mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   Conjectures 'R Us (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=81)
-   -   Riesel base 3 reservations/statuses/primes (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=11151)

 gd_barnes 2008-11-12 01:36

[quote=gd_barnes;148911]Hum. I'll have to look up your website and see what the differences are. I balance k's remaining constantly with the mini-drives that are going on so I can't imagine it would be in the k-range that the mini-drives are processing unless either you or me is not totally up to date with the latest primes and k removal.[/quote]

[quote=KEP;148866]
Also a final notice, I've updated my Rb3a website, and Gary it appears that you've either one of your sites (the one with remaining k's) not updated or you have to many primes on your primelist. To crosscheck, I can mention that I've currently 215 primes listed and 973 k's remaining.

Regards

KEP[/quote]

Well...it figures that the thing I don't check has the problem. I always closely check k's remaining as that has the most impact on what is tested in the mini drives and by individuals. The k's that I had remaining were correct at 977 but the # of primes listed should have shown 211 instead of 215. That means my corrected totals of 977+211 = your total of 973+215.

I've now added 7 primes and removed 7 k's per the Riesel base 3 mini drive from the last 12 hours so there are now 970 k's remaining and 218 primes found. But my 970+218 still equals your total of 973+215.

Here is a balancing of my mess :smile::

Prior k's remaining: 977
k's removed from mini-drive today: -7
New k's remaining: 970

Prior # of primes: 215
Miscount of 3 too many primes: -3
One k shown twice with 2 different primes (now removed): -1
Prior primes should have shown: 211
primes added from mini-drive today: +7
New # of primes: 218

My web pages are now up to date with the mini drive as of Nov. 12th at 1:30 AM GMT.

Thanks for checking a part that I hadn't checked yet! :-)

Gary

 KEP 2008-11-12 10:03

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;148920]Well...it figures that the thing I don't check has the problem. I always closely check k's remaining as that has the most impact on what is tested in the mini drives and by individuals. The k's that I had remaining were correct at 977 but the # of primes listed should have shown 211 instead of 215. That means my corrected totals of 977+211 = your total of 973+215.

I've now added 7 primes and removed 7 k's per the Riesel base 3 mini drive from the last 12 hours so there are now 970 k's remaining and 218 primes found. But my 970+218 still equals your total of 973+215.

Here is a balancing of my mess :smile::

Prior k's remaining: 977
k's removed from mini-drive today: -7
New k's remaining: 970

Prior # of primes: 215
Miscount of 3 too many primes: -3
One k shown twice with 2 different primes (now removed): -1
Prior primes should have shown: 211
primes added from mini-drive today: +7
New # of primes: 218

My web pages are now up to date with the mini drive as of Nov. 12th at 1:30 AM GMT.

Thanks for checking a part that I hadn't checked yet! :-)

Gary[/QUOTE]

Glad that I could be of assistance. It now turns out that we both agree on the amount of k's remaining and the amount of k's being primed. Now I just has to update my websites again, so I can get up to pace and balance.

On a side note, ALL k<=419M for Riesel base 3 has now been taken to n<=25000. I expect 1-2 more weeks before completion to k<=500M.

Regards

KEP

 michaf 2008-11-13 10:23

Being not as ambitious as KEP ;)
I'll be reserving Riesel base 3, 500-510M upto 1k for testing scripts.

Most likely to be expanded :)

 KEP 2008-11-13 13:25

[QUOTE=michaf;149095]Being not as ambitious as KEP ;)
I'll be reserving Riesel base 3, 500-510M upto 1k for testing scripts.

Most likely to be expanded :)[/QUOTE]

It is now noted on the website! Thanks for your effort and welcome on board Michaf!

KEP!

 Flatlander 2008-11-13 19:59

Taking R. base 3, 510-520M up to 25k.

 mdettweiler 2008-11-14 01:53

Gary, I think I may have found an error on your [URL="http://gbarnes017.googlepages.com/Riesel-conjecture-reserves.htm"]Riesel Conjecture Reservations page[/URL]. It says that the only remaining k<5M is 4223272, whereas the [URL="http://gbarnes017.googlepages.com/Riesel-conjecture-base3-reserve.htm"]Riesel base 3 Reservations page[/URL] says that the only remaining k<5M is 3677878. Looking back to [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=147132&postcount=219"]post #219[/URL] in this thread shows that the base 3 page is right (i.e. the remainking k should be 3677878).

