2013-10-09, 20:46 | #12 |
Feb 2003
774_{16} Posts |
Well, then I'm taking the next ten from the list:
400588116807757 51767003109907 515228162892643 370808104333991 252739684100143 288026236187293 554018578982563 199128666830563 105384434582653 288679463759563 |
2013-10-09, 22:31 | #13 |
Jun 2003
1,579 Posts |
I have updated the list
Code:
k new weight formula At Who Primes 355262321784119 334 4.6M Citrix 706809843271963 348 400K Citrix 452565773039167 361 400K Citrix 596571372172469 373 400K Citrix 286565972092003 382 400K Citrix 265685529211859 387 400K Citrix 296990097378209 393 400K Citrix 586824605110333 406 400K Citrix 329604383181013 409 400K Citrix 449348815525481 413 400K Citrix 242081876749393 413 400K Citrix 151649765670817 430 400K Citrix 30402136144241 436 400K Citrix 569227451812807 437 400K Citrix 546088659477761 447 400K Citrix 174421373354771 447 400K Citrix 122586944321669 448 400K Citrix 427662785542799 450 400K Citrix 280418984909561 453 400K Citrix 9703351863493 453 400K Citrix 85877608135057 456 400K Citrix 571267621226129 458 400K Citrix 413338777986037 459 400K Citrix 508015032236651 466 400K Citrix 103432747403021 466 400K Citrix 606564403438897 468 400K Citrix 380289695293271 476 400K Citrix 294408177753337 477 400K Citrix 225184019593957 478 400K Citrix 633114842538613 479 400K Citrix 640520549022929 483 400K Citrix 328 456234152728799 484 400K Citrix 18047352362383 488 400K Citrix 290388549449203 488 400K Citrix 689369809338823 490 400K Citrix 578664594032099 492 400K Citrix 270003999160183 494 400K Citrix 70904559410129 494 400K Citrix 124855201083911 504 400K Citrix 129859680799207 505 400K Citrix 87131678294021 507 400K Citrix 309363900392467 508 400K Citrix 242539796323031 509 400K Citrix 481134684645673 513 400K Citrix 352406054088929 519 400K Citrix 583299325638817 519 400K Citrix 376161389883883 520 400K Citrix 612472684451819 520 400K Citrix 659819349704111 524 400K Citrix 30190942754953 525 723349170914983 528 452386511160487 530 327215225289341 530 396620182602029 532 151550479574083 533 400K Citrix 144730753389727 536 5M lsoule 112654045235503 541 2M lsoule 336080953522813 541 2M lsoule 486000558483997 542 2M lsoule 381773338094339 542 2M lsoule 10560 133594474062667 544 1.8M Thomas11 400588116807757 545 2M Thomas11 51767003109907 547 2M Thomas11 515228162892643 547 2M Thomas11 370808104333991 549 2M Thomas11 252739684100143 549 2M Thomas11 288026236187293 552 2M Thomas11 554018578982563 554 2M Thomas11 199128666830563 555 2M Thomas11 105384434582653 557 2M Thomas11 288679463759563 557 2M Thomas11 350889331826233 559 1M Thomas11 ... ... 1M Thomas11 626217613073557 625 1M Thomas11 652851979787233 626 1.2M lsoule ... ... 1.2M lsoule 213642298225841 670 1.2M lsoule Please update the list if you are reserving more k. Last fiddled with by Thomas11 on 2013-10-25 at 08:08 |
2013-10-11, 02:34 | #14 |
Jun 2003
1,579 Posts |
Thomas11 and lsoule,
How are you sieving for these k? Is srsieve better for multiple k or sieve each k using sr1sieve? How deep are you sieving? I am finding some benefit with ECM and P-1 since srsieve is not able to sieve very deep. What has your experience been like? |
2013-10-11, 11:34 | #15 |
Feb 2003
2^{2}×3^{2}×53 Posts |
I'm using srsieve. For less than about 10 k individual sieving using sr1sieve might be faster. For extremely low weights it can be useful to play with some of the parameters of sr1sieve, e.g. the options -B, -G, and -Q (forcing baby step and giant step or some specific subsequences), and whether precomputed tables for the Legendre symbols are used or not.
