![]() |
|
|
#540 |
|
May 2007
Kansas; USA
1041410 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#541 |
|
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the
22×7×227 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#542 |
|
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the
22·7·227 Posts |
All of these have a conjectured k of 16. I'm reserving them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#543 |
|
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the
635610 Posts |
Reserving.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#544 |
|
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the
18D416 Posts |
Reserving
|
|
|
|
|
|
#545 |
|
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the
22·7·227 Posts |
Reserving
|
|
|
|
|
|
#546 |
|
Nov 2009
2·52·7 Posts |
rogue,
Hilarious. |
|
|
|
|
|
#547 |
|
May 2007
Kansas; USA
242568 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#548 |
|
May 2007
Kansas; USA
2×41×127 Posts |
Here we go with some more from my former k=2 effort. There are a total of 9 but 2 are in the bases 251-500 thread. These are most of the bases from the k=2 search that had from 2 to 5 k's remaining at n=5K when I originally did the search a couple of years ago.
The following bases have been searched to n=25K and are released. None were proven but we have 3 more for the 1k remaining thread (including one with only k=2 remaining) and 3 more with k=2 remaining. Details to be shown on the pages. R551; CK=22; k=10 & 14 remain; highest prime 2*551^2718-1 R662; CK=14; only k=7 remains; highest prime 2*662^16590-1 R785; CK=130; k=16 & 28 remain; highest prime 94*785^23033-1 S635 CK=52; only k=28 remains; highest prime 32*635^17309+1 S836 CK=32; only k=2 remains; highest prime 7*836^5700+1 S878 CK=23; k=2, 11, 13, & 17 remain; highest prime 10*878^972+1 S947 CK=80; k=2, 34, & 68 remain; highest prime 22*947^870+1 Collective primes for n=5K-25K: 11*662^13306-1 2*662^16590-1 2*785^9670-1 94*785^23033-1 4*635^11722+1 32*635^17309+1 7*836^5700+1 I checked others recent and older reservations and saw that just one overlapped with these: S878. I'll let Mark know separately. Ian, all of these (plus the 2 for bases <= 500) have CK<=200 but I'll show these on the pages myself like before so that we aren't sending files back and forth. Gary Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2010-06-08 at 04:16 |
|
|
|
|
|
#549 |
|
Nov 2009
15E16 Posts |
Gary,
I know he is serious about the reservations. How does a low CK help in the time it takes? R596 with a CK=200 took me <24 hrs to prove whereas R332 with a CK=38 (started only seconds apart, on the same machine) took me almost 2 weeks to get to n=25K. Is there some foresight that I am unaware of? Also the joke (not inside) is that rogue thought the policy was 2 bases a day. After realizing this was not the case his mindset changed. Which, I find hilarious. |
|
|
|
|
|
#550 | |
|
May 2007
Kansas; USA
1041410 Posts |
Quote:
![]() As a general rule, the lower conjectures will take less time. Of course as you found, there are exceptions. But the fact is, if you choose a base with a CK of 10,000 and one with a CK of 10 or 100, the latter is likely to take much less time but there can be a wide variance in that time. S36 is the most glaring example of this. With a CK of 1886, it was proven almost instantly with a highest prime of n=1571. It is the highest conjecture proven at CRUS but what was the most amazing thing is that it was proven at such a low n. The second highest is S11 with CK=1490 but it did not fall until n=300544 so is not nearly as remarkable as S36! So...if you choose a base with a CK of > 2000, it's highly unlikely that you will prove it. We do have one base with a CK of 9175 (S10) that has only one k remaining and is being searched at n=470K right now. But S10, S11, and S36 are all fairly small bases relative to the project as a whole. With the bases that are remaining untested now, it's unlikely that any one person will prove any one of those with a CK of > 1000. I can offer up little in the way of telling ahead-of-time what base will be easy to prove. I know that bases where b==(1 mod 30) and where b=2^q-1 are relatively prime for their size but all of the smaller CK's from those have been searched already. The best thing to do is simply search a base to n=1000 or n=2500 and see what remains relative to the size of the conjecture. I say that because 3 k's remaining for a conjecture of k=1000 is much better than for a conjecture of k=100. The former likely has k's that are much heavier weight than the latter and so will likely be proven more easily. Reference the weight of individual k's: If you have a k that has < 2% of its candidates remaining on a sieve to P=1G, that would be low weight. One with > 4% would be decent and with > 5% would definitely be high weight. If you have a k with > 5% of candidates remaining and it has been unlucky enough to not have a prime at n=2500 or n=10K or whatever, the chances are pretty good that a prime can be found with a continued search. Gary Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2010-06-08 at 04:21 |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Bases 33-100 reservations/statuses/primes | Siemelink | Conjectures 'R Us | 1694 | 2021-08-06 20:41 |
| Bases 6-32 reservations/statuses/primes | gd_barnes | Conjectures 'R Us | 1398 | 2021-08-06 12:49 |
| Riesel base 3 reservations/statuses/primes | KEP | Conjectures 'R Us | 1108 | 2021-08-04 18:49 |
| Bases 251-500 reservations/statuses/primes | gd_barnes | Conjectures 'R Us | 2305 | 2021-08-04 15:09 |
| Bases 101-250 reservations/statuses/primes | gd_barnes | Conjectures 'R Us | 908 | 2021-08-01 07:48 |