lowest 10M exponents available - pick your choice - Page 10

ckdo · 2008-08-17, 08:35

My DSL line went down that night - I was out of town over the week. Mprime might have choked on that and segfaulted...

markr · 2008-08-17, 21:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by S485122

There is a problem somewhere : this is a 63 bits factor for an exponent that was supposed to be factored to 68 bits... The Prime V5 server does not give any data for that exponent.

M34400389's factor (9541285631068389553) is actually 64 bit. The v5 server doesn't give details of factoring effort for factored numbers, so it only says it is factored & gives the factor.

Of the last nine in the first post's list, the v5 server only says one (M34401967) is TF'd to 2^68 - all the rest are shown as done to 2^63 or factored.

S485122 · 2008-08-18, 03:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by markr

Of the last nine in the first post's list, the v5 server only says one (M34401967) is TF'd to 2^68 - all the rest are shown as done to 2^63 or factored.

That is just the point I tried to make : the proposed workunits are not accurate. For some a factor has already been found, for others the factoring depth is false... So before working on those, first check on the v5 server if a factor has been found, then check the factoring limits and adapt the workunit accordingly.

As for the number of bits in the factor, PrimeNet rounds the bits of : any factor between 2^62,5 and 2^63,5 is counted as 63 bits. The Mersenne-Aries site on the other hand rounds up. I was using the PrimeNet definition.

Jacob

ckdo · 2008-08-18, 06:28

Okay, so I will be TF-ing the exponents to 2^68 before P-1 testing them.

ckdo · 2008-08-19, 05:02

M34401733 also has a factor: 227756944852979846663

JHagerson · 2008-08-20, 20:59

M34200671 is not prime and the results have been reported to the v5.0 server.

Knappo · 2008-08-21, 16:29

M34200911 is .............. not (what a surprise) prime and this result was reported to the V4 server. Do I have to report anywhere else?

markr · 2008-08-23, 01:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knappo

... this result was reported to the V4 server. Do I have to report anywhere else?

No. The v4 server knows about it - it's in cleared.txt. Periodically George does a v4-to-v5 update, but this result is not in v5 yet.

ckdo · 2008-08-23, 05:18

I've finished TF68 and P-1 on the new exponents. No further factors found. For the record, the following tests are now available:

Code:

Test=34400603,68,1
Test=34401347,68,1
Test=34401359,68,1
Test=34401827,68,1
Test=34401967,68,1
Test=34402651,68,1

Cheers,
Carsten

markr · 2008-09-20, 23:14

I'll take 34401359 and 34401827. Should be done November 2008.

jrk · 2008-09-25, 19:24

$2^{34201883}-1$ is not prime :(

2008-08-23, 05:18	#108
ckdo Dec 2007 Cleves, Germany 212₁₆ Posts	I've finished TF68 and P-1 on the new exponents. No further factors found. For the record, the following tests are now available: Code: Test=34400603,68,1 Test=34401347,68,1 Test=34401359,68,1 Test=34401827,68,1 Test=34401967,68,1 Test=34402651,68,1 Cheers, Carsten

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Is it OK to pick up expired exponents?	patrik	PrimeNet	9	2014-04-09 23:30
Lowest Unknown Prime	GuyMacon	PrimeNet	6	2011-05-07 03:20
What is the Lowest Rank you can have	crash893	Data	7	2006-01-26 05:26
How to pick exponents on higher ranges?	edorajh	PrimeNet	2	2004-01-21 13:18
Who has the lowest benchmarks?	delta_t	Hardware	54	2003-08-09 18:36

2008-08-17, 08:35	#100
ckdo Dec 2007 Cleves, Germany 2×5×53 Posts	My DSL line went down that night - I was out of town over the week. Mprime might have choked on that and segfaulted...

2008-08-18, 06:28	#103
ckdo Dec 2007 Cleves, Germany 1000010010₂ Posts	Okay, so I will be TF-ing the exponents to 2^68 before P-1 testing them.

2008-08-19, 05:02	#104
ckdo Dec 2007 Cleves, Germany 2·5·53 Posts	M34401733 also has a factor: 227756944852979846663

2008-08-20, 20:59	#105
JHagerson May 2005 Naperville, IL, USA 2·107 Posts	M34200671 is not prime and the results have been reported to the v5.0 server.

2008-08-21, 16:29	#106
Knappo Aug 2005 69469, Germany 3·5 Posts	M34200911 is .............. not (what a surprise) prime and this result was reported to the V4 server. Do I have to report anywhere else?

2008-09-20, 23:14	#109
markr "Mark" Feb 2003 Sydney 3×191 Posts	I'll take 34401359 and 34401827. Should be done November 2008.

2008-09-25, 19:24	#110
jrk May 2008 3·5·73 Posts	$2^{34201883}-1$ is not prime :(