I remember that in one case I did some changes to the source code to get rid of some limitation there (e.g. to allow subsequences larger than 2^5760). But I don't have this at hand right now... There is also Phil Carmody's ksieve which is the only choice if k>2^62. But for the smaller k I found srsieve to be faster. ECM and/or P-1 testing might be an option for n>2M. I used this years ago during the 3*2^n-1 project. Citrix, which software have you used for your tests, prime95, gmp-ecm, or something else? |
2013-10-11, 14:36 | #16 |
Nov 2004
California
11010101000_{2} Posts |
I'm also using srsieve and took the 5 sequences up to p=350Bn (I forget but it was on the order of a day). The time between primes at that point was about the time it takes llr to test a candidate around n=1.6M on the same machine.
I haven't looked into optimizing the flow yet though. It would be nice if srsieve had the mutli-threaded option like sr1sieve for convenience though it could be split across cores manually. |
2013-10-11, 17:47 | #17 |
Jun 2003
3053_{8} Posts |
I am using Prime95 for p-1/ECM. Using p-1 I can find about 2 factors/hour.
For 50 k's on srsieve I am getting 750k/sec (for nmax=5M) Using Sr1sieve I am getting around 40M/sec for 1 k. (for nmax=5M) (almost the same speed). After sieving to 200G I have about 10000 candidates from n=1 M to 5 M for 50 K's. On average 50 candidates per k per million. -Q option seems interesting All the candidates that I generated have 1-2 numbers left (mod 2^2880-1) ie the covering length is 2880. Srsieve does not allow -Q option Sr1sieve does... but is limited to 720. One way of overcoming this is changing everything to base 256 or 4096 (any 2^n up to 2^14). I am not sure if this will be faster or not, but will create a lot of overhead work. Last fiddled with by Citrix on 2013-10-11 at 17:54 |
2013-10-11, 21:38 | #18 |
Jun 2003
1,579 Posts |
converting to base 16, 256 or 4096 increases the speed of srsieve by 25%.
I did not use -Q. It may be useful with sr1sieve. |
2013-10-12, 15:28 | #19 |
Feb 2003
2^{2}×3^{2}×53 Posts |
My 10 Ks are now fully tested for n=0-1.5M, and I will continue them to n=2M.
To get some more experience on optimal sieving, I'm also taking the next 100 Ks, from k=350889331826233 to k=626217613073557. |
2013-10-12, 18:12 | #20 |
Feb 2003
2^{2}·3^{2}·53 Posts |
And I already got a few small primes from the bunch of 100 Ks.
The (k,n) pairs are: 350889331826233 311 6919997606293 331 390616763840893 355 72057272131093 447 512416936093019 65436 The current testing limit is n=75k. |
2013-10-15, 15:28 | #21 |
Nov 2004
California
2^{3}·3·71 Posts |
144730753389727 is at n=5M
112654045235503, 336080953522813, 486000558483997, 381773338094339 are at n=2M. One small prime so far 381773338094339*2^10560-1. |
2013-10-15, 15:47 | #22 |
"Carlos Pinho"
Oct 2011
Milton Keynes, UK
2^{3}×607 Posts |
New low weight project
A question, how many candidates did you test until you reached 5M? Thank you in advance.
Carlos Last fiddled with by pinhodecarlos on 2013-10-15 at 15:48 |
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
High weight k's | kar_bon | Riesel Prime Data Collecting (k*2^n-1) | 26 | 2013-09-11 23:12 |
Low weight k's | kar_bon | Riesel Prime Data Collecting (k*2^n-1) | 18 | 2010-05-14 08:49 |
Low Weight Subsequences | masser | Sierpinski/Riesel Base 5 | 17 | 2007-02-14 02:04 |
Heavy weight K's | Citrix | Twin Prime Search | 8 | 2006-06-10 20:38 |
Low Weight 15k | Citrix | 15k Search | 20 | 2004-06-20 21:00 |