 gd_barnes 2008-11-14 04:22

[quote=mdettweiler;149220]Gary, I think I may have found an error on your [URL="http://gbarnes017.googlepages.com/Riesel-conjecture-reserves.htm"]Riesel Conjecture Reservations page[/URL]. It says that the only remaining k<5M is 4223272, whereas the [URL="http://gbarnes017.googlepages.com/Riesel-conjecture-base3-reserve.htm"]Riesel base 3 Reservations page[/URL] says that the only remaining k<5M is 3677878. Looking back to [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=147132&postcount=219"]post #219[/URL] in this thread shows that the base 3 page is right (i.e. the remainking k should be 3677878).[/quote]

Yep, good catch. It's not easy keeping all 3 pages synced up. It correctly shows the prime for k=4223272 on the main conjectures page and that k=3677878 remains on the base 3 reservations page but incorrectly lists k=4223272 (vs. 3677878) as being reserved on the main reservations page...To be corrected in a little bit.

Base 3 is by far the most error-prone. Continual checking is needed so I welcome it by anyone who has the time to check the pages.

Thanks,
Gary

 michaf 2008-11-14 21:57

KEP,

do you prefer to get the b3_n0.txt file that results after prp-ing to n=1000, or would you prefer files after n=25k?
(filesize after n=1000 is about 24k, so it's doable to archive)

 KEP 2008-11-14 22:10

[QUOTE=michaf;149367]KEP,

do you prefer to get the b3_n0.txt file that results after prp-ing to n=1000, or would you prefer files after n=25k?
(filesize after n=1000 is about 24k, so it's doable to archive)[/QUOTE]

Hello Michaf

I'm only interested in the non-primed k's, and their coorespondant n-value. If you has only taken your k's to n=1000, just let me know so I can take them to n=25000. However the primes should be send to Gary, since I'm only interested in the primes for n>25000 :smile:

Regards

KEP

Ps. Does anyone know about algebraric factors for Riesel base 3, since Flatlander apparently had a k (510669604*3^n-1) which had algebraric factors. Is this true or false?

 michaf 2008-11-14 22:28

[quote=KEP;149368]Hello Michaf

I'm only interested in the non-primed k's, and their coorespondant n-value. If you has only taken your k's to n=1000, just let me know so I can take them to n=25000. However the primes should be send to Gary, since I'm only interested in the primes for n>25000 :smile:
[/quote]

I think the primes <1000 are kinda uninteresting; if needed they can be reproduced quick enough. Also, they take too much space ;)
I'll process upto 25k then, and mail the primes 1k-25k to Gary, and the remaining k's to you.

 KEP 2008-11-14 23:58

[QUOTE=michaf;149372]I think the primes <1000 are kinda uninteresting; if needed they can be reproduced quick enough. Also, they take too much space ;)
I'll process upto 25k then, and mail the primes 1k-25k to Gary, and the remaining k's to you.[/QUOTE]

That sounds just about nice Michaf. I'll then change your reservation to go to n=25000 :smile:

Kenneth!

 Flatlander 2008-11-15 12:09

Reserving 600-650M (to 25k)

[quote]Following Level 1 resrevations is made and complete:[/quote]Do you mean "The following level 1 reservations are made and noted:"?

 michaf 2008-11-15 12:33

Riesel base 3 statuses & primes

First results:

500M-510M:
Left are (tested to 25k)
[CODE]500145402
500968542
501526364
501628284
[/CODE]

Primes will be mailed to Gary in the next few minutes

 henryzz 2008-11-15 12:46

Reserving 650-660M (to 25k)

 gd_barnes 2008-11-15 23:04

[quote=KEP;149368]Hello Michaf

I'm only interested in the non-primed k's, and their coorespondant n-value. If you has only taken your k's to n=1000, just let me know so I can take them to n=25000. However the primes should be send to Gary, since I'm only interested in the primes for n>25000 :smile:

Regards

KEP

Ps. Does anyone know about algebraric factors for Riesel base 3, since Flatlander apparently had a k (510669604*3^n-1) which had algebraric factors. Is this true or false?[/quote]

It is false. No k in base 3 should have algebraic factors such that the k could be eliminated that I am aware of. Let me define "having" algebraic factors such that the k could be elimianted without a prime being found:

