mersenneforum.org 2^9092392+40291 is a probable prime!
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2011-02-11, 01:35 #34 Jeff Gilchrist     Jun 2003 Ottawa, Canada 7×167 Posts Also taking: 31, 37, 41, 43
 2011-02-14, 02:16 #35 geoff     Mar 2003 New Zealand 13·89 Posts Fantastic result! It is great to see a project completed, well done :-)
 2011-02-14, 09:57 #36 akruppa     "Nancy" Aug 2002 Alexandria 2,467 Posts Did 80 curves at B1=11k, not further factors found. Edit: P-1 with B1=10^7, B2=10^9, no factor. Last fiddled with by akruppa on 2011-02-24 at 16:55
 2011-02-14, 13:02 #37 Zuzu   Sep 2009 10112 Posts Five luckily busted !!! Congrats to all !!! Lucky, indeed! According to the 2008 paper (Helm et al. in Integers) written when the status was 3 down, 5 to go (compared to Samidoost website dated 2002), the odds at solving the dual Sierpinski problem were 10% at 100M, 50% at 11G and 90% at 72T. Therefore the odds were less than 1% at 9.1M !!! (I think, just 0.9% since the relationship is quasi-linear for small probabilities). About the future: besides the direct problems (SoB, PSP, extended Sierpinski), are there searches for the prime or extended dual Sierpinski problems? On my part I have done some personal research and I found that: - for 78557 < k < 100000, only 2 candidates remain: 79309 (also a direct prime Sierpinski candidate) and 81919, with no PRP for n < 400000 - for k < 100000 there remain some quasi-Sierpinski dual candidates, i.e. with no prime/PRP, except for very small n (such that 2^n < or ~ k), for n < 400000: 90527 (prime for only n=1) ; 56839 and 63859 (prime for only n=2) ; 32899 and 55849 (n=10) ; 85489 (n=14) ; 383 (n=15) ; 24737 (n=17) ; 61969 (n=18). - for the mixed Sierpinski problem in extended form (neither prime/PRP for k*2^n+1 nor 2^n+k for 78557 < k < 271129), only 2 candidates remain: 79309 (cited above) and 225931 (also a PSP candidate, no PRP for dual, though n has been explored only to 200000). Cheers to all. Last fiddled with by Zuzu on 2011-02-14 at 13:30 Reason: Errata on some values
 2011-02-15, 00:32 #38 philmoore     "Phil" Sep 2002 Tracktown, U.S.A. 1,117 Posts We have a winner! The first two strong probable prime tests are in, with the correct residues, -1 for base 2 and +1 for base 3. I'm pretty certain now that all the other prp tests are going to confirm these, so we have a winner! Congratulations to everyone who has been involved in this project over the past 28 months. I still can't believe it was solved so quickly. Our last find had, I think, about a 17% chance of showing up with the amount of searching done from the previous find, so we were again quite lucky, especially considering that the search could have easily continued for years. So we really do have something to celebrate! Jeff and Justin, feel free to post any partial results from your strong tests here. MooMoo2 asked if this project will be archived after double-checking is complete. PrimeGrid has offered to help with the double-checking and we are in the process of creating double-check files for the three unchecked sequences, 2131, 41693, and 40291 using PRPNET. Details will be forthcoming. There is no point in doing any more sieving or P-1 factoring, so that leaves the 20 largest probable primes as the only other piece of this project still unfinished. Certainly the 4 smallest could most likely be proven prime by ECPP with current programs, but two of these numbers are already larger than the largest proven ECPP prime to date, so any of these numbers would require a substantial effort. Perhaps we could just keep a stub open in case anyone wants to reserve one. But yes, most of this project will be archived. I'll go ahead and lock the reservation threads as we get things cleaned up. Way to go! Thanks to Alex, Ben, Christian, Dmitry, Engracio, Gary, Geoff, Greg, Hadrian, Jayson, Jeff, Justin, Karsten, Kent, Lennart, Luigi, Max, Nathan, Norman, Phil, Robert, Serge, Tim, Winnie, and Yves, all of whom have contributed time either prp testing, sieving, P-1 testing, doing ECPP tests, or some combination. And thanks to the previous collaboration of 2001-2002 that narrowed the list of unfinished sequences down to eight. Thanks also to George Woltman for the totally efficient prp testing software, to Geoff Reynolds for the awesome sieving software, to Marcel Martin for the contribution of his ECPP software, and to Mike Vang (xyzzy) for hosting a fun home for us. Last fiddled with by philmoore on 2011-02-16 at 04:37 Reason: added a few more names of contributors - thanks!
 2011-02-15, 00:49 #39 Batalov     "Serge" Mar 2008 Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2 53×73 Posts Cross posting from earlier (inqusitive mids can find this somewhere else): M.Martin wrote that he was in the process of developing a parallelized 64-bit linux version, and mentioned June-July for a release (things take time). The threshold of 'possible' will be quantum-leaped right then.
 2011-02-15, 01:47 #40 engracio     May 2007 112 Posts Way to go Phil et al , party time.......
 2011-02-15, 02:13 #41 enderak     Feb 2009 2716 Posts Great! I believe what's running on my machine now is a duplicate effort... N-1, base 2. Unless I'm mistaken I will just cancel that test. I look forward to the double-checking!
 2011-02-15, 02:55 #42 philmoore     "Phil" Sep 2002 Tracktown, U.S.A. 111710 Posts Justin, I believe that it is also running an N+1 Lucas test as well, and it will choose other bases later, so if you haven't killed the job yet, you could let it run a bit further.
2011-02-15, 03:12   #43
enderak

Feb 2009

3·13 Posts

Here's what I have so far...

Quote:
 Primality testing 2^9092392+40291 [N-1/N+1, Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge] Running N-1 test using base 2
and it's only half done. with N-1, hasn't even gotten to the N+1. But if it will be useful to you I will continue to run it.

 2011-02-15, 04:11 #44 philmoore     "Phil" Sep 2002 Tracktown, U.S.A. 21358 Posts Thanks. I was tempted to kill my base=2 run originally, but I was not even certain that the script program was correct, or that the version of pfgw I was running would work without errors, so I let it finish to see what was happening. As it turned out, I did have an error in the script program (now corrected), but it would only have made a difference if the number had tested out as composite. I think it would be nice to at least run one strong Lucas test on this number.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post sudaprime Miscellaneous Math 11 2018-02-05 08:10 mohdosa Information & Answers 22 2014-10-10 11:34 philmoore Five or Bust - The Dual Sierpinski Problem 25 2009-09-09 06:48 philmoore Five or Bust - The Dual Sierpinski Problem 15 2009-02-08 19:43 philmoore Five or Bust - The Dual Sierpinski Problem 18 2009-01-28 19:47

All times are UTC. The time now is 08:47.

Tue Sep 22 08:47:02 UTC 2020 up 12 days, 5:58, 0 users, load averages: 1.68, 1.79, 1.60