mersenneforum.org  

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2006-08-04, 22:39   #122
Kosmaj
 
Kosmaj's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

70468 Posts
Default

I see no reason why not. Has anybody worked on them? I have no idea, maybe Thomas or Curtis can tell you more. BTW, I see that the file contains more than 5000 Ks, how did you select exactly these 11 out of 5000?

And I just tried sieving k=15335906269828439. In the n=1-10k range no n survived sieving to 85M. In the n=10-200k range only 12 did!
Kosmaj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-08-05, 06:26   #123
Citrix
 
Citrix's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

60616 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosmaj
I see no reason why not. Has anybody worked on them? I have no idea, maybe Thomas or Curtis can tell you more. BTW, I see that the file contains more than 5000 Ks, how did you select exactly these 11 out of 5000?

And I just tried sieving k=15335906269828439. In the n=1-10k range no n survived sieving to 85M. In the n=10-200k range only 12 did!
I took all the ~5250 k's (to be more precise) and sieved them in the nmin=1 nmax=1M range upto pmax=10000. Then I selected all the k's with less than 128 candidates left. I have the number of candidates remaining for the rest of the k's, if anyone wants them.

Why I am working on these extremely low weight k's?

Looking at most of large megabit primes found in the top 5000 DB, they are either mersenne numbers or other numbers that can be tested really fast, like k<32 for proth and riesel. Then there are k's that have low weight.

Consider for example all the huge SOB primes. These SOB k have such low weight that they should not have found a prime in the n range they were searched for. Yet projects like rieselsieve, PSP and SOB continue to beat the odds and find new megabit primes.

So I think, that if we choose a bunch of k's and work of them, irrespective of weight, one of them would eventually beat the odds and spit out a prime. To test this hypothesis, I am reserving the lowest 11k's that I know of, to test them to a large n value.

The following k's had 0 values left under 1M. I think these are riesel number and not low wieght numbers, but I do not know how to prove it. Is there a way to decide on their identity?
1531543060309739
24495411634339871
27697189380823769
31153994867516291
61624064322011353
61670219307871063
79259968463949613


Thanks

Last fiddled with by Citrix on 2006-08-05 at 06:27
Citrix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-08-05, 16:28   #124
Kosmaj
 
Kosmaj's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

2·1,811 Posts
Default

I checked k=1531543060309739 using the output of ksieve with p<2000 and found the covering set to be [3, 5, 7, 13, 17, 19, 73, 193, 257, 1153] and modulus=288. Here is the relevant part of the output:
Code:
3 | 1531543060309739*2^1-1  +2...
5 | 1531543060309739*2^2-1  +4...
7 | 1531543060309739*2^0-1  +3...
13 | 1531543060309739*2^4-1  +12...
17 | 1531543060309739*2^0-1  +8...
19 | 1531543060309739*2^2-1  +18...
73 | 1531543060309739*2^5-1  +9...
193 | 1531543060309739*2^44-1  +96...
257 | 1531543060309739*2^4-1  +16...
1153 | 1531543060309739*2^188-1  +288...
(I couldn't reduce it further.) The above primes can cover any slot between 1 and 288, therefore k=1531543060309739 is Riesel number. Most likely the same can be shown for other k's on your list.
Kosmaj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-08-10, 08:36   #125
Citrix
 
Citrix's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

2×3×257 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citrix
Can I reserve

Code:
1665624349782373
10075614324682349
12782924755172441
15335906269828439
23009979551311559
30729699810869707
41360993926068041
49050506465852977
49791527843569597
50670759245200691
72292129717621199
(11 k)
Complete to 1M, no primes, unreserving.
I think my hypothesis was wrong, the k's should have some substantial wieght else, no prime will be found.

