20200908, 20:02  #375 
Aug 2020
5×7 Posts 
But then I would say low weight doesn't really matter. Either I test 100000 candidates for a given k and find 10 primes or I test 10000 and find one. Then move to the next low weight k and in the end I end up with the same number of LLRs and primes. Just spread over more than one k. Is it like that?

20200908, 23:30  #376 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
3·5·307 Posts 
We have no evidence otherwise, though some folks around here do think otherwise.
I test a couple lowweight k's as well as some of the highest; I like finding anomalies, but I don't think my choices are more primeworthy per unit of search effort. 
20200909, 07:21  #377 
Aug 2020
23_{16} Posts 
I looked into the matter why only primes show up as n for low n values. Here are some restrictions I found:
If the Riesel number will be divisible by 3 (n = 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, ...) If the Riesel number will be divisible by 11 (n = 11, 21, 31, 41, 51, ...) If the Riesel number will be divisible by 17 (n = 9, 17, 25, 33, 41, 49, ...) If the Riesel number will be divisible by 41 (n = 15, 35, 55, 75, ...) If the Riesel number will be divisible by 71 (n = 19, 89, 159, 229, ...) There might be more. I am not sure though if this will rather hit composites than primes. The 2nd condition removes 11, 31, 41, 71, so it doesn't really seem like it. Last fiddled with by bur on 20200909 at 07:35 
20200909, 09:54  #378 
Aug 2020
5·7 Posts 
Haha, I just realized this is probably trivial and occurs for every divisor... yes, I'm not that good at math. :)

20200909, 20:46  #379 
Aug 2020
5·7 Posts 
Here are the n values for Riesel primes with k = 1281979 and n <= 100000
3 7 43 79 107 157 269 307 373 397 1005 1013 1765 1987 2269 6623 7083 7365 10199 16219 26143 32557 38165 47167 47863 70373 94723 95167 
20200919, 13:26  #380 
"Alexander"
Nov 2008
The Alamo City
670_{8} Posts 
The (near)Woodall k's listed in https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...&postcount=363, again except for k=1993191, have been completed to n=375k. The only prime found was 667071*2^3734971.
Edit: Another prime, 667071*2^3582861, was already reported (by me) to the PrimeWiki in August, so I accidentally left it off here. Last fiddled with by Happy5214 on 20200919 at 13:38 Reason: Forgot a prime 
20201001, 11:16  #381 
"Alexander"
Nov 2008
The Alamo City
440_{10} Posts 
I've completed the remaining RPS 9th and 10th Drive k's with missing ranges from n=300k to 325k. 18 primes were found, which are attached. It'll probably be until the end of 2021 before they're finished to n=400k, the ultimate goal.

20201104, 02:26  #382 
"Dylan"
Mar 2017
2×271 Posts 
update 11/3
k = 50171 is at 3.883 M, is on hold for the moment while I do a CarolKynea reservation. Please keep it reserved to me.

20201107, 08:46  #383 
Jun 2020
7_{8} Posts 
8847
Reserving 8847

20201118, 08:47  #384 
"Alexander"
Nov 2008
The Alamo City
2^{3}×5×11 Posts 
The (near)Woodall k's listed in https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...&postcount=363, this time and in the future including k=1993191, have been completed to n=400k. The primes for k=1993191 have already been posted to PrimeWiki and will not be listed here for the sake of brevity. (There are 26 total below n=400k.) The following primes were found for the other k's:

20201127, 01:33  #385  
Sep 2006
The Netherlands
1273_{8} Posts 
Quote:
The risk you run with lowweights is that you do not find a prime at all, because when the number of bits of the exponent n increases, the testing time goes exponentially up and there is going to be a limit that your hardware can quickly enough proces. See a low weight as a big gamble. Yet i'm also gambling upon one. So currently actively i'm searching k=32767 (low weight) and k=89 (medium to heavy weight). k=69 has been temporarily stopped, for a simple reason. My hardware has problems crunching above n=7Mbits  the L2 cache simply isn't large enough. Nashweight of course is a quick estimate. Note that i'm also sieving k=32767 deeper and deeper. I'm now at a point that for quite a while sieving deeper is more useful than testing. With k=32767 that's roughly around n = 5Mbits for my hardware. Note i started sieving until 30Mbits. So right now i'm sieving [5M ; 30M] Probably that's becasue of wishful thinking from my side i ever will manage to get that far. As i'm still removing quite a bit of exponents at larger sieve depths i would expect the odds for a prime is dramatically lower than one would expect for a different k with the same nashweight where this sieving heuristic doesn't apply. So if i'm so lucky i find 1 prime with k=32767 worth mentionning, yet odds is huge there isn't one. If the next k=32767 prime is located at 25Mbits then i'm not sure i'm gonna find it before having entirely white hair (and right now it's not yet grey) :) For some small odds of finding 1 prime would you want to do all this effort and wait that many years? On the other hand k=89 i need to do 20k tests between 4m and 5m  yet that'll take only a year or so. And 5m to 6m i do not know yet. Will depend upon whether i make enough cash to upgrade the hardware here :) Read  whether my 3d printer finally releases after that many years... Yet odds are quite optimistic there is 1 or more primes between [4m and 8m]. The low weight is a total gamble and basically i probably am soon going to take the decision to just sieve [5m ; 30m] for a year to come. No nothing testing above 5M for now... A single core from a magny cours processor here of 2.2Ghz removes on average 1 exponent each 3+ hours. We can calculate the break even point when to start testing [5m;6m] Well that's a 2:20 AM estimate here just typed in live. BSGS algorithm works uses a square root trick you can find on wiki. So we can see [5m ; 30m] versus [6m ; 30m] for sieving. sqrt(24 mln) / sqrt (25mln) = 0.9797 So that's roughly 2%, So the sieving is 2% slower roughly if i keep testing the larger domain [5m;30m] Now testing time at [4m;5m] is already 15000 seconds at 2 cores of a Xeon L5420 at 2.5Ghz. That's 8.3 hours for 1 core. We assume an even distribution the sieving gets where it removes an exponent between [5m and 30m] So when under this circumstance is there a break even point of testing expressed in removal rate? A first attempt to calculate breakeven point.... (yeah at 2:30 AM by now)... Let's assume now that the average of [5m ; 6m] is 5.8M. LLR time for 5.8M might be roughly 8.3 hours * (5.8M / 4.0M) ^ 2 = 17.5 hours 17.5 hours == removal_rate * 0.02 * (25M / 1M) ==> removalrate = (17.5 hours * 50 / 25) = 17.5 * 2 = 35 hours So i might be sieving for years to come before i can start testing the low weight k=32767 :) removal_rate 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Best Work for Finding Primes  Unregistered  Information & Answers  9  20120624 13:50 
Which settings to choose for best work?  jmb1982  Software  2  20090407 09:33 
Help test 210885  Find a new top 5000 prime!  SlashDude  Riesel Prime Search  121  20080103 08:47 
Help test 2995125705  Find a new top 5000 prime!  SlashDude  Riesel Prime Search  538  20070508 01:42 
The fastest way to a top5000 prime?  lsoule  15k Search  13  20050919 20:24 