[QUOTE=gd_barnes;626306]
One of the sequences that I tested to 120 digits in the last few months dropped to between 3000000 and 4000000 3 or 4 different times but it somehow did not merge with the main project. I will see if I can find it. Maybe you can note it as merged also.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks a lot, I will add this merge in the next update.

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;626306]
Maybe someone can do a merge analysis looking for merges with sequences < 5000000.[/QUOTE]
This is not without risk, because it is possible that sequences between 3,000,000 and 5,000,000 merge together !
To avoid such problems, when I run my program that allows to get the list of the last C80 of each sequence of the main project ([URL="https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=24423"]see here[/URL]), I upload the sequences on [URL="https://www.rechenkraft.net/aliquot/AllSeq.txt"]this page[/URL] to avoid merging.
Ewin's "Alimerge" program can then work.

Page updated
Many thanks to all for your work !

[URL="https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=626628&postcount=25"]See here.[/URL]

I have completed testing of new bases 111 & 112 all open sequences to >= 120 digits.

Excellent Gary !

Page updated
Many thanks to all for your work !

[URL="https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=627002&postcount=31"]See here[/URL].

Page updated
Many thanks to all for your work !

[URL="https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=627703&postcount=35"]See here[/URL].

I noticed something quite unusual for the new base 116 that has just been added.
Two sequences from this same base merge :
116^19:i849 = 116^25:i950 = 6552:i4

I must also point out that my computer is having very serious problems.
It is becoming difficult for me to do any work.
I have to restart the sequences every day.
Dilemma : wait a few more months to be able to afford the computer of my dreams (64C/128T) or change now and get a smaller machine ?
That's the question...

Thanks Jean-Luc!

The merge is interesting to me in particular, because it shows the merging of the two base 116 sequences only a couple terms prior to the merge with 6552. This makes me wonder if there may be several sequences within the project which have merged with each other, but gone unnoticed because they don't merge with the main project. If 6552 wasn't involved, would the two merging have been caught? I may have to set up a program to see if I can find any such merges within the whole set.

Bummer on the computer issues cropping up again. I can only suggest checking the things you've already done in the past: heat issues and power supply failure. If it is the power supply and you keep restarting, it may damage the motherboard. As to when to upgrade, that will be quite a decision to make - sorry I can't be of more help.

More directly to the project, a lot of the matched parity sequences have current terms above 150 digits, which take me a while to bring down to 135* for that sub-project. Your addition of base 116 has helped that thread and the others you currently have pending will help, too.

In light of the above, I'm wondering if I should initialize some new bases rather than bring existing sequences that have a current term >150 down to 135. Do you think it would be better to add more bases or extend existing sequences in regards to your research efforts?

A side effect, is the addition of index 1 sequences. Many of those will be taken care of through the matched parity work, but others will have to be addressed alternately.

A last note: As you already know, I will from time to time, at least, want to move my machines to other areas, which may include team projects that take me away for extended periods. I should be able to still maintain the threads, but I might not be able to work on sequences.

* You might want to change the 145 to 135 on the main project page where you mention the matched parity thread.

[QUOTE=EdH;627718]
The merge is interesting to me in particular, because it shows the merging of the two base 116 sequences only a couple terms prior to the merge with 6552. This makes me wonder if there may be several sequences within the project which have merged with each other, but gone unnoticed because they don't merge with the main project. If 6552 wasn't involved, would the two merging have been caught? I may have to set up a program to see if I can find any such merges within the whole set.
[/QUOTE]
If there had not been a merger with 6552, I would not have noticed.
[B]It might indeed be interesting to have a list of mergers of the project sequences between them.[/B]
But I don't expect to find anything but randomness in these mergers !
At least that's what I assume.

