mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Prime Search Projects > Conjectures 'R Us

Reply
Thread Tools
Old 2010-06-25, 12:47   #628
MyDogBuster
 
MyDogBuster's Avatar
 
May 2008
Wilmington, DE

22·23·31 Posts
Default

Quote:
I don't think I have any other small conjectures reserved. Please let me know if I do.
All looks fine too me.
MyDogBuster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-25, 13:27   #629
rogue
 
rogue's Avatar
 
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the

11000110101002 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MyDogBuster View Post
All looks fine too me.
I am still working on S136 and R136 and a range from S63. The S63 range should be done early next week. S136 and R136 are at n=15000 and climbing.
rogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-25, 20:10   #630
MyDogBuster
 
MyDogBuster's Avatar
 
May 2008
Wilmington, DE

1011001001002 Posts
Default

Quote:
Sierpinski base 844 primes found:

Code:
3*844^3+1
4*844^13+1
6*844^14+1
7*844^2+1
9*844^9687+1
10*844^27+1
12*844^3+1
13*844^1+1
15*844^8+1
16*844^4+1
18*844^1+1
19*844^11+1
21*844^2+1
22*844^7+1
24*844^7+1
25*844^1+1
27*844^58+1
28*844^1+1
30*844^1+1
31*844^378+1
33*844^2+1
34*844^1+1
36*844^28+1
37*844^3+1
39*844^1+1
42*844^1+1
43*844^1+1
45*844^304+1
46*844^10+1
48*844^2+1
49*844^1+1
Conjecture proven.
Mark, when processing S844, I show that k=40 is not accounted for. It's is not trivially prime. Any ideas?
MyDogBuster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-25, 21:14   #631
rogue
 
rogue's Avatar
 
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the

22·7·227 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MyDogBuster View Post
Mark, when processing S844, I show that k=40 is not accounted for. It's is not trivially prime. Any ideas?
I missed putting that into the post. No primes below n=25000. Thanks for the catch.

Last fiddled with by rogue on 2010-06-25 at 21:15
rogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-27, 19:04   #632
Flatlander
I quite division it
 
Flatlander's Avatar
 
"Chris"
Feb 2005
England

31×67 Posts
Default

R636 tested to 50k and released.
Attached Files
File Type: zip r636pfgw.zip (27.1 KB, 65 views)
Flatlander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-28, 04:39   #633
paleseptember
 
paleseptember's Avatar
 
Jun 2008
Wollongong, .au

101101112 Posts
Default

Slightly strange situation, any advice would be helpful.

I'm taking R603 to n=25K, and checked in on the pfgw.out file and pfgw.log files. pfgw.out hasn't been updated in about a fortnight, and despite pfgw grinding through the file, no results are being recorded.

The pfgw.out file is 4,060,606 bytes (I have no idea if there is a maximum filesize, after which is chokes.) I have stopped and restarted, moved the pfgw.out file away in an attempt to get it to start a new file afresh, to no effect.

So, should I go back and start fresh from the last line recorded in the pfgw.out file, or trust that it will have recorded the prps to pfgw.log. (There are primes in that file that are past the cutoff from pfgw.out.)

Thanks in advance.

EDIT: I have stopped and restarted, and it appears to be happy again. However, I'm now missing residues and results for approx n=17K to n=21K. Should I re-run that segment?

Last fiddled with by paleseptember on 2010-06-28 at 05:17
paleseptember is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-28, 07:02   #634
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

242568 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paleseptember View Post
So, should I go back and start fresh from the last line recorded in the pfgw.out file, or trust that it will have recorded the prps to pfgw.log. (There are primes in that file that are past the cutoff from pfgw.out.)

Thanks in advance.

EDIT: I have stopped and restarted, and it appears to be happy again. However, I'm now missing residues and results for approx n=17K to n=21K. Should I re-run that segment?
Very odd. I wonder if it is a hard drive problem. I would suggest backing up all your files before doing much more on the machine.

I would definitely rerun that range. There could have been some primes in there. If it wasn't writing to pfgw.out then it might not have written a prime to pfgw.log.

Rerun it by making a copy of your sieve file, change it to a different name, and remove the lines at the beginning that are already processed. Keep in mind that it won't remember which k's had primes. To have it not process those, you can do 1 of these 2 things:

1. Use srfile to remove the primed k's from the copied sieve file.
2. Manually write all the primes at the beginning of your copied sieve file. It will find them prime again and so won't search the k's anymore. You'll just need to remove the duplicated primes from pfgw.log when you are done.

I find it easier to do #2, especially if the sieve file is big or there are a lot of primes.


Gary
gd_barnes is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-28, 08:15   #635
henryzz
Just call me Henry
 
henryzz's Avatar
 
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)

133778 Posts
Default

Is your filesystem FAT32? I believe that there is a 4Gb file size limit there. Change to NTFS and the problem would be solved.
henryzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-28, 09:06   #636
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

2·41·127 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by henryzz View Post
Is your filesystem FAT32? I believe that there is a 4Gb file size limit there. Change to NTFS and the problem would be solved.
His file is only 4 MB not 4 GB.
gd_barnes is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-28, 09:37   #637
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

1041410 Posts
Default

Reserving S579 and S875 to n=25K.
gd_barnes is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-28, 12:03   #638
rogue
 
rogue's Avatar
 
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the

22·7·227 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paleseptember View Post
Slightly strange situation, any advice would be helpful.

I'm taking R603 to n=25K, and checked in on the pfgw.out file and pfgw.log files. pfgw.out hasn't been updated in about a fortnight, and despite pfgw grinding through the file, no results are being recorded.

The pfgw.out file is 4,060,606 bytes (I have no idea if there is a maximum filesize, after which is chokes.) I have stopped and restarted, moved the pfgw.out file away in an attempt to get it to start a new file afresh, to no effect.

So, should I go back and start fresh from the last line recorded in the pfgw.out file, or trust that it will have recorded the prps to pfgw.log. (There are primes in that file that are past the cutoff from pfgw.out.)

Thanks in advance.

EDIT: I have stopped and restarted, and it appears to be happy again. However, I'm now missing residues and results for approx n=17K to n=21K. Should I re-run that segment?
Are you using the -l switch when running PFGW?
rogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


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

All times are UTC. The time now is 22:33.


Fri Aug 6 22:33:38 UTC 2021 up 14 days, 17:02, 1 user, load averages: 4.31, 3.78, 3.43

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.