Thanks.
Citrix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-08-11, 04:06   #126
grobie
 
grobie's Avatar
 
Sep 2005
Raleigh, North Carolina

337 Posts
Default

Reserving k=41343149
grobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-08-13, 10:33   #127
grobie
 
grobie's Avatar
 
Sep 2005
Raleigh, North Carolina

337 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grobie
Reserving k=41343149
Tested to 475k (No Primes) Releasing this one.
grobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-08-23, 17:11   #128
Templus
 
Templus's Avatar
 
Jun 2004

6A16 Posts
Default

k=10453199 tested until n=440000, no primes. Releasing
Templus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-08-24, 02:35   #129
grobie
 
grobie's Avatar
 
Sep 2005
Raleigh, North Carolina

337 Posts
Default

Status Update on k=256453:

Primes at:

n=607
n=41359
n=233779

Tested to 810k

Continuing to 1M
grobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-09-02, 01:07   #130
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

33×5×31 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citrix View Post
Consider for example all the huge SOB primes. These SOB k have such low weight that they should not have found a prime in the n range they were searched for. Yet projects like rieselsieve, PSP and SOB continue to beat the odds and find new megabit primes.

So I think, that if we choose a bunch of k's and work of them, irrespective of weight, one of them would eventually beat the odds and spit out a prime. To test this hypothesis, I am reserving the lowest 11k's that I know of, to test them to a large n value.
Thanks
There's two issues here you missed. First, SOB has done a HUGE amount of work to find those primes-- take a glance at their production stats for an idea of just how much work. I don't know what makes you say they are beating the odds in finding those primes.

Second, the phrase "eventually beat the odds" makes no sense. If you search long enough, the odds say you WILL find a prime. You can hope to get lucky, which is really what the low-weight search is about; but saying weight has no relevance, or needs to be above a certain cutoff (which you concluded after striking out to 1M on 11 k-values, which was what, 250 tests?), is folly. I think you're confusing the depth of a search with the time taken TO search. Your original idea to test the very lowest-weight k's was fine, but to give up after a week and 11 candidates proved nothing. If you hope to find a 200k digit prime, it's going to take 3-6 Ghz-months on average, no matter how to try to do the search.

Hope this helps.
-curtis
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-09-16, 01:45   #131
humanoverlord
 
humanoverlord's Avatar
 
Sep 2006

118 Posts
Default

I would like to reserve the following k (I have indicated limits I have already tested them to and primes found):

k=131069 (to 290K), no additional primes beyond n=16 and 112 found by Joss
k=9705763 (to 635K), prime at n=49335

I have also done testing on some other low weight k's not listed (if yall are interested):

k=792729463 (to 330K), prime at n=4271, 24671
k=29330981023 (600K), no primes yet

I am not really interested in these latter two k's, so if you add them to the list, they can be considered available for reservation.



-Andrew

Last fiddled with by humanoverlord on 2006-09-16 at 01:46
humanoverlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-09-16, 02:42   #132
Kosmaj
 
Kosmaj's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

2×1,811 Posts
Default Andrew

Welcome to RPS!

I just updated our low weight stats page with your results, it's normally updated by Mike but I was just "in the office" updating our k<300 page so I did it this time.

BTW, maybe you have already noticed, we are currently processing 36 low weight Ks in our 3rd Drive, we are now at n=1,570,000. If you have some spare cpu cycles you are welcome to join. All candidates are sieved to 4.2T.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

Happy hunting!

Last fiddled with by Kosmaj on 2006-09-16 at 02:43
Kosmaj is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
TPS stats page Oddball Twin Prime Search 0 2011-10-29 18:34
Full-text stats page ET_ PrimeNet 0 2009-01-10 15:02
odd entry on stats page mdettweiler Prime Sierpinski Project 3 2008-08-27 18:34
Updated Server Stats Page Old man PrimeNet Lounge 15 2003-11-25 02:09
Program version wrong on stats page. Deamiter Software 1 2002-11-09 06:24

All times are UTC. The time now is 10:55.

Sun May 31 10:55:22 UTC 2020 up 67 days, 8:28, 1 user, load averages: 1.82, 1.76, 1.80

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.