[QUOTE=EdH;627718]
Bummer on the computer issues cropping up again. I can only suggest checking the things you've already done in the past: heat issues and power supply failure. If it is the power supply and you keep restarting, it may damage the motherboard. As to when to upgrade, that will be quite a decision to make - sorry I can't be of more help.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks Edwin, but this computer is from 2011 !
There's nothing left to do.
I didn't even dare to run the calculations of the programs like for example the program that creates the file "regina", for fear of compromising it.
I still don't know what I'm going to do.
I'm even going to have trouble finishing the initializations of the bases for which I committed myself !
But I will try...
And if my future computer isn't up to snuff, I won't be able to restart the dozens of programs I've put on hold and therefore won't be able to do my work.

[QUOTE=EdH;627718]
More directly to the project, a lot of the matched parity sequences have current terms above 150 digits, which take me a while to bring down to 135* for that sub-project. Your addition of base 116 has helped that thread and the others you currently have pending will help, too.

In light of the above, I'm wondering if I should initialize some new bases rather than bring existing sequences that have a current term >150 down to 135. Do you think it would be better to add more bases or extend existing sequences in regards to your research efforts?
[/QUOTE]
[B]I really think it would be very interesting to initialize new bases, as it would provide more data for a smaller effort.
We should initialize factorial bases, and especially compound bases up to 200 in an exhaustive way, but without necessarily terminating all sequences of the same parity ![/B]
Thus, there would be a continuity in the curves.
[B]Anyone who wants to initialize new bases <200 can do so if they feel like it ![/B]
I think we have enough bases that are prime numbers, as we are past 500 now.
Anyway, if we manage to initialize all the bases to 200 within 1 or 2 years (by the summer of 2024), we will then mark a long pause of several years in the calculations.
That should be enough and if there will be a discovery, it will be more due to the quality of the data analysis than to the quantity of the data.

[QUOTE=EdH;627718]
A last note: As you already know, I will from time to time, at least, want to move my machines to other areas, which may include team projects that take me away for extended periods. I should be able to still maintain the threads, but I might not be able to work on sequences.
[/QUOTE]
Edwin, there's really no problem if you feel like working on something else.
I also want to work on something else quite often.
I'm planning to go back to a lot of the old and equally interesting work that I was doing before I started this project.
Besides, my experience shows me that sometimes you have to let your mind rest a bit and then come back to it later : then you see things differently.
Let's go slowly, according to our desires, let's enjoy ourselves.
It really doesn't matter if all the bases <200 are not initialized by summer 2024 : I'll do with what I have.
The work we've done so far is colossal !
And as said above, I will quietly continue the data analysis.
Maybe also some of us will feel like joining again the main project : I hope it will be extended to 5,000,000 soon !

[B]But if people, especially newcomers to the project, want to continue the calculations at a very fast pace, I will gladly continue to make the updates and of course I will use the data in my analyses !

Please don't see this message as a drop in motivation on my part, it's quite the opposite ![/B]

:tu:

[QUOTE=EdH;627718]
* You might want to change the 145 to 135 on the main project page where you mention the matched parity thread.[/QUOTE]
I will do this in the next update.
Thanks Edwin.

Thanks Jean-Luc!

A large quantity of my "farm" is 2011 vintage, with some Core2 Quads and AMDs that might even be older. But, although they are still running factoring programs, they are power hungry.

If you would like, I can take the four initializations that you have listed off your hands and turn them toward the matched parity sub-project. I'm thinking of handling them (and future bases) in this manner for now:

- all matched parity with a term below 136 added to the available list for matched parity to be terminated by whomever
- all matched parity with a term 136 through 145, I'll bring down to <136
- all opposite parity taken to >99 term with fully ECM'd cofactor*

Does that sound workable?

* Gary took everything to 120 digits, but for now, to keep up with other things, I'd like to work with your original value of 100 digits for the open opposite parity lower bound. This can be readdressed later.

Thank you very much Edwin, but I will try to finish these 4 initializations for these 4 bases myself.
Otherwise, the parameters you suggest for the other initializations you might undertake seem excellent.

Sounds good, Jean-Luc. If I decide to initialize any new base, I'll mention it [STRIKE]here[/STRIKE] in the updates thread prior to running it.