mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Prime Search Projects > Riesel Prime Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2007-07-04, 05:38   #12
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS

22×5×593 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
There are many possible ranges to work on, even under k=300. I would prefer to wait one year since the last contact from an individual before releasing his reservation. Kosmaj is not alone in his resistance to charging ahead.

Phil Carmody has not updated k=5 in quite a while, but he is very active in the prime search community, so we give him leeway on the reservation. I'm hoping to see him update us this summer, or release it (dibs!).

Rob was active for quite a while here also-- this is not a case of a one-shot wonder who disappeared as soon as he appeared.

-Curtis
Curtis,

OK, I'm out-numbered here. I guess I'm not sure why this one is such a problem because no one said anything about me testing k=289 from n=300K to 500K even though Bo had found primes > n=500K. Perhaps because Bo isn't associated with our site whereas Rob is.

You made the statement that Phil being active in the prime-searching community is a reason for allowing him a lot of leeway on k=5. I would agree with that. But that begs the question...Is Rob still active in the prime-searching community like Phil is for k=5? And if not, should we give him less leeway then we would give Phil? I'm not going to press the issue any further at this point, but it's just something to think about.

On another note...as Kosmaj indicated, I think it makes sense to go ahead and have Cedric test from n=260K to 300K since it would have no reportable primes. At least that will put us up to n=400K with no gaps.

I'll make a note to check back on this one in September if we haven't heard anything. In the mean time, I'll find some other gaps to fill. There's plenty for k > 300.

Oh, but then there's the issue of n=561K to 562K not being tested for a total of 14 k's from the 5th drive. But that will be a different thread!


Gary
gd_barnes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-07-28, 09:35   #13
ValerieVonck
 
ValerieVonck's Avatar
 
Mar 2004
Belgium

7×112 Posts
Default

Currently @ 289944 for k=243 - no new primes to report
ValerieVonck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-07-30, 21:06   #14
ValerieVonck
 
ValerieVonck's Avatar
 
Mar 2004
Belgium

7·112 Posts
Default

gap 260k => 300k completed

Results available @
http://users.skynet.be/bk261068/243.zip
ValerieVonck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-07-30, 21:26   #15
Kosmaj
 
Kosmaj's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

2×1,811 Posts
Default

Cedric,

Thanks for closing the 260-300 gap. I marked k=243 as tested all the way to 400k.
Kosmaj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-29, 20:01   #16
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS

22·5·593 Posts
Default reserving k=243

I am reserving k=243 for ranges up to n=800K.

I will double-check the ranges of n=230K-260K, 300K-400K, and 650K-745K and I will LLR (presumed) new ranges of n=400K-650K and 745K-800K. More clearly, I'll LLR n=230K-260K and 300K-800K.

I'll have 3 cores on it, which is why I'm stopping my efforts on k=5 after my current ranges.

Rob needs to be removed from the reservation on this one. He is no longer active in the prime-searching community. His last prime for k=243 was Jan. 2005. His last prime of any kind was Nov. 2005 and it isn't in the current top-5000. Attempts to contact him at his Email address on the top-5000 site have been met with no response.

I will report all ranges completed to Prof. Keller when I'm done.


Thanks,
Gary
gd_barnes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-31, 03:07   #17
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS

22×5×593 Posts
Default plan of attack...now 4 cores...

I've now taken 1 of my 2 cores off of my double-check efforts and put it on k=243. I now have 4 cores working on it. My machines are very busy right now!

I completed sieving this entire range for k=243 way back in August. Just after posting my reservation, I started LLRing one core at n=230K, a 2nd one at n=400K, and a 3rd at n=500K. (I'm not searching n=260K-300K that we know Cedrick LLR'd previously.) Earlier tonight, I added the 4th core starting at n=333.3K.

My goal is to finish this up in about 6 weeks. When the lower-range cores finish, I'll start them at some point in the n=600's and n=700's, however the work divides up the most evenly at that point.

I may be searching an entire barren range again similar to k=289 (except for the 3 top-5000 primes already found), but at least we'll know for sure that we have all of the primes.


Gary
gd_barnes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-31, 22:45   #18
Kosmaj
 
Kosmaj's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

2·1,811 Posts
Default

For the record:

1) Rob began working on k=243 sometime in fall (or summer) of 2004 while RPS was created in October 2005. Therefore he never did or could reserve it here. k=243 is marked as reserved by him because we have been aware of his effort.

2) He replied to my mail this summer (early August, not sure) and said that he has been testing n>1M, and that he planned to revisit gaps of n<1M later.

3) Ranges already tested by Rob can be found here: 300-400k, 650-745k, and 800k-1M.

I'm giving up any further discussion with Gary regarding this.

Last fiddled with by Kosmaj on 2007-12-02 at 05:02
Kosmaj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-03, 17:57   #19
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

130138 Posts
Default

Kosmaj- you said earlier in this thread you had emailed Rob, but you did not mention that he replied. Gary waited three months from attempting to contact Rob, and went ahead with his plans unaware that you had heard back.