Having algebraic factors means that a k has such factors that COMBINE with numeric factors to make a FULL covering set and hence eliminate a k-value from consideration.

k=510669604 is a perfect square. Like any other k that is a perfect square, it has algebraic factors for all even n. BUT...it still must be searched for all odd n. There is no covering set for the odd n. Here are the factors for the first few small odd-n:

[code]
n factors
1 1201*1275611
3 23*61*9827569
5 13*71*83*877*1847
7 11*101530402177
9 2402353*4184027
[/code]

Upon a little further check, I found an odd n with a smallest factor of nearly 8 trillion!:
510669604*3^55-1 = 7,976,141,243,627*11,169,048,639,317,939,512,801

This clearly demonstrates that there is no pattern of any kind of covering set of numeric or algebraic factors on the odd n. It should eventually yield a prime.

Editor note (lol):
510669604*3^1065-1 is prime!

Gary

 gd_barnes 2008-11-15 23:18

[quote=michaf;149372]I think the primes <1000 are kinda uninteresting; if needed they can be reproduced quick enough. Also, they take too much space ;)
I'll process upto 25k then, and mail the primes 1k-25k to Gary, and the remaining k's to you.[/quote]

I just got a bunch of primes from for what appears to be k=500M-510M/n=1K-6.2K and k=500M-502M/n=6.2K-25K. Micha, have you tested k=502M-510M for n=6.2K-25K yet?

Kenneth, since you're doing this, starting with my next update of my web pages, I'm going to just link to your website for k's remaining and reservations. Are you OK with that? We can both manage the remaining mini-drive I. I'll move it over to your sub-forum.

As for k's remaining, you'll need to do what I've been doing...that is make sure no extra k's are left in as a result of multiples of the base whenver anyone sends you a group of k's that are remaining. You've been highly accurate in sending them to me the last 2 times so clearly you understand how to verify it.

Gary

 gd_barnes 2008-11-15 23:42

[quote=michaf;149425]First results:

500M-510M:
Left are (tested to 25k)
[code]500145402
500968542
501526364
501628284
[/code]

Primes will be mailed to Gary in the next few minutes[/quote]

Micha,

There are 2 problems here:

1. It is extremely highly unlikely that there are only 4 k's remaining in a k=10M range. I will go so far as to say that it's virtually impossible. What range have you tested? This might be reasonable for k=500M-502M. I see that all k's remaining are in that range. Upon testing k<10M to n=60K, we still have 10 k's remaining and at least 2-3 k's were eliminated with primes for n>100K! As you know the k's remaining will generally be higher for the same k-range as the k's get higher since the numbers are higher so the possibility of only 4 k's remaining at n=25K is even smaller for k=500M-510M than for k<10M.

2. There are 2 k's here that shouldn't be remaining. I'll see if you guys can find them.

Edit: I just now looked at your 2nd primes file for n=6.2K-25K. It only contains primes for k=500M-502M. Therefore, I believe what I stated in #1 is correct. You have only listed k's remaining for k=500M-502M.

Are you testing KEP here? lol

Gary

 KEP 2008-11-16 09:35

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;149483]I just got a bunch of primes from for what appears to be k=500M-510M/n=1K-6.2K and k=500M-502M/n=6.2K-25K. Micha, have you tested k=502M-510M for n=6.2K-25K yet?

Kenneth, since you're doing this, starting with my next update of my web pages, I'm going to just link to your website for k's remaining and reservations. Are you OK with that? We can both manage the remaining mini-drive I. I'll move it over to your sub-forum.

As for k's remaining, you'll need to do what I've been doing...that is make sure no extra k's are left in as a result of multiples of the base whenver anyone sends you a group of k's that are remaining. You've been highly accurate in sending them to me the last 2 times so clearly you understand how to verify it.

Gary[/QUOTE]

I'm OK with that Gary, just link to my webstites. I'm going to update the website later today, once I get some time to do it.

Kenneth.

 michaf 2008-11-16 10:30

[quote=gd_barnes;149483]I just got a bunch of primes from for what appears to be k=500M-510M/n=1K-6.2K and k=500M-502M/n=6.2K-25K. Micha, have you tested k=502M-510M for n=6.2K-25K yet?

Gary[/quote]

He?

