mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Prime Search Projects > Prime Gap Searches

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2020-01-24, 00:37   #177
rudy235
 
rudy235's Avatar
 
Jun 2015
Vallejo, CA/.

22×239 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by storm5510 View Post
It would appear you are creating negative numbers by subtracting the larger from the smaller.
Technically, yes. But you know what I mean.
rudy235 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-01-24, 22:49   #178
Bobby Jacobs
 
Bobby Jacobs's Avatar
 
May 2018

2×3×31 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robert44444uk View Post
Can you send me the specific paper in which this is defined as such? When I Google the phrase you use, the only reference is your own Mersenneforum post.

It sounds as if what you are defining is something that we can name as "maximal merit".

I repeat what I said earlier. The definition is, I think, clear. It is not the definition of "maximal merit". What is being described here is,[B] for a prime gap of length x, there is no prime gap of length x or less with a higher merit. [/B}.

For a gap of 10 or less, the record merit is 2.06 for the gap following 77. However it is not a "maximal merit" because the gap of 12 at 58 is.
This is the standard definition of record merit for regular prime gaps. By your definition for regular prime gaps, the gap of 12 between 199 and 211 would have record merit. However, it is not really a record merit gap because the gap of 14 between 113 and 127 has higher merit. See A111870, A111871, and A277552 in OEIS.
Bobby Jacobs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-01-26, 10:33   #179
robert44444uk
 
robert44444uk's Avatar
 
Jun 2003
Oxford, UK

111010100112 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Jacobs View Post
This is the standard definition of record merit for regular prime gaps. By your definition for regular prime gaps, the gap of 12 between 199 and 211 would have record merit. However, it is not really a record merit gap because the gap of 14 between 113 and 127 has higher merit. See A111870, A111871, and A277552 in OEIS.

I will repeat for the third time, I am not saying this gap has a record merit. I am saying 211 is the upper prime of a record merit for all gaps <=12 between primes. You can argue that there is a gap between 113 and 125 which is the same length, but this is not a gap between primes, and the gap between 113 and 127 is larger than 12.

Last fiddled with by robert44444uk on 2020-01-26 at 10:34
robert44444uk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-01-28, 15:26   #180
storm5510
Random Account
 
storm5510's Avatar
 
Aug 2009
U.S.A.

1,249 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mart_r View Post
Did you mean prime twins between 85e15 and 86e15?
I must release these back to the pool. Between losing all the data, once, and being sick for two weeks, i am not getting anywhere with them. I apologize!

storm5510 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-01-28, 19:34   #181
mart_r
 
mart_r's Avatar
 
Dec 2008
you know...around...

32×61 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by storm5510 View Post
I must release these back to the pool. Between losing all the data, once, and being sick for two weeks, i am not getting anywhere with them. I apologize!

No need to apologize. At the current rate, there are a couple of years to go until we reach k=85e15.


Quote:
Originally Posted by robert44444uk View Post
I will repeat for the third time, I am not saying this gap has a record merit. I am saying 211 is the upper prime of a record merit for all gaps <=12 between primes. You can argue that there is a gap between 113 and 125 which is the same length, but this is not a gap between primes, and the gap between 113 and 127 is larger than 12.
It's also partially my fault to call it "record merit". You described it as "highest merit to date", I don't know about that definition.
Anyway, I've attached the data for k<7e15, where the maximum gaps are simply marked with an asterisk, like in the tables of Dr. Nicely.
There are yet no 5000+ gaps in my current search range.


________

Since at my workplace we're not allowed to run external programs, I took the time to put together my own VBA program that runs in an MS Excel environment. I was pretty delighted to discover that it runs on a decent speed of about 23e6 k's per core per second (Core i5 @ 3.00 GHz). A bit disappointed though that, while trying it out at home, it's only one third of the speed of the Perl program (well, depending on the architecture, YMMV - maybe someone else can gather more data on timings, I'm still in the process of doing so). Still, for me being only a mediocre programmer and I've been told that VBA was slow, that ought to be quite something.

The program is merely a variant of SOE, and utilizes about 700 MB of RAM.
Is it faster to do only a bit of trial division, as it were, and run a probable prime test on the remaining candidates (like I did in Pari) or work with trial division all along the way (like i did here)?

Maybe, just maybe, this can be compiled/optimized to the point where it's faster than the current C program?

