mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Prime Search Projects > No Prime Left Behind

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2009-01-22, 06:55   #56
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo
 
mdettweiler's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

792 Posts
Default

LLRnet IB8000 has completed 352K-355K; lresults emailed to Gary.
mdettweiler is offline  
Old 2009-01-23, 10:06   #57
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

280116 Posts
Default

Reserving n=400K-420K for port 8000.
gd_barnes is offline  
Old 2009-01-25, 13:05   #58
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

72·11·19 Posts
Default

Reserving n=420K-430K for port 8000.
gd_barnes is offline  
Old 2009-01-27, 09:13   #59
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

72×11×19 Posts
Default

Ian has processed the results for n=355K-360K to me. He will also be checking it against the sieve file and primes in several places. Once it is compared to the sieve file, it will be considered complete.
gd_barnes is offline  
Old 2009-01-27, 09:41   #60
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

72×11×19 Posts
Default

As of 11 PM AZ time on Jan. 26th (6 AM GMT Jan. 27th), here is an updated count of all primes found in the 8th drive. It includes 2 primes not yet posted since they have not been submitted at top-5000 yet:

Code:
     k    primes
1400-1500  32
1500-1600  33
1600-1700  34
 
Total      99
 
     k    primes
1700-1800  18
1800-1900  24
1900-2000  18
 
Total      60

Now, if you assume that the 23-3 start was just some random abberation and that it should be random from that point forward, subtracting that off still gives 76-57 in favor of k=1400-1700.

With the former k-range continuing to dominate, clearly k=1400-1700 must have a higher avg. weight than k=1700-2000. If anyone has time to look up and compute the avg. from www.rieselprime.org, I'd be very curious to see it.

If it's not the weight, than something else is going on. If we are getting a higher percentage of primes from almost the same # of candidates in a sieve file for 2 distinct ranges, than we may have what we've been hoping for if this continues to run at such an alarming advantage for the smaller k-range...that is proof that these things may not be as random as we think they are!

Looking for this type of deviation from the norm is part of the reason the project was started...to have enough searched ranges without holes in them to prove a non-random deviation.

A little wishful thinking just yet but certainly worth further investigation.


Gary
gd_barnes is offline  
Old 2009-01-27, 12:49   #61
Mini-Geek
Account Deleted
 
Mini-Geek's Avatar
 
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA

102538 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gd_barnes View Post
With the former k-range continuing to dominate, clearly k=1400-1700 must have a higher avg. weight than k=1700-2000. If anyone has time to look up and compute the avg. from www.rieselprime.org, I'd be very curious to see it.

If it's not the weight, than something else is going on. If we are getting a higher percentage of primes from almost the same # of candidates in a sieve file for 2 distinct ranges, than we may have what we've been hoping for if this continues to run at such an alarming advantage for the smaller k-range...that is proof that these things may not be as random as we think they are!

Looking for this type of deviation from the norm is part of the reason the project was started...to have enough searched ranges without holes in them to prove a non-random deviation.

A little wishful thinking just yet but certainly worth further investigation.


Gary
The average weight of k=1400-1700 is 1805.600. For k=1700-2000 it is 1746.167. That's a difference of 59.433. I'm not terribly familiar with what weights mean what, but that seems like an insignificant difference to me. (For reference, my two k's I've reserved in the individual k drive are weighted 1463 and 1416, a difference of 47. Over 600K-1M, the difference in the number of candidates is only 137.) I think something else is going on, whether random or not.
Edit: By the way, k=1400-1700 has 3885 primes listed on that page, k=1700-2000 has 3789 primes. This correlates closely to the weights, not the recent bunching.

Last fiddled with by Mini-Geek on 2009-01-27 at 13:01
Mini-Geek is offline  
Old 2009-01-28, 15:49   #62
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

72·11·19 Posts
Default

I have now processed the results for this drive up to n=360K. I have compared primes found vs. the 1st post in this thread, the k=300-2000 page, and Karsten's 8th drive page. Everything looks good.

Karsten, the only inconsistency that I found was that you don't have k=1647 highlighted in blue on the k=300-2000 page. It appears that you are showing all k's where NPLB has found a new prime in blue. We found 1647*2^351262-1 prime.

Max or Ian, whenever you can, please process the results for n=360K-400K for this drive to me. The lowest k/n pair in the server is now n>400K.


Thanks,
Gary
gd_barnes is offline  
Old 2009-01-28, 18:25   #63
MyDogBuster
 
MyDogBuster's Avatar
 
May 2008
Wilmington, DE

1011001001002 Posts
Default

Quote:
Max or Ian, whenever you can, please process the results for n=360K-400K for this drive to me. The lowest k/n pair in the server is now n>400K.
Max, I took care of it (I hope) Ian

Results emailed (6.5mb zipped) Whew
MyDogBuster is offline  
Old 2009-01-28, 22:42   #64
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo
 
mdettweiler's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

792 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MyDogBuster View Post
Max, I took care of it (I hope) Ian

Results emailed (6.5mb zipped) Whew
Thanks--I'm glad that now there's at least three people who can process results now (myself, Gary, and you). And since I've been very busy lately and haven't had much time to devote to stuff like processing results, that is greatly appreciated.
mdettweiler is offline  
Old 2009-01-28, 22:49   #65
MyDogBuster
 
MyDogBuster's Avatar
 
May 2008
Wilmington, DE

22×23×31 Posts
Default

Quote:
Thanks--I'm glad that now there's at least three people who can process results now (myself, Gary, and you).
Well, I'm still in training so what I did may be junk. LOL
MyDogBuster is offline  
Old 2009-01-29, 09:41   #66
kar_bon
 
kar_bon's Avatar
 
Mar 2006
Germany

22·23·31 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdettweiler View Post
Thanks--I'm glad that now there's at least three people who can process results now (myself, Gary, and you). And since I've been very busy lately and haven't had much time to devote to stuff like processing results, that is greatly appreciated.
oh, you forgot the fourth one - ME!

but results for 7 (in words S E V E N) servers it's hard to process them and update the pages too!
kar_bon is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Team drive #10 k=1400-2000 n=500K-1M gd_barnes No Prime Left Behind 61 2013-01-30 16:08
Team drive #12 k=2000-3000 n=50K-425K gd_barnes No Prime Left Behind 96 2012-02-19 03:53
Team drive #9 k=1005-2000 n=50K-350K gd_barnes No Prime Left Behind 236 2009-06-25 10:04
Sieving drive for k=1003-2000 n=500K-1M gd_barnes No Prime Left Behind 160 2009-05-10 00:50
Sieving drive for k=1005-2000 n=200K-500K gd_barnes No Prime Left Behind 118 2009-01-17 16:05

All times are UTC. The time now is 04:30.

Thu Nov 26 04:30:15 UTC 2020 up 77 days, 1:41, 4 users, load averages: 1.27, 1.66, 1.76

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.