Gary- now that you know Rob *did* reply, why are you continuing to test this k? He has had the number reserved for 3 years, and confirmed he is still actively testing it. What gives? Why can't you pick a number nobody has any claim on, rather than insisting on conflict with one that is in dispute (in your eyes)? I don't get this mentality at all. And now, you have found two primes that in some view are rightfully Rob's, not yours- further, you brag about them as Rob missing the boat, rubbing salt in to anyone who thinks you are mistaken to poach Rob's reservation. Why are you doing this?

Let me try one more way to explain this: RPS' original plans were to search for k's not already reserved by other persons or projects. Rob's reservation predates RPS, and we have no evidence he wishes to release this reservation. For this reason, 243 is not part of RPS' goals- we merely track data on the k for completeness, like we do 1 or 3 or 27.

-Curtis
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-05, 07:15   #20
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS

1186010 Posts
Default

I just now read both of your responses here...and intentionally so. I've avoided reading this thread for many days because I figured I'd finally do so if I saw that the last response was for someone other than Kosmaj. And if there was one, I thought almost for sure it would be Curtis, and of course I was correct. You guys seem to be fond of ganging up on me and usually seem to be the only two that feel the way you do. So Curtis, I was NOT aware that Rob had responded. But regardless, it makes no difference...

Nope sorry; not going to stop. Rob never reserved this k with anyone. Just because you predate RPS when starting a search means nothing if you've stopped for long periods and have not seached it properly to begin with. Also, projects reserve k's, individuals reserve k's by reporting their interest in reserving the k to someone and then searching them in an orderly fashion. Even if one starts searching a k at n=500K or whatever, one doesn't just search ranges and leave behind big gaps like this. This is what Rob did. You guys seem to think he 'reserved it' just because he happened to find some top-5000 primes and said he might 'revisit' the gaps later and is now searching for n>1M. I don't think so and the fact that his original search pre-dated RPS makes no difference. That's not how one indicates one's interest in reserving all ranges of a k. He clearly has no desire to search the lower ranges so my effort is necessary. He's had plenty of time to fill them in now.

Yep, Curtis, Rob 'missed the boat'. That's a statement of fact and I'll rub it in as hard as I can. I'll even say 'na-na-nah-nah' to him; to his face if I met him in person (If he's not 6'5", 250 lbs.). To search a k willy-nilly like that is ridiculous and one deserves to miss a nice big grouping of primes by doing so.

I wasn't bragging at all. If it came across that way, it's because I was excited to get a 'big one' for n>500K finally and get some 'pay back' for k=289. (Keep in mind that all of mine have been for n<400K up to this point.) Rob never reserved this k or I would have seen Kosmaj state it in the forum somewhere. All that was stated was that he had searched xxx ranges but for a very long time, it was not known that he still had an interest in it. He just searched it because it 'was there' at the time. That's fine but he missed the boat by not searching it properly. I challenge you to show me a post where Kosmaj stated that it was 'reserved' by Rob.

If someone leaves a mess behind for a very long time, then it needs to be cleaned up because otherwise information can be lost or if it's a low k like this, someone like Bo or Benson will come along and search it for us without us knowing it. k=243 is a mess and it will no longer be so up to n=800K by early Dec. The only way I'll stop is if Rob responds to one of my messages or Emails that he has sieved files ready to search for n>530K -AND- he sends results files to me for 400-500K and 650-745K -AND- he can guarantee that he'll finish them by February. Heh...fat chance of that happening!

I've sent 3 very nice Emails to him in the last 1-2 months kindly asking what his plans are and to verify ranges searched with no response. I think you're mistaken here, Kosmaj. You told us earlier in this thread and I saw in another thread where you sent him a message in Aug. 2006 and got a response then. At that point, he said something like he was 'probably going to' fill in the ranges. But it's now been over a year since that one. And now, all of a sudden, he's searching n>1M and will 'revisit gaps < 1M later'. That thought it so laughable that it's stupid. It's stupid because he hasn't had a reportable prime on top-5000 of ANY KIND since Nov. 2005! And he's had many different primes of different kinds. I almost fell out of my seat when I read that.

We can't trust Rob. No way..no how. I don't care if it's Albert Einstein, Prof. Keller, Curtis, Kosmaj, Karsten, Pres. Bush, even Gary Barnes that searched the ranges! If somone searched only part of a k and then goes AWOL without responding for a very long time, then only responds sporadically, then keeps searching higher, he can't be trusted in the prime-searching community to report correct ranges.

I will continue searching this k up to n=800K. Anticipated completion on 4 cores is 1st-2nd week in Dec. I may put a 5th on it and see if I can knock it out by the end of Nov. We will then have some ranges that we'll be able to trust and if either of you wants results, I'll be glad to send them.