Code:
'init k1=start value, k2=end value, mg=mingap report
k1 = 7E+15
k2 = 7.000123E+15
mg& = 3072


tm = Timer
Cells(1, 1) = "initializing..."
Dim p&(16252324), c&(378675), d&(7952175), o&(16252324, 2), e&(16252324), a%(185910725)
'p: primes 3 thru 3*10^8, c: temporary variable for the calculation of d, d: index of admissible twins in Z/23#Z, o: offsets for sieve, e: change in offsets per 5*23#, a: 0/1=prime/composite
w = Int(6 * k1 / 223092870)
x = 1 + Int(6 * k2 / 223092870)
b& = x - w: 'length of search interval

'calculate primes p(1)=3, p(2)=5, ... p(16252324)=299999977 - for k2>1.5e16 the number of primes has to be increased! Currently limited to 2^31/6 ~ 3.58e8, thus the program is currently limited to k<2.135e16. Can be scaled up in the routine below marked with *)
For q& = 3 To 17317 Step 2
    i% = 1
    For t& = 3 To Sqr(q&) Step 2
    If q& Mod t& = 0 Then i% = 0: t& = Sqr(q&)
    Next
    If i% Then j& = j& + 1: p&(j&) = q&: e&(j&) = q& - 185910725 Mod q&
Next
For q& = 1 To 1989
    m& = p&(q&)
    m& = (m& - 1) / 2
    For t& = m& + p&(q&) To 150000000 Step p&(q&)
    a%(t&) = 1
    Next
Next
For t& = 8660 To 150000000
If a%(t&) = 0 Then j& = j& + 1: p&(j&) = 2 * t& + 1: e&(j&) = p&(j&) - 185910725 Mod p&(j&)
Next

'calculate indexes of admissible twins in Z/23#Z where d=p/6 corresponds to a twin p±1 (mod 23#)
d&(1) = 2
d&(2) = 3
d&(3) = 5
q& = 0
For j& = 0 To 6
    For k& = 1 To 3
    r& = (30 * j& + 6 * d&(k&) + 1) Mod 7
    If r& <> 0 And r& <> 2 Then q& = q& + 1: c&(q&) = 5 * j& + d&(k&)
    Next
Next
q& = 0
For j& = 0 To 10
    For k& = 1 To 15
    r& = (210 * j& + 6 * c&(k&) + 1) Mod 11
    If r& <> 0 And r& <> 2 Then q& = q& + 1: d&(q&) = 35 * j& + c&(k&)
    Next
Next
q& = 0
For j& = 0 To 12
    For k& = 1 To 135
    r& = (2310 * j& + 6 * d&(k&) + 1) Mod 13
    If r& <> 0 And r& <> 2 Then q& = q& + 1: c&(q&) = 385 * j& + d&(k&)
    Next
Next
q& = 0
For j& = 0 To 16
    For k& = 1 To 1485
    r& = (30030 * j& + 6 * c&(k&) + 1) Mod 17
    If r& <> 0 And r& <> 2 Then q& = q& + 1: d&(q&) = 5005 * j& + c&(k&)
    Next
Next
q& = 0
For j& = 0 To 18
    For k& = 1 To 22275
    r& = (510510 * j& + 6 * d&(k&) + 1) Mod 19
    If r& <> 0 And r& <> 2 Then q& = q& + 1: c&(q&) = 85085 * j& + d&(k&)
    Next
Next
q& = 0
For j& = 0 To 22
    For k& = 1 To 378675
    r& = (9699690 * j& + 6 * c&(k&) + 1) Mod 23
    If r& <> 0 And r& <> 2 Then q& = q& + 1: d&(q&) = 1616615 * j& + c&(k&)
    Next
Next

