconnected
 
unconnected's Avatar
 
May 2009
Russia, Moscow

1001011101112 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas11 View Post
As VBCurtis already mentioned: The difference is quite small and is just the typical fluctuation in the distribution of surviving exponents after sieving.
I've checked some exponents and all seems OK except k=5.

Code:
  51323 1M/t17_b2_k5.npg
  48098 2M/t17_b2_k5.npg
  45757 3M/t17_b2_k5.npg
  34694 4M/t17_b2_k5.npg
  34752 5M/t17_b2_k5.npg
  34774 6M/t17_b2_k5.npg
Why so much difference between 1M-3M and 4M-6M ranges? Usually difference no more than 5-7%. For example, for k=33:

Code:
  45919 1M/t17_b2_k33.npg
  46129 2M/t17_b2_k33.npg
  46271 3M/t17_b2_k33.npg
  44182 4M/t17_b2_k33.npg
  43896 5M/t17_b2_k33.npg
  43877 6M/t17_b2_k33.npg
unconnected is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-02-17, 10:45   #50
pinhodecarlos
 
pinhodecarlos's Avatar
 
"Carlos Pinho"
Oct 2011
Milton Keynes, UK

456310 Posts
Default

First there was some kind of sieve gap and second they forgot to take out the algebraic factors from k=5.
More in this thread: http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=19170
pinhodecarlos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-02-17, 11:38   #51
Thomas11
 
Thomas11's Avatar
 
Feb 2003

1,901 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by unconnected View Post
Why so much difference between 1M-3M and 4M-6M ranges? Usually difference no more than 5-7%. For example, for k=33:

Code:
  45919 1M/t17_b2_k33.npg
  46129 2M/t17_b2_k33.npg
  46271 3M/t17_b2_k33.npg
  44182 4M/t17_b2_k33.npg
  43896 5M/t17_b2_k33.npg
  43877 6M/t17_b2_k33.npg
1M-3M was sieved to p=100P, while 4M-6M has been sieved to p=400P.

The number of factors for a given sieve range (from p1 to p2) can be estimated by N1*(1-log(p1)/log(p2)), where N1 is the number of candidates at sieve level p1. Then the number of candidates surviving the sieve up to p2 should be roughly N2 = N1*log(p1)/log(p2).

By taking N1=46000 at p1=100P (=100*10^15) we get N2=44427 at p2=400P.
This makes the counts given above for k=33 (and all the other k's except k=5) quite plausible for me...

Last fiddled with by Thomas11 on 2015-02-17 at 11:58
Thomas11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-02-17, 14:51   #52
diep
 
diep's Avatar
 
Sep 2006
The Netherlands

67410 Posts
Default

Thanks for the explanations and most interesting estimation formula!

At the risk of being wrong, i tend to remember when i trial factored Wagstaff ( (2^n + 1) / 3 ) that odds dramatic low that at a reasonable large domain, less exponents would be left than in a similar domain, given the same sieve depth.

Yet quite possible that with the much tougher sieving that's needed for Riesel, that sieve depths, though impossible to do at home that deep, still aren't deep enough for statistical logics to become reality.
diep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-02-21, 12:53   #53
diep
 
diep's Avatar
 
Sep 2006
The Netherlands

10101000102 Posts
Default

Current status.

Everything tested once up to:

69*2^3614305-1 is not prime. LLR Res64: 09A4B35ED567A38D Time : 12454.741 sec.
diep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-04-04, 19:25   #54
diep
 
diep's Avatar
 
Sep 2006
The Netherlands

2·337 Posts
Default

Everything tested once up to 3.79M

Odds ticking away there still is a new gem < 4M
diep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-04-05, 06:07   #55
Kosmaj
 
Kosmaj's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

362210 Posts
Default

Hi diep,
Congrats on your dedication and a great run from n=2.5M, approaching 4M soon.

No worries about no new primes. The more composites, the more reasons to rejoice since every new test has higher and higher probability to produce a new prime! :-)
Kosmaj is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


All times are UTC. The time now is 05:16.

Wed May 27 05:16:24 UTC 2020 up 63 days, 2:49, 0 users, load averages: 1.45, 1.73, 1.73

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.