![]() |
![]() |
#45 |
Jun 2003
2×7×389 Posts |
![]()
Results for n = 130, (k < 10^13)
1075252753275 3408331609305 7076113724805 |
![]() |
![]() |
#46 |
Aug 2004
Melbourne, Australia
23×19 Posts |
![]()
I've been looking at the small bases. (primes, rather than probable primes) I wrote my own program to look at these.
There are no octoproths with base n = 26 or below. The first one is 109989075 27 and is the only one with base 27. The next are 21207165 28 191093475 28 are the only two with base 28. ...more to come One interesting one is n=1, k=15. 15*2^1+1 = 31 15*2^1-1 = 29 15*2^(1+1)+1 = 61 15*2^(1+1)-1 = 59 2^1+15 = 17 2^1-15 = -13 2^(1+1)+15 = 19 2^(1+1)-15 = -11 If you count negative primes too. |
![]() |
![]() |
#47 |
Jun 2003
Suva, Fiji
7FA16 Posts |
![]()
Dougy
I am really surprised that there are no "small" octos. The way I have defined them means that negative numbers, created through the 2^n-k calculation, rule that number out, so your interesting case has to remain as that. But thank you for looking at the small case. I just find the result hard to believe, but the negative rule counts out a lot for small n, especially when k goes in multiples of 15 (almost 2^4), so maybe I should have realised. Maybe you should post the full decimal value of this find to Chris Caldwell's Prime curios page: http://primes.utm.edu/curios/ Regards Robert Smith |
![]() |
![]() |
#48 |
Jun 2003
Suva, Fiji
2·1,021 Posts |
![]()
Dougy
I just realised, (as I am sure you have) that you will need also to look at higher n, because they may have a smaller k value, such that k.2^n+1 is a smaller number. So that you will have to check almost all the way up to n=50 to make totally sure there are no smaller octos. Regards Robert |
![]() |
![]() |
#49 |
Aug 2004
Melbourne, Australia
2308 Posts |
![]()
So, if my program works properly, there are no (certified prime) octoproths within the ranges n=31-50 and k=15-21207165.
Furthermore 328724235 29 233752995 30 are the only octoproths with those bases. So this is a proof that 21207165*2^28+1 = 5692755007242241. 109989075*2^27+1 = 14762483751321601. are the smallest two octoproths. Also 21207165 is also the smallest known k-value forming a octoproth. I wonder if it's actually the smallest possible. I might search with a fixed k and varying n instead. (but that'd require writing a whole new program) It would be nice if someone could verify this independently before I submit it anywhere. |
![]() |
![]() |
#50 |
3·5·191 Posts |
![]()
I working on the new version now...
![]() |
![]() |
#51 |
Aug 2004
Melbourne, Australia
23×19 Posts |
![]()
If k*2^n+1 is an octoproth then
k = 1 mod 2. If k is even then 2^(n+1) + k is divisible by 2. k = 0 mod 3. If k = 1 mod 3 then either 3 divides k*2^n+1 or k*2^(n+1)+1. Similarly for k = 2 mod 3 k = 0 mod 5. k = 0 mod 7 or (n = 1 mod 3 and k = +/- 1 mod 7). I can't make any other useful criteria from any other primes. Does anybody know of other goodies like this? |
![]() |
![]() |
#52 |
Aug 2004
Melbourne, Australia
23×19 Posts |
![]()
Only two octoproths for n=31, this base is now complete.
196168335 31 1813059975 31 |
![]() |
![]() |
#53 | |
Jun 2003
2×7×389 Posts |
![]() Quote:
I have verified that there are no octo's between 10 <= n <= 26. Also there are no octo's in the range 31-50 for k < 10^7. I am right now in the process of checking whether 21207165 is the smallest possible for n <= 1000 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#54 |
Aug 2004
Melbourne, Australia
23×19 Posts |
![]()
Today I took a look at the number of candidates remaining after running axn1's sieve to 10^10. I ran the sieve over n=50 to n=150.
I will call the "weight" of a base n, to be the number of candidates remaining after running the sieve through 10^10. The number of candidates remaining: Average weight = 18.15 Minimum weight = 3 (n=68) the lightest. Maximum weight = 54 (n=112) the heaviest. Also 8299358445 50 3920165865 54 7130617935 62 925905105 64 3539387145 65 were the only prime-octoproths found. I've attached an excel spreadsheet with the details, and 101 text files with the output from the sieve for n=50 to 100. Last fiddled with by Dougy on 2005-04-17 at 08:44 |
![]() |
![]() |
#55 |
Aug 2004
Melbourne, Australia
23·19 Posts |
![]()
Firstly it seems that the 'heavy' bases are more likely to produce an octo than the 'light' bases. So n=52, 67, 70, 82, 97, 112, 115, 142, ... (bases with weight >= 40) would be a good place to start searching. With this reasoning (whether sound or not) I discovered:
65498827395 67 ![]() ... ![]() Btw, tell me if I've missed anything or you've searched a region more than what is listed. In this file, a typical base would look like this: <k> <n> <discoverer> <k> <n> <discoverer> ... <k> <n> <discoverer> (searched/2^n) if an octo exists, and <n> (searched/2^n) otherwise. This way we can hopefully not redo others work. PS: If I haven't missed any, we now know of 97 octoproth-primes. Hopefully we'll make the 100 mark soon. ![]() PS2: Most wanted octoproths-primes: base 32, 63. |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Small Primes for Octoproths <= 155 | ValerieVonck | Octoproth Search | 100 | 2007-02-16 23:43 |
Found Octoproths - Range Archive | ValerieVonck | Octoproth Search | 0 | 2007-02-14 07:24 |
Number of octoproths per n | Greenbank | Octoproth Search | 15 | 2006-01-20 16:29 |
Need help with NewPGen(octoproths) | jasong | Software | 1 | 2005-05-10 20:08 |