'initialize offset values for sieve in a, where a(1,2,3...)={0 or 1, twin prime or either p-1 or p+1 composite} correspond to the twin p±1 where p=6*a (mod 23#)
l& = Int(Sqr(x * 223092870)): 'upper trial division limit
j& = 9: 'start at p(9)=29, since all smaller factors are taken care of with the d array
Do
    y = Int(((w - 5) * 30030 / p&(j&) - Int((w - 5) * 30030 / p&(j&))) * p&(j&) + 0.5)
    y = Int(((y * 7429 + 23) / p&(j&) - Int((y * 7429 + 23) / p&(j&))) * p&(j&) + 0.5)
    r& = y: 'the calculation of r=((w-5)*23#+23) mod p is split up because I only have 53 bits of precision
    r& = r& + p&(j&) * (r& Mod 2)
    For s& = 2 To 6 Step 2: '*) this loop must be changed if primes p>2^31/6 are employed
    If (p&(j&) * s& - r&) Mod 6 = 0 Then o&(j&, 1) = 4 + (p&(j&) * s& - r&) / 6
    If (p&(j&) * s& - r& - 2) Mod 6 = 0 Then o&(j&, 2) = 4 + (p&(j&) * s& - r& - 2) / 6
    Next
    j& = j& + 1
Loop While p&(j&) < l&

'overhead finished, start search in intervals of 1115464350=5*23# (if MS allows it, I might push the envelope here and make the intervals even larger)
Do
    Cells(h& + 1, 1) = "searching...  (k =" + Str$((w + f&) * 37182145) + "  at a rate of" + Str$(Int(185910725 / (Timer - tm))) + " k's per second)"
    tm = Timer
    Erase a%()
    For m& = 9 To 262143
        o&(m&, 1) = (o&(m&, 1) + e&(m&)) Mod p&(m&)
        o&(m&, 2) = (o&(m&, 2) + e&(m&)) Mod p&(m&)
        v& = o&(m&, 1)
        For n% = 0 To 4
            If v& Mod 5 = 1 Or v& Mod 5 = 4 Then GoTo 1: 'skip sieve when 5 divides one member of 6d±1; could do it also for 7, but that probably makes the routine unwieldy and thus slower (someone might check that though)
            For k& = v& To 185910725 Step p&(m&) * 5
            a%(k&) = 1
            Next
1           v& = v& + p&(m&)
        Next
        v& = o&(m&, 2)
        For n% = 0 To 4
            If v& Mod 5 = 1 Or v& Mod 5 = 4 Then GoTo 2
            For k& = v& To 185910725 Step p&(m&) * 5
            a%(k&) = 1
            Next
2           v& = v& + p&(m&)
        Next
    Next
    For m& = 262144 To j& - 1: ' for larger values p&(m&) the skip (mod 5) as above has no longer an effect w.r.t. speed and can even be counterproductive
        o&(m&, 1) = (o&(m&, 1) + e&(m&)) Mod p&(m&)
        o&(m&, 2) = (o&(m&, 2) + e&(m&)) Mod p&(m&)
        For k& = o&(m&, 1) To 185910725 Step p&(m&)
        a%(k&) = 1
        Next
        For k& = o&(m&, 2) To 185910725 Step p&(m&)
        a%(k&) = 1
        Next
    Next
    'sieving done, now looking for gaps
    v& = 0
    For n% = 0 To 4
        For m& = 1 To 7952175
        If a%(d&(m&) + v&) = 0 Then g& = d&(m&) - u&: u& = d&(m&): If g& >= mg& Then h& = h& + 1: Cells(h&, 1) = g&: Cells(h&, 2) = Str$(w + f& + n%) + " * 23#/6 +" + Str$(d&(m&) - g&)
        Next
        'TBD: skip m by 0.7~0.8*mg after a twin, subroutine ensues, but since the sieving requires 93% of the calc time and the search in a% only 7%, the overall speedup shouldn't be too significant, possibly about 5%
        'also TBD: output k as a whole number, maybe next week...
        u& = u& - 37182145
        v& = v& + 37182145
    Next
    f& = f& + 5
    If f& Mod 256 = 0 Then ActiveWorkbook.Save: 'saves every 793e6/(throughput in k's per second) minutes
Loop While f& <= b&
Cells(h& + 1, 1) = "finished search in the interval [" + Str$(k1) + "; " + Str$(k2) + " ]"
Attached Files
File Type: txt twingaps up to 7.0e15.txt (294.0 KB, 28 views)
mart_r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-01-29, 01:02   #182
storm5510
Random Account
 
storm5510's Avatar
 
Aug 2009
U.S.A.

1,249 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mart_r View Post
Reserving 7.0e15 to 7.5e15.

