20060503, 19:25  #1 
"Jason Goatcher"
Mar 2005
3·7·167 Posts 
Sieving discussion thread
100M150M reserved (I'm just going to sieve this)

20060503, 19:28  #2 
Mar 2005
Internet; Ukraine, Kiev
627_{8} Posts 
jasong, I'm already sieving 100M5G. I've reached a point where I can release 100150M for LLR, I'm just waiting for MooooMoo to become a moderator and setup a thread like "Team drives" in Reisel Prime Search.
Last fiddled with by gribozavr on 20060503 at 19:29 
20060504, 02:36  #3  
"Jason Goatcher"
Mar 2005
3·7·167 Posts 
Quote:
I'm going to try again by doing it in two batches. As to it being two big, I'm doing it for fun and have no idea what I've gotten myself into in terms of whether or not I can accomplish the task. It'll be fun to attempt, though. (If it takes more than two weeks, I'll try to find a way to send it back. That will be an interesting problem, as the file at 1 billion p is more than a gig.) 

20060504, 04:15  #4  
Apprentice Crank
Mar 2006
2×227 Posts 
Quote:


20060506, 01:40  #5  
"Jason Goatcher"
Mar 2005
DB3_{16} Posts 
Quote:
Btw, I'm unreserving 125 billion to 150 billion so I can concentrate on 100 billion to 125 billion. 

20060506, 01:47  #6 
"Jason Goatcher"
Mar 2005
110110110011_{2} Posts 
My range is too big to edit as a text file. I'm considering asking the dude who does prothsieve.com to help me deal with it. He has a huge file too, but he developed a reservation method that would let you download certain ranges.
Btw, if anyone wants to start a website for this, I'd be willing to donate $5 to help pay for it. 
20060506, 05:42  #7  
Apprentice Crank
Mar 2006
2·227 Posts 
Quote:
 Everything above 100 million (not billion) is available for LLR  Everything above 5 billion is available for sieving  We expect to find a twin before 20 billion 

20060506, 19:14  #8  
"Jason Goatcher"
Mar 2005
3·7·167 Posts 
Quote:
I don't like wasting time, so I'm going to do some Riesel Sieve LLRing until we get this straightened out. In the mean time, I have a 1.75GHz 32bit Sempron, and would appreciate it if someone would assign me a range that takes about 2 weeks to get down to 2 minutes an n. Thanks in advance. 

20060506, 19:47  #9 
Mar 2005
Internet; Ukraine, Kiev
11·37 Posts 
I use SI prefixes and advice everyone to do so:
1M = 1e6 1G = 1e9 1T = 1e12 Billion is a bit fuzzy: it is defined as 10e9 on short scale, while it is equal to 1e12 on long scale. That's why I prefer not to use this word. Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_prefix http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales Last fiddled with by gribozavr on 20060506 at 19:48 
20060506, 20:13  #10 
Mar 2005
Internet; Ukraine, Kiev
11×37 Posts 
pacionet,
It is 100,000,000104,999,999. 
20060506, 20:19  #11 
Apprentice Crank
Mar 2006
706_{8} Posts 
Sieving discussion thread
Post all discussions about sieving here, in order to avoid confusion.
I've removed all recent posts dealing with sieving, and I put them here. by biwema (4/16) Maybe it is better not to go into the top 5000. the list would be flooded and the 250000 bit candidates will fall out of the list soon anyway. some Data (based on a P4, 3.4 GHz) sizebits testtime Twins in 100G CPU time of 1 Million candidates 180000 108s 8.6 3.4y 200000 133s 7 4.2y 250000 205s 4.4 6.5y 300000 326s 3.1 10.3y 400000 586s 1.7 18.6y Test Factoring: also P4, 3.4 GHz (athlon would be fatser) 250000 bits, Range 10G (larger ranges do not take much longer) limit 10^12; 5449847 candidates left (fit into estimate above) 80 Million / s at 1 T; 33 candidtes removed per second. Candidates removed in 100 G Range: removedfact time 46.6650 bits: 5.2M 0.36years 5053.33 bits: 4.2M 3.6years (optimal limit for 100kbit candidates) 53.5556.66 bits: 3.5M 36years (optimal limit for 300kbit candidates) 56.6660 bits: 3.9M 360 years (optimal limit for 1Mbit candidates) I recommend to sieve up to 53 or 54 bits (10Q), assuming you choose a range of about 25G candidates at 180000 or 200000 bits (25 G contain about 2 twins) _____________________________________________________________ by gribozavr (4/30) Just an update on sieving progress: n=195000, kmin=1e8, kmax=5e9, without even k's. Now I'm at p=7.0 trillion, 2,294,824 k's left, sieving rate is 1 k every 1.4 sec. ____________________________________________________________ by davar55 (5/4) To Moooomoo: Who will do the double checking of the smaller primes? The sieving algorithm requires these to be constantly rechecked. ____________________________________________________________ by gribozavr (5/4) Please, explain, what do you mean by "smaller primes"? ____________________________________________________________ by davar55 (5/4) M1 thru M1000 ____________________________________________________________ by gribozavr (5/4) I don't think we will be ever doublechacking everything. Maybe, at some point in future, when we gather many participiants, we will check just, say, 5 random numbers from a "chunk" in presieved ranges. If one or more residues will not match, the whole range will be released once more for doublechecking. ___________________________________________________________ by davar55 (5/4) The point of sieving is to do multiple tasks at the same time. Each higher level must recheck all lower levels first. ____________________________________________________________ by gribozavr (5/4) Can't really understand what you are talking about. I'm sieving on a Prime Stable computer with NewPGen  a program which is proven BugFree (TM) with expirience of years. I'm 99.999% sure that sieving hasn't removed even a single number, having found a false factor. ___________________________________________________________ by biwema (5/5) NewPGen is safe that it does not remove twin candidtes. There is an option to verify all factors in (almost) zero time. PRP, LLR could moss twins due to hardware failure. Nevertheless it makes no sense to doublecheck. We don't need to find *all* twins in a range, hence it is more efective to check a new range instead of doublechecking. The calculation time of a candidate is short, so in case of a hardware error only a very small fraction of candidateds are faulty (unlike mersenne numbers, where one fault in one month could destroy the test). Probability of finding a twin in a range: my calculations of n=195000 give... range k=5 G chance of finding a twin: 31% k=10 G chance of finding a twin: 52% k=20 G chance of finding a twin: 77% k=25 G chance of finding a twin: 84% k=30 G chance of finding a twin: 89% k=40 G chance of finding a twin: 95% k=50 G chance of finding a twin: 97.5% gribozavr, maybe it makes sense to start a new range of 5G to 25G and merge it to the previous one when it reached the same level. This only makes sense if the project does no jump to a new exponent before reching 5G. 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
S9 and general sieving discussion  Lennart  Conjectures 'R Us  31  20140914 15:14 
Sieving discussion thread  philmoore  Five or Bust  The Dual Sierpinski Problem  66  20100210 14:34 
Combined sieving discussion  ltd  Prime Sierpinski Project  76  20080725 11:44 
Sieving Discussion  ltd  Prime Sierpinski Project  26  20051101 07:45 
Sieving Discussion  R.D. Silverman  Factoring  7  20050930 12:57 