mersenneforum.org  

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2020-09-13, 22:18   #122
Bobby Jacobs
 
Bobby Jacobs's Avatar
 
May 2018

3·5·13 Posts
Default

I hope you find the missing gaps.
Bobby Jacobs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-09-18, 11:25   #123
mart_r
 
mart_r's Avatar
 
Dec 2008
you know...around...

2×13×23 Posts
Default

So now, as promised, some new large gaps, ready for a doublecheck:
Code:
1363608  90547#/9699690-366998
 900144  90583#/9699690-523646
 971716  90647#/223092870-359938
1293962  90679#/223092870-873966
1029000  90697#/510510-336914
1442154  90703#/510510-582572
1898630  90709#/9699690-1271684
1028856  90749#/510510-694658
1018282  90749#/9699690-576318
1054830  90787#/510510-630698
 948276  90803#/9699690-317680
I was placing a bet on finding a 2M+ gap, but no luck there. These "low grade" megagaps would have been easier to find with divisors 2310 or 30030.

Something I've been wanting to ask years ago: there are still a couple of gaps from Patrick DeGeest's project (largest/smallest PRPs with d digits, also called "border PRPs") that are not included in the GitHub lists. I don't know whether someone is in contact with him to ask for inclusion of those gaps, or to include them anyway from the openly accessible data (I could make a list if need be), or to let it be anyone's concern...
mart_r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-09-19, 10:26   #124
SethTro
 
SethTro's Avatar
 
"Seth"
Apr 2019

2×7×13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mart_r View Post
So now, as promised, some new large gaps, ready for a doublecheck:
Code:
1363608  90547#/9699690-366998
 900144  90583#/9699690-523646
 971716  90647#/223092870-359938
1293962  90679#/223092870-873966
1029000  90697#/510510-336914
1442154  90703#/510510-582572
1898630  90709#/9699690-1271684
1028856  90749#/510510-694658
1018282  90749#/9699690-576318
1054830  90787#/510510-630698
 948276  90803#/9699690-317680
I was placing a bet on finding a 2M+ gap, but no luck there. These "low grade" megagaps would have been easier to find with divisors 2310 or 30030.

Something I've been wanting to ask years ago: there are still a couple of gaps from Patrick DeGeest's project (largest/smallest PRPs with d digits, also called "border PRPs") that are not included in the GitHub lists. I don't know whether someone is in contact with him to ask for inclusion of those gaps, or to include them anyway from the openly accessible data (I could make a list if need be), or to let it be anyone's concern...
I lightly tested these (~1 in 2000 numbers + endpoints) and they are now merged in
https://github.com/primegap-list-pro...6e77e8f82a7715
SethTro is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-09-19, 12:05   #125
mart_r
 
mart_r's Avatar
 
Dec 2008
you know...around...

2·13·23 Posts
Default

Thanks!

I'll be looking for smaller gaps for the rest of the year.
mart_r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-09-19, 19:07   #126
SethTro
 
SethTro's Avatar
 
"Seth"
Apr 2019

2·7·13 Posts
Default

Megagaps proposal:

I was rereading drtrnicely-format-legacy and I believe that Dr Nicely's solution was to label the gap 'C??' for conventional, unknown is first, "but the interior integers of the gap have not been verified all composite to the satisfaction of Thomas R. Nicely".

I can easily change CloudyGo to verify the endpoints + some small percentage of the interior.

Any objections to allowing these records with less verification and C?? status?
SethTro is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-09-20, 14:34   #127
mart_r
 
mart_r's Avatar
 
Dec 2008
you know...around...

10010101102 Posts
Default

Sounds okay to me.

Is there an extra query available for all the yet not fully verified gaps?
mart_r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-09-20, 15:59   #128
ATH
Einyen
 
ATH's Avatar
 
Dec 2003
Denmark

23·7·53 Posts
Default

When you find those megagaps do you sieve first before prp testing? If yes then please save those factors, so they can be verified easily afterwards.

Last fiddled with by ATH on 2020-09-20 at 16:01
ATH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-09-20, 20:13   #129
mart_r
 
mart_r's Avatar
 
Dec 2008
you know...around...

2·13·23 Posts
Default

It's only a crummy sieve via Pari, about 20 minutes to less than 1G, without keeping factors.

But I definitely keep it in mind should I ever aim for a 10M gap.
mart_r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-09-20, 23:11   #130
SethTro
 
SethTro's Avatar
 
"Seth"
Apr 2019

2668 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mart_r View Post
Sounds okay to me.

Is there an extra query available for all the yet not fully verified gaps?
I'm not sure what you mean by `extra query`, I'm working to accept these records via the normal flow (with some UI warning they will be recorded C??)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATH View Post
When you find those megagaps do you sieve first before prp testing? If yes then please save those factors, so they can be verified easily afterwards.
It's easy for me to rerun the sieve on my side which is easier than accepting a giant list of offsets + small factor.
SethTro is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-09-20, 23:19   #131
ATH
Einyen
 
ATH's Avatar
 
Dec 2003
Denmark

23·7·53 Posts
Default

Well it depends on how far they were sieved. Known factors can be checked very quickly.

Sounds like the sieving is not really optimal, you should sieve until finding new factors takes longer than PRP testing the candidate.
ATH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-09-21, 15:06   #132
mart_r
 
mart_r's Avatar
 
Dec 2008
you know...around...

2·13·23 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SethTro View Post
I'm not sure what you mean by `extra query`, I'm working to accept these records via the normal flow (with some UI warning they will be recorded C??)
I thought that one might want to have a quick check which gaps need verification.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SethTro View Post
It's easy for me to rerun the sieve on my side which is easier than accepting a giant list of offsets + small factor.
I was also worried about the several megabytes those lists would take up.
Giving only the list of numbers with factors larger than 1G (say) would be a reasonable compromise, I guess. Depends on the depth of the sieve.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATH View Post
Sounds like the sieving is not really optimal, you should sieve until finding new factors takes longer than PRP testing the candidate.
Well, sieving takes about 20 minutes longer with a depth of 2G, I get 3.4% less candidates, and while every 8 hours a prime is found, that would save me 16 minutes there.
Sieving via Pari is not optimal, but since it's not really the bottleneck, I decided to leave it at that. Besides, it was not a big project like the gaps between prime twins and prime gaps in arithmetic progression...

Last fiddled with by mart_r on 2020-09-21 at 15:14
mart_r is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
News gd_barnes Conjectures 'R Us 293 2020-09-13 07:42
News gd_barnes No Prime Left Behind 250 2020-06-29 13:23
P!=NP in the news willmore Computer Science & Computational Number Theory 48 2010-09-19 08:30
The news giveth, the news taketh away... NBtarheel_33 Hardware 17 2009-05-04 15:52
Some news about Home Prime ? MoZ Factoring 6 2006-02-28 12:02

All times are UTC. The time now is 19:17.

Mon Oct 26 19:17:45 UTC 2020 up 46 days, 16:28, 0 users, load averages: 3.01, 2.03, 1.92

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.