It appears that, apart from you, I'm currently the only person in the world looking for gaps between prime twins.
No one else! Amazing. Perhaps they moved on to the Riesel search and PFGW.
storm5510 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-01-29, 03:00   #183
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

3·5·281 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by storm5510 View Post
No one else! Amazing. Perhaps they moved on to the Riesel search and PFGW.
One more time, since you seem to have missed it- the Riesel prime search does not use PFGW. We use LLR.
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-01-29, 17:07   #184
storm5510
Random Account
 
storm5510's Avatar
 
Aug 2009
U.S.A.

124910 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
One more time, since you seem to have missed it- the Riesel prime search does not use PFGW. We use LLR.
No, I did not miss it. I have LLR installed here.I have been using NewPGen to generate work files for it. I have been using the console version of LLR. It seems to handle the NewPGen output files without issue. Knowing what to put in NewPGen is the problem.

Riesel: Is this not a strict format of 5*2^x-1? It seems this would dry up rapidly with lots of people working on it.
storm5510 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-02-03, 21:34   #185
mart_r
 
mart_r's Avatar
 
Dec 2008
you know...around...

32×61 Posts
Default Twin prime gap search program for Excel/VBA

There, I sped my program up by almost 30%

If C or Perl is not an option for anybody, maybe this will do it?
Code:
'k1=start value, k2=end value, mg=mingap report
'----------------------------------------------
k1 = 7.492811E+15
k2 = 7.492812E+15
mg& = 4096
'----------------------------------------------
'(come think of it, I could use an input box here...)



tm = Timer
Cells(1, 1) = "initializing... (may take a couple of seconds)"
Dim p&(16252324), c&(378675), d&(7952175), o&(16252324, 2), e&(16252324), a%(185910725), aa%(34)
'p: primes 3 thru 3*10^8, c: temporary variable for the calculation of d, d: index of admissible twins in Z/23#Z, o: offsets for sieve, e: change in offsets per 5*23#, a: 0/1=prime/composite, aa: 0/1=skip sieve in sieving routine below n/y
w = Int(6 * k1 / 223092870)
x = 1 + Int(6 * k2 / 223092870)
b& = x - w: 'length of search interval

'calculate primes p(1)=3, p(2)=5, ... p(16252324)=299999977 - for k2>1.5e16 the number of primes has to be increased! Currently limited to 2^31/6 ~ 3.58e8, thus the program is currently limited to k<2.135e16. Can be scaled up in the routine below marked with *)
For q& = 3 To 17317 Step 2
    i% = 1
    For t& = 3 To Sqr(q&) Step 2
    If q& Mod t& = 0 Then i% = 0: t& = Sqr(q&)
    Next
    If i% Then j& = j& + 1: p&(j&) = q&: e&(j&) = q& - 185910725 Mod q&
Next
For q& = 1 To 1989
    m& = p&(q&)
    m& = (m& - 1) / 2
    For t& = m& + p&(q&) To 150000000 Step p&(q&)
    a%(t&) = 1
    Next
Next
For t& = 8660 To 150000000
If a%(t&) = 0 Then j& = j& + 1: p&(j&) = 2 * t& + 1: e&(j&) = p&(j&) - 185910725 Mod p&(j&)
Next

'calculate indexes of admissible twins in Z/23#Z where d=p/6 corresponds to a twin p±1 (mod 23#)
d&(1) = 2
d&(2) = 3
d&(3) = 5
q& = 0
For j& = 0 To 6
    For k& = 1 To 3
    r& = (30 * j& + 6 * d&(k&) + 1) Mod 7
    If r& <> 0 And r& <> 2 Then q& = q& + 1: c&(q&) = 5 * j& + d&(k&)
    Next
Next
q& = 0
For j& = 0 To 10
    For k& = 1 To 15
    r& = (210 * j& + 6 * c&(k&) + 1) Mod 11
    If r& <> 0 And r& <> 2 Then q& = q& + 1: d&(q&) = 35 * j& + c&(k&)
    Next
Next
q& = 0
For j& = 0 To 12
    For k& = 1 To 135
    r& = (2310 * j& + 6 * d&(k&) + 1) Mod 13
    If r& <> 0 And r& <> 2 Then q& = q& + 1: c&(q&) = 385 * j& + d&(k&)
    Next
Next
q& = 0
For j& = 0 To 16
    For k& = 1 To 1485
    r& = (30030 * j& + 6 * c&(k&) + 1) Mod 17
    If r& <> 0 And r& <> 2 Then q& = q& + 1: d&(q&) = 5005 * j& + c&(k&)
    Next
Next
q& = 0
For j& = 0 To 18
    For k& = 1 To 22275
    r& = (510510 * j& + 6 * d&(k&) + 1) Mod 19
    If r& <> 0 And r& <> 2 Then q& = q& + 1: c&(q&) = 85085 * j& + d&(k&)
    Next
Next
q& = 0
For j& = 0 To 22
    For k& = 1 To 378675
    r& = (9699690 * j& + 6 * c&(k&) + 1) Mod 23
    If r& <> 0 And r& <> 2 Then q& = q& + 1: d&(q&) = 1616615 * j& + c&(k&)
    Next
Next

