Sierpinski base 4

[Citrix]

Originally Posted by tcadigan

for my 2 cents....I've thought about bumping to 5 million. I wouldn't be opposed to the 2^23 limit either

I don't recommend the idea. It will take alot of computers to reach that goal. With only 4 users working on this project, it will take a long time to finish.


edit: I will be moving to work on k=3^16 once I am done with my range.
Jean, is it possible to speed up the PRP test for 3^16? It is a generalized fermat as well as k*2^n+1? Could a smaller FFT lenght be used?

[tcadigan]

Originally Posted by Citrix

I don't recommend the idea. It will take alot of computers to reach that goal. With only 4 users working on this project, it will take a long time to finish.

as I said I use this project as a extra cycle sink...and every little bit helps...I don't see this as all that pointless of a project and I think users could come someday in the future. we've got fewer than SOB, I don't mind just letting it sit in teh background of my comp and LLR....or sieve....but that's just me

[Mystwalker]

Well, I've started NewPGen for k=18534, 1M < n < 2.5M (base 4), as there are the fewest tests left for this k.
I haven't done any work for the other k's so far. But I think we should be ready for a combined sieve effort with sr2sieve once we reach the limit of the current candidate files.

Geoff:
Is there a lower limit for p values in sr2sieve?
So far, I've sieved to p=40M.

[geoff]

Originally Posted by Mystwalker

Geoff:
Is there a lower limit for p values in sr2sieve?
So far, I've sieved to p=40M.

p must be greater than the greatest k value.

[Mystwalker]

Great (pun not intended)!
So we could prepare the sieving within the next weeks.

[Jean Penné]

k = 23451 is up to n = 1,703,768 base two, no prime, continuing...

k = 60849 is up to n = 1,555,134 base two, no prime, continuing...

Regards,
Jean

[jasong]

I'm interested in helping this project, just not in the immediate(within the next week or so) future.

Has anyone thought about setting up an LLR server for these numbers? If you did, it would probably be a good idea to set up the numbers as k*2^n+1 , rather than k*4^n+1 . Wouldn't want to get errors from people having their computer set up improperly. :)

[thommy]

Originally Posted by jasong

I'm interested in helping this project, just not in the immediate(within the next week or so) future.

Has anyone thought about setting up an LLR server for these numbers? If you did, it would probably be a good idea to set up the numbers as k*2^n+1 , rather than k*4^n+1 . Wouldn't want to get errors from people having their computer set up improperly. :)

Not worth it with just 4 ks remaining. And llr handles 4^n as 2^m... that wouldnt be a problem at all.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by thommy

Not worth it with just 4 ks remaining. And llr handles 4^n as 2^m... that wouldnt be a problem at all.

If I'm not mistaken(I may be), when the LLR program contacts the server, the only thing transmitted is the k/n pair, not necessarily the b in k*b^n+c.

Am I wrong?

[Jean Penné]

Originally Posted by jasong

If I'm not mistaken(I may be), when the LLR program contacts the server, the only thing transmitted is the k/n pair, not necessarily the b in k*b^n+c.

Am I wrong?

It is not quite exact ; the LLRNET server takes into account the header of the Newpgen file, and sends the info to the client, so, the base info is not lost.

[Jean Penné]

k = 23451 is up to n = 1,736,684 base two, no prime, continuing...

k = 60849 is up to n = 1,600,626 base two, no prime, continuing...

Regards,
Jean