20050125, 22:11  #23 
Mar 2003
New Zealand
2205_{8} Posts 
Robert, could you make available a list of the primes you found for n <= 18468? Or if you email it to me ( geoff AT hisplace DOT co DOT nz ) I will make it available.
I will keep a list of primes that make the top 5000 list in http://www.geocities.com/g_w_reynold...ki5/champs.txt, there is just one entry so far. My results: I found (a while ago) that 32518*5^47330+1 is prime. I am reserving these k: 10918, 12988, 31712. Last fiddled with by geoff on 20050125 at 22:15 
20050128, 06:31  #24 
Jan 2005
479 Posts 
Hello all,
I agree with uncwilly that this project should deserve it's own private place... anyone know how to move it? In the meantime: One more down: PFGW Version 20041020.Win_Stable (v1.2 RC1c) [FFT v23.8] Primality testing 42004*5^27992+1 [N1, BrillhartLehmerSelfridge] Running N1 test using base 2 Calling BrillhartLehmerSelfridge with factored part 99.98% 42004*5^27992+1 is prime! (57.0569s+0.0044s) 
20050130, 12:42  #25 
Jan 2005
479 Posts 
Yet another one down
Hi all,
4th prime on here: PFGW Version 20041020.Win_Stable (v1.2 RC1c) [FFT v23.8] Primality testing 44134*5^39614+1 [N1, BrillhartLehmerSelfridge] Running N1 test using base 7 Calling BrillhartLehmerSelfridge with factored part 99.98% 44134*5^39614+1 is prime! (150.2650s+0.0062s) Cheers, Micha 
20050131, 20:28  #26 
Apr 2003
2^{2}×193 Posts 
Hi,
here my newest results: 60124*5^38286+1 is prime! 60394 tested to 50166 ( i keep this reserved) 60722 tested to 49329 ( i keep this reserved) I also keep my other k reserved. Lars 
20050201, 02:13  #27 
Mar 2003
New Zealand
13×89 Posts 
The primes.txt file in http://www.geocities.com/g_w_reynolds/Sierpinski5/ contains the k,n pairs for all the primes k*5^n+1 found so far. It can be used as input to Proth.exe in file mode, or by adding 'ABC $a*5^$b+1' to the top, as input to pfgw.

20050201, 18:01  #28 
Jun 2003
Oxford, UK
78C_{16} Posts 
Nought
This may come to nought, actually no, it will come to k+1
What am I talking about? n=0 > k*5^0+1= k+1 Therefore any k still remaining where k+1 is prime can be eliminated, unless that is not in the Sierpinski rule book. Looking at my original list, this would eliminate 7528 and maybe others....not got a list of primes to hand What does this group think of this wheeze? Regards Robert Smith 
20050201, 21:09  #29 
Jun 2003
Oxford, UK
2^{2}·3·7·23 Posts 
n=0
Following on, now I am home:
From the original list n=0 eliminates (and a number of these we have found already higher primes or prp for): 7528 15802 33358 43018 51460 81700 82486 90676 102196 105166 123406 123910 143092 152836 159706 Regards Robert Smith 
20050201, 22:35  #30  
Mar 2003
New Zealand
13×89 Posts 
Quote:


20050202, 14:01  #31  
Feb 2005
Pittsburgh
3 Posts 
Quote:


20050202, 18:10  #32  
Jun 2003
62B_{16} Posts 
Quote:


20050202, 19:10  #33 
Jun 2003
Oxford, UK
2^{2}·3·7·23 Posts 
Odds and evens
I posted the following message on Yahoo primenumbers to see whether one of the maths bods can give an answer. I am reasonably confident we should allow n=0
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/primen.../message/16018 Regards Robert Smith 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Sierpinski and Riesel number (Fixed k, Variable base)  Citrix  Sierpinski/Riesel Base 5  16  20170209 15:55 
Definition of Sierpinski/Riesel number base b  sweety439  Conjectures 'R Us  32  20161216 22:31 
Sierpinski/Riesel Base 10  rogue  Conjectures 'R Us  11  20071217 05:08 
Sierpinski / Riesel  Base 23  michaf  Conjectures 'R Us  2  20071217 05:04 
Sierpinski / Riesel  Base 22  michaf  Conjectures 'R Us  49  20071217 05:03 