'initialize offset values for sieve in a, where a(1,2,3...)={0 or 1, twin prime or either p-1 or p+1 composite} correspond to the twin p±1 where p=6*a (mod 23#)
l& = Int(Sqr(x * 223092870)): 'upper trial division limit
j& = 9: 'start at p(9)=29, since all smaller factors are taken care of with the d array
Do
    y = Int(((w - 5) * 30030 / p&(j&) - Int((w - 5) * 30030 / p&(j&))) * p&(j&) + 0.5)
    y = Int(((y * 7429 + 23) / p&(j&) - Int((y * 7429 + 23) / p&(j&))) * p&(j&) + 0.5)
    r& = y: 'the calculation of r=((w-5)*23#+23) mod p is split up because I only have 53 bits of precision
    r& = r& + p&(j&) * (r& Mod 2)
    For s& = 2 To 6 Step 2: '*) this loop must be changed if primes p>2^31/6 are employed
    If (p&(j&) * s& - r&) Mod 6 = 0 Then o&(j&, 1) = 4 + (p&(j&) * s& - r&) / 6
    If (p&(j&) * s& - r& - 2) Mod 6 = 0 Then o&(j&, 2) = 4 + (p&(j&) * s& - r& - 2) / 6
    Next
    j& = j& + 1
Loop While p&(j&) < l&

'these are used to speed up the sieving routine below
For q& = 0 To 204 Step 6
If q& Mod 5 = 1 Or q& Mod 5 = 4 Or q& Mod 7 = 1 Or q& Mod 7 = 6 Then aa%(q& / 6) = 1 Else aa%(q& / 6) = 0
Next

'overhead finished, start search in intervals of 1115464350=5*23# (if MS allows it, I might push the envelope here and make the intervals even larger)
Do
    Cells(h& + 1, 1) = "searching...  (k =" + Str$((w + f&) * 37182145) + "  at a rate of" + Str$(Int(185910725 / (Timer - tm))) + " k's per second)"
    tm = Timer
    Erase a%()
    
    For m& = 9 To 65535
        o&(m&, 1) = (o&(m&, 1) + e&(m&)) Mod p&(m&)
        o&(m&, 2) = (o&(m&, 2) + e&(m&)) Mod p&(m&)
        v& = o&(m&, 1)
        For n% = 0 To 34
            If aa%(v& Mod 35) Then GoTo 1: 'skip sieve when 5 or 7 divides one member of 6d±1
            For k& = v& To 185910725 Step p&(m&) * 35
            a%(k&) = 1
            Next
1           v& = v& + p&(m&)
        Next
        v& = o&(m&, 2)
        For n% = 0 To 34
            If aa%(v& Mod 35) Then GoTo 2
            For k& = v& To 185910725 Step p&(m&) * 35
            a%(k&) = 1
            Next
2           v& = v& + p&(m&)
        Next
    Next
    For m& = 65536 To 393215
        o&(m&, 1) = (o&(m&, 1) + e&(m&)) Mod p&(m&)
        o&(m&, 2) = (o&(m&, 2) + e&(m&)) Mod p&(m&)
        v& = o&(m&, 1)
        For n% = 0 To 4
            If aa%(v& Mod 5) Then GoTo 3: 'skip sieve when 5 divides one member of 6d±1
            For k& = v& To 185910725 Step p&(m&) * 5
            a%(k&) = 1
            Next
3           v& = v& + p&(m&)
        Next
        v& = o&(m&, 2)
        For n% = 0 To 4
            If aa%(v& Mod 5) Then GoTo 4
            For k& = v& To 185910725 Step p&(m&) * 5
            a%(k&) = 1
            Next
4           v& = v& + p&(m&)
        Next
    Next
    For m& = 393216 To j& - 1: ' for larger values p&(m&) the skip (mod 5) as above has no longer an effect w.r.t. speed and can even be counterproductive
        o&(m&, 1) = (o&(m&, 1) + e&(m&)) Mod p&(m&)
        o&(m&, 2) = (o&(m&, 2) + e&(m&)) Mod p&(m&)
        For k& = o&(m&, 1) To 185910725 Step p&(m&)
        a%(k&) = 1
        Next
        For k& = o&(m&, 2) To 185910725 Step p&(m&)
        a%(k&) = 1
        Next
    Next

