mersenneforum.org I am curious why someone won't do what I want
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2021-05-29, 04:45 #1 sweety439   "99(4^34019)99 palind" Nov 2016 (P^81993)SZ base 36 5·7·83 Posts I am curious why someone won't do what I want Lucas(148091) is certificated to be prime in September 2015 (see prime pages), but why no one certificate Fibonacci(148091)? Fibonacci(148091) is smaller than Lucas(148091), and 148091 may be the largest n such that Fibonacci(n) and Lucas(n) are both primes. Last fiddled with by sweety439 on 2021-05-29 at 04:45
2021-05-29, 05:31   #2
paulunderwood

Sep 2002
Database er0rr

2·1,877 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by sweety439 Lucas(148091) is certificated to be prime in September 2015 (see prime pages), but why no one certificate Fibonacci(148091)? Fibonacci(148091) is smaller than Lucas(148091), and 148091 may be the largest n such that Fibonacci(n) and Lucas(n) are both primes.
These numbers take months if not years of certification on dedicated hardware. Maybe you could invest some time and money in the endeavors to provide such proofs instead of squawking about how pitiful our hard efforts have been.

 2021-06-02, 07:07 #3 sweety439   "99(4^34019)99 palind" Nov 2016 (P^81993)SZ base 36 5·7·83 Posts I am curious why someone won't do what I want I am curious that why none has reserved the Wagstaff number (2^95369+1)/3, it has only 28709 digits, much smaller than the partition number Partition(1289844341) (40000 digits), which is already reserved and proven to be prime (see http://www.ellipsa.eu/public/primo/top20.html), and Wagstaff numbers are much more important (and seems to be easier to be proven prime) than partition numbers.
 2021-06-02, 07:23 #4 paulunderwood     Sep 2002 Database er0rr 2×1,877 Posts More attacks on our hard efforts! "Only 28709 digits" -- have you tried running Primo, even at 10k digits? it is O(log(n)^(4+eps)). It is not trivial to do such certifications. It is absurd to say that Wagstaff is "much more important" than a partition number. The latter has greater entropy and show off the effectiveness of ECPP. There are couple of aims here: big ECPP and proving classic top20 PRPs. We aim to do both. Please stop harping on about our efforts and start doing some Primo work. Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 2021-06-02 at 07:43
2021-06-04, 03:17   #5
sweety439

"99(4^34019)99 palind"
Nov 2016
(P^81993)SZ base 36

5×7×83 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by paulunderwood More attacks on our hard efforts! "Only 28709 digits" -- have you tried running Primo, even at 10k digits? it is O(log(n)^(4+eps)). It is not trivial to do such certifications. It is absurd to say that Wagstaff is "much more important" than a partition number. The latter has greater entropy and show off the effectiveness of ECPP. There are couple of aims here: big ECPP and proving classic top20 PRPs. We aim to do both. Please stop harping on about our efforts and start doing some Primo work.
I only have Windows10, and there is no Windows version for Primo.

 2021-06-04, 06:05 #6 Batalov     "Serge" Mar 2008 Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2 948610 Posts
2021-06-04, 06:21   #7
kar_bon

Mar 2006
Germany

23·3·112 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by sweety439 I only have Windows10, and there is no Windows version for Primo.
You can download Primo 3.0.9 from my page running under WIN, so you get an idea, how long a certificate would take for a 'only' 5000 digit number.
Sure this version is slower than the current one, but try it.

Last fiddled with by Uncwilly on 2021-06-15 at 01:15 Reason: Generalized the link.

 2021-06-04, 06:34 #8 axn     Jun 2003 507410 Posts Option 1 - Install WSL2 inside Windows 10 Option 2 - Install a linux as dual boot.
2021-06-04, 11:02   #9
sweety439

"99(4^34019)99 palind"
Nov 2016
(P^81993)SZ base 36

55318 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by kar_bon You can download Primo 3.0.9 from my page running under WIN, so you get an idea, how long a certificate would take for a 'only' 5000 digit number. Sure this version is slower than the current one, but try it.
I want to run these numbers to prove my Sierpinski and Riesel conjectures:

S73: (14*73^21369+1)/3 (may be too large)
S105: (191*105^5045+1)/8
S256: (11*256^5702+1)/3

R7: (197*7^181761-1)/2 and (367*7^15118-1)/6 (may be too large)
R73: (79*73^9339-1)/6
R91: (27*91^5048-1)/2
R100: (133*100^5496-1)/33
R107: (3*107^4900-1)/2

2021-06-04, 11:56   #10
xilman
Bamboozled!

"πΊππ·π·π­"
May 2003
Down not across

47×229 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by sweety439 I want to run these numbers to prove ...
If you want to run them, please go ahead and run them. No-one will stop you.

2021-06-04, 17:45   #11
mathwiz

Mar 2019

22×32×5 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by sweety439 I want to run these numbers
Then you should acquire the necessary hardware/VM and software and run it yourself. Not sure why you expect others to do it for you?

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post xilman Msieve 4 2014-11-03 17:22 houding Information & Answers 16 2014-07-19 08:32 NBtarheel_33 Information & Answers 0 2011-02-20 09:07 schickel Lounge 13 2009-01-06 08:56 Unregistered Software 3 2004-05-30 17:38

All times are UTC. The time now is 15:54.

Sun Jul 25 15:54:17 UTC 2021 up 2 days, 10:23, 1 user, load averages: 1.40, 1.50, 1.51