mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Prime Search Projects > Five or Bust - The Dual Sierpinski Problem

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2011-02-11, 01:35   #34
Jeff Gilchrist
 
Jeff Gilchrist's Avatar
 
Jun 2003
Ottawa, Canada

7×167 Posts
Default

Also taking: 31, 37, 41, 43
Jeff Gilchrist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-14, 02:16   #35
geoff
 
geoff's Avatar
 
Mar 2003
New Zealand

13·89 Posts
Default

Fantastic result! It is great to see a project completed, well done :-)
geoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-14, 09:57   #36
akruppa
 
akruppa's Avatar
 
"Nancy"
Aug 2002
Alexandria

2,467 Posts
Default

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
akruppa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-14, 13:02   #37
Zuzu
 
Sep 2009

10112 Posts
Default 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
Zuzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-15, 00:32   #38
philmoore
 
philmoore's Avatar
 
"Phil"
Sep 2002
Tracktown, U.S.A.

1,117 Posts
Default 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!
philmoore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-15, 00:49   #39
Batalov
 
Batalov's Avatar
 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

53×73 Posts
Default

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.
Batalov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-15, 01:47   #40
engracio
 
engracio's Avatar
 
May 2007

112 Posts
Default

Way to go Phil et al , party time.......

engracio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-15, 02:13   #41
enderak
 
enderak's Avatar
 
Feb 2009

2716 Posts
Default

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!
enderak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-15, 02:55   #42
philmoore
 
philmoore's Avatar
 
"Phil"
Sep 2002
Tracktown, U.S.A.

111710 Posts
Default

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.
philmoore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-15, 03:12   #43
enderak
 
enderak's Avatar
 
Feb 2009

3·13 Posts
Default

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.
enderak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-15, 04:11   #44
philmoore
 
philmoore's Avatar
 
"Phil"
Sep 2002
Tracktown, U.S.A.

21358 Posts
Default

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.
philmoore is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
probable largest prime. sudaprime Miscellaneous Math 11 2018-02-05 08:10
Hi, how can I test my probable prime number? mohdosa Information & Answers 22 2014-10-10 11:34
Megadigit probable prime found, our third! philmoore Five or Bust - The Dual Sierpinski Problem 25 2009-09-09 06:48
Another record probable prime found! philmoore Five or Bust - The Dual Sierpinski Problem 15 2009-02-08 19:43
Record probable prime found! 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

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.