    'sieving done, now looking for gaps
    v& = 0
    For n% = 0 To 4
        For m& = 1 To 7952175
        If a%(d&(m&) + v&) = 0 Then g& = d&(m&) - u&: If g& >= mg& Then GoSub 5 Else i% = 0: GoSub 6: 'see below
        Next
        'TBD: output k as a whole number, maybe next week...
        u& = u& - 37182145
        v& = v& + 37182145
    Next
    f& = f& + 5
    If f& Mod 256 = 0 Then ActiveWorkbook.Save: 'saves every 793e6/(throughput in k's per second) minutes
Loop While f& <= b&
Cells(h& + 1, 1) = "finished search in the interval [" + Str$(k1) + "; " + Str$(k2) + " ]"
End
5   If i% = 0 Then h& = h& + 1: Cells(h&, 1) = g&: Cells(h&, 2) = Str$(w + f& + n%) + " * 23#/6 +" + Str$(d&(m&) - g&): GoTo 6: 'i%=0: no jump in m, so no interval left unchecked
    'when i%=1, there's an unchecked interval t+[1..320] after a twin 6*d(t)± 1 that has to be examined
    i% = 0
    For q& = t& + 320 To t& + 1 Step -1
    If a%(d&(q&) + v&) = 0 Then u& = d&(q&): q& = t& + 1
    Next
    g& = d&(m&) - u&
    If g& >= mg& Then h& = h& + 1: Cells(h&, 1) = g&: Cells(h&, 2) = Str$(w + f& + n%) + " * 23#/6 +" + Str$(d&(m&) - g&)
6   u& = d&(m&)
    If m& < 7946240 Then t& = m&: m& = m& + 320: i% = 1: 'skip some values after a twin is found to accelerate the search, but only if an interval overlap is out of question
Return
mart_r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-02-04, 00:27   #186
ATH
Einyen
 
ATH's Avatar
 
Dec 2003
Denmark

2,857 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by storm5510 View Post
Riesel: Is this not a strict format of 5*2^x-1? It seems this would dry up rapidly with lots of people working on it.
Riesel search is for numbers of the form k*2n - 1 and k<2n

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas%...%93Riesel_test (LLR)



Proth numbers are of the form k*2n + 1 and k<2n

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proth%27s_theorem

and the corresponding software to run the test is Proth: https://github.com/galloty/proth20
ATH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-02-12, 20:20   #187
mart_r
 
mart_r's Avatar
 
Dec 2008
you know...around...

32×61 Posts
Default

Reserving 7.5e15 to 8e15.

Nothing special in my previous range, only one 5000+ gap:
Code:
5103    7181481105338907
Smallest unknown gap is still 4239, and 9 of the first 10 smallest unknown gaps are either 1 or 4 mod 5. I hope I can someday work out some idea about how to give a heuristic argument that the number of "late gaps", as Bobby called them, that are not 1 or 4 mod 5 might be finite...

I'll update the tables once I finished this new range.
mart_r is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gaps between maximal prime gaps Bobby Jacobs Prime Gap Searches 51 2020-07-09 07:49
I found a sieve to search all pairs of twin primes Pietro Maiorana Twin Prime Search 8 2019-09-26 23:07
find very easy twin prime in the infamy twin primes hal1se Miscellaneous Math 13 2018-11-05 16:34
Mersenne Primes p which are in a set of twin primes is finite? carpetpool Miscellaneous Math 3 2017-08-10 13:47
Gaps of Primes? PawnProver44 Miscellaneous Math 10 2016-04-10 19:32

All times are UTC. The time now is 11:18.

Mon Jul 13 11:18:16 UTC 2020 up 110 days, 8:51, 0 users, load averages: 1.37, 1.38, 1.41

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.