Sierp base 6 - team drive #3 - Page 22

mdettweiler · 2009-09-09, 17:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flatlander

I notice that my file for 224-226 includes k*6^226000+1.
I had assumed that this would be included in the next file, 226-228.

Now that we are carving slices ourselves from a communal file, I think we should clarify whether we should stop each range at xxx999 or xxx000; to avoid missing candidates or a repetition of work. (Also for Riesels of course.)

For instance, I have just loaded 375-376 (the end of my reservation) into PFGW for the Riesel side and never thought to include n=376000.

I believe Gary clarified this over in the Riesel thread. It's somewhat of an arbitrary thing, though it's good to remain consistent within a project. At NPLB and CRUS we use the convention of starting at 001 and ending at 000; for example, a range of 5K-10K would be 50001-10000. (That is assuming that every n has a representative in the sieve file; if not, then of course those are simply skipped.)

Mini-Geek · 2009-09-09, 17:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdettweiler

for example, a range of 5K-10K would be 50001-10000.

No, that range would be 50K-10K, which doesn't make much sense.

Flatlander · 2009-09-09, 17:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdettweiler

At NPLB and CRUS we use the convention of starting at 001 and ending at 000;

Okay, I'll stick to that.

gd_barnes · 2009-09-09, 18:48

To beat a dead horse

I've often been confused why people would do xxx000-xxx999 instead of xxx001-xxx000 when searching ranges. If you've only searched through n=149999, then you can NOT say that you're "at n=150000" like people usually do. You'd only be "at n=149999".

Also, we don't start searching at n=0. If you did xxx000-xxx999, you'd only search an n=999 range from n=1 thru n=999, which is inconsistent with the n=1000 range for all other files of that size.

That's why the files at NPLB and CRUS are that way.

Gary

Mini-Geek · 2009-09-09, 19:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by gd_barnes

If you've only searched through n=149999, then you can NOT say that you're "at n=150000" like people usually do. You'd only be "at n=149999".

That depends on whether you consider "at n=150000" to mean "I have just finished n=150000" or "I am about to start n=150000".

mdettweiler · 2009-09-09, 19:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mini-Geek

No, that range would be 50K-10K, which doesn't make much sense.

Ah, whoops...thanks.

gd_barnes · 2009-09-09, 19:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mini-Geek

That depends on whether you consider "at n=150000" to mean "I have just finished n=150000" or "I am about to start n=150000".

I suppose "at" is ambiguous so that was a bad example. I mentally think of it as "done through" but I can see how it could be interpreted as "about to start". Oddly, I will use "at" when I'm going to continue with an existing reservation and "to", as in "complete to" (or "complete thru") when I'm finishing a reservation. So there is no (or little) ambiguity when I'm done with my reservation.

It becomes like the old century debate. Is the 20th century 1900-1999 or 1901-2000? If you assume no year 0, which I believe most scholars do, then it would have to be 1901-2000. I did an about face on this after I was so heavily involved in fixing programs with the Y2K bug. Before 2000, to me, the 20th century "had" to be 1900-1999. When it was pointed out to me that there was no year 0, then I was convinced the other way.

Gary

Flatlander · 2009-09-09, 20:31

222-228 is complete. (With k=68195 removed.)
(217-222 should finish in about a day. Sorry, I 'misunderestimated' the time on my slower PC.)

mdettweiler · 2009-09-10, 06:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lennart

230k-232k. Complete 1 Prime

Lennart

Lennart, I'm missing your results for this range. Could you please post them or email them to me? Thanks.

gd_barnes · 2009-09-10, 07:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flatlander

222-228 is complete. (With k=68195 removed.)
(217-222 should finish in about a day. Sorry, I 'misunderestimated' the time on my slower PC.)

"misunderestimated"

Hum, interesting. You need to be more specific. Does that mean that you underestimated by more than you expected to underestimate or by less than you expected to underestimate by?

Personally, I usually under underestimate but on occassion, I will over underestimate.

Lennart · 2009-09-10, 09:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdettweiler

Lennart, I'm missing your results for this range. Could you please post them or email them to me? Thanks.

Sorry

Could be that it was i prime there

Lennart

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sierp base 16 - team drive #1	gd_barnes	Conjectures 'R Us	254	2014-06-10 16:00
Sierp base 63 - team drive #5	rogue	Conjectures 'R Us	146	2011-04-20 05:12
Sierp base 3 - mini-drive II	gd_barnes	Conjectures 'R Us	46	2009-10-26 18:19
Sierp base 3 - mini-drive Ib	gd_barnes	Conjectures 'R Us	43	2009-03-06 08:41
Sierp base 3 - mini-drive Ia	gd_barnes	Conjectures 'R Us	170	2008-11-11 05:10

2009-09-09, 18:48	#235
gd_barnes May 2007 Kansas; USA 3²·13·89 Posts	To beat a dead horse I've often been confused why people would do xxx000-xxx999 instead of xxx001-xxx000 when searching ranges. If you've only searched through n=149999, then you can NOT say that you're "at n=150000" like people usually do. You'd only be "at n=149999". Also, we don't start searching at n=0. If you did xxx000-xxx999, you'd only search an n=999 range from n=1 thru n=999, which is inconsistent with the n=1000 range for all other files of that size. That's why the files at NPLB and CRUS are that way. Gary