Kosmaj, if for some reason you think Rob will be offended by my filling in his gaps, then I would suggest you send him a note that that is what I am doing because I'm tired of doing so. Good luck getting a response! But even if he does, I will bet that he couldn't care less. He just wants to search the k willy-nilly and attempt to find huge primes with no concern for what he has left behind.

Consider yourselves lucky that I report it at all on this forum because I knew I would get the 3rd degree by doing so. I considered not saying a word and just report any primes found on top-5000. But that would defeat what I want so badly to avoid...The double-work caused by people who coordinate with no one...like Rob!! Also consider RPS lucky that Bo or Benson didn't know that gaps existed on this k. They could easily have known by checking the threads here. At least with me finding the primes, RPS gets credit as it should.

I will reiterate one more time that we need reservation guidelines for just this reason. We can't have people searching willy-nilly, here-and-there and expect accurate and complete data. If I hadn't stepped up here, I can almost guarantee that we'd be sitting here 1-2 more years from now in a rush team drive to catch up on this k.

And on another note...You can both drop the tact that there are 'plenty of other k's to search'. The more I hear it, the more it makes me want to do the opposite. It doesn't work with me. We don't get accurate and comprehensive lists of primes by ignoring messes that people leave behind. We follow-up on them and when there is no response, we take action to clean them up. Correction...I keep 'thinking' that we will take action to clean them up but it turns out that it is me that has to clean them up.

One more thing...Kosmaj, I don't want to tell you what to do here. But Jeffrey has reserved many k's < 300 that haven't changed in months. k=61 is an excellent example. It's definitely fallling behind at only n=400K. I might 'kindly ask' that you start following up with him here shortly. If it goes past about Mar.-Apr. 2008, you can bet that I'll be doing some follow-up on it wondering what's going on. I'm really trying to give you a heads up here because I don't want you to be surprised.

It's very interesting that the k's that get the furthest behind are k's that are reserved! It's because we're giving people far too much latitude on their reservations. k=5 and k=243 are two of the best examples. k=61 is starting to get there but I don't think has been nearly as long yet.

Don't bother responding in this thread. I'm thru arguing about people leaving messes behind and not responding in a timely manner and the terrible need we have for reservation guidelines for just this reason. Primes found will be on top-5000 and the 'post many primes here' thread in this forum. I've double-checked past n=360K now so anything from here will be reportable. Ranges searched will be on my website. You both know the URL. If not, you can find it on my ID here.

Future generations of mathematicians will be glad that we double-checked ranges searched by unreliable sources such as Rob. Filling in messes like this by team effort is OK as in k=5 but as double-checking as shown, if it's a somewhat 'unknown' source, then many times primes are missed along the way or incorrect ranges searched are reported. The only reason I don't double-check k=5 from about n=200K-470K is because Phil has continued to be very active in prime-searching, has reported his ranges searched to top-5000, and I'm confident we can trust his ranges. Also, I believe he has his own project, which indicates his passion for primes.



Gary

Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2007-11-05 at 07:23
gd_barnes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-08, 21:13   #21
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

10110000010112 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gd_barnes View Post
Rob never reserved this k or I would have seen Kosmaj state it in the forum somewhere. All that was stated was that he had searched xxx ranges but for a very long time, it was not known that he still had an interest in it. He just searched it because it 'was there' at the time. That's fine but he missed the boat by not searching it properly. I challenge you to show me a post where Kosmaj stated that it was 'reserved' by Rob.

Gary
Please read post number 7 in this very thread. You will find Kosmaj's explicit statement that Rob has reserved this k. There are no rules that state searches must be conducted in order- where in the forum do you get this idea? You challenge us to show you posts- I do so. Find me posts where RPS states k's must be searched in order.

There are many Riesel-prime searchers who are not posters on RPS. Your view is so narrow that you are willing to ignore all work from people who do not take the time to post on your favorite forum. Why? Have you seen a post about 27 or 121 updating their progress? Are you sure Rob has no website? Who are you to be judge and jury for what reservations are acceptable, and which should be ignored?

You either respect the reservation system set up long before you got here, or you don't. Your choices to search others' k's forfeit, in my eyes, your interest in playing within the system.

I now understand why Kosmaj has given up reasoning with you.
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anti-poverty drug testing vs "high" tax deduction testing kladner Soap Box 3 2016-10-14 18:43
Testing em99010pepe Riesel Prime Search 1 2009-07-03 00:28
What am I testing? GARYP166 Information & Answers 9 2009-02-18 22:41
Testing grobie Marin's Mersenne-aries 1 2006-05-15 12:26
Speed of P-1 testing vs. Trial Factoring testing eepiccolo Math 6 2006-03-28 20:53

All times are UTC. The time now is 20:13.


Wed Feb 8 20:13:24 UTC 2023 up 174 days, 17:41, 1 user, load averages: 0.78, 0.96, 0.96

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, 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.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