I _though_ I did 500 to 510 :)
I _think_ I buggered up someplace...
I _know_ I'll do them again, and be careful now...

 michaf 2008-11-16 10:36

[quote=gd_barnes;149487]Micha,

Are you testing KEP here? lol

Gary[/quote]
I'm testing if he already sobered up yeah :)

I'll redo the range, to be sure :) I must have made a stupid cut & paste mistake someplace.
(besides... I reserved them for _testing_ scripts :) )

 KEP 2008-11-16 15:24

[QUOTE=michaf;149517]I'm testing if he already sobered up yeah :)

I'll redo the range, to be sure :) I must have made a stupid cut & paste mistake someplace.
(besides... I reserved them for _testing_ scripts :) )[/QUOTE]

I've sobered up. I didn't react to your statement, because I thought it was only covering the 500M-502M range, so in other terms I just thought that you posted a partial result :smile:

Thanks for redoing the range, because as Gary states, this result is likely to be false and erroneous since more k's should remain. In average 4-5 k's should remain per 1M range, before removal of redundant k's. At least this has been the average per 1M range for k<=250M.

KEP

 Flatlander 2008-11-17 17:21

510-520M complete.

4,997,762 primes with n <= 1000.
8 tiny PRPs that proved to be not prime but were found slightly higher (all had n of 2 or 3).
2,167 primes with n > 1000.
63 remaining Ks for Kep to fiddle with.
5,000,000 total.:smile:

Remaining Ks to be sent to Kep.
All primes to be sent to Gary. Let's see if we can fill up his hard drive!

 mdettweiler 2008-11-17 18:12

[quote=Flatlander;149646]8 tiny PRPs that proved to be not prime but were found slightly higher (all had n of 2 or 3).[/quote]
Did you post the composite PRP's [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=10476]here[/url]? :grin:

 gd_barnes 2008-11-19 12:52

[quote=Flatlander;149646]510-520M complete.

4,997,762 primes with n <= 1000.
8 tiny PRPs that proved to be not prime but were found slightly higher (all had n of 2 or 3).
2,167 primes with n > 1000.
63 remaining Ks for Kep to fiddle with.
5,000,000 total.:smile:

Remaining Ks to be sent to Kep.
All primes to be sent to Gary. Let's see if we can fill up his hard drive![/quote]

That may take a while: I have a 360 GB auto-backup drive affectionally referred to as "The book" by the computer store that I got it from 2 months ago.

Good luck filling THAT up! Perhaps if you sent me all primes for n>10 for all k up to 63G! (lol) :smile: The drive cost ~\$80. If you guys somehow fill it up, you get to buy me another one! he-he-he

The largest space being used for results is (surprisingly) NOT by NPLB nor by base 3 (YET!), it is for my "all" twin prime search, which is currently stalled in the n=50K range for all k<1M. At about 600-700 tests per n-value at a sieve-depth of P=60G, the results for it are eating a large chunk of one of my 2 GB flash drives right now. Once they pass about 1.5 GB, I'll have to dump it to the book.

Edit: I just checked my Email. Chris, you don't need to send me primes for n<1000. Yes, you would fill up the book with THAT! Kenneth, weren't you telling people to just send me primes for n>1000? I think we agreed that we can quickly reconstruct primes n<1000 when it is needed.

I'm only going to save off the primes to my hard drive that were sent for n>1000. I won't delete the Email until later.

Gary

 KEP 2008-11-19 15:47

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;149855]That may take a while: I have a 360 GB auto-backup drive affectionally referred to as "The book" by the computer store that I got it from 2 months ago.

Good luck filling THAT up! Perhaps if you sent me all primes for n>10 for all k up to 63G! (lol) :smile: The drive cost ~\$80. If you guys somehow fill it up, you get to buy me another one! he-he-he

The largest space being used for results is (surprisingly) NOT by NPLB nor by base 3 (YET!), it is for my "all" twin prime search, which is currently stalled in the n=50K range for all k<1M. At about 600-700 tests per n-value at a sieve-depth of P=60G, the results for it are eating a large chunk of one of my 2 GB flash drives right now. Once they pass about 1.5 GB, I'll have to dump it to the book.

Edit: I just checked my Email. Chris, you don't need to send me primes for n<1000. Yes, you would fill up the book with THAT! Kenneth, weren't you telling people to just send me primes for n>1000? I think we agreed that we can quickly reconstruct primes n<1000 when it is needed.

I'm only going to save off the primes to my hard drive that were sent for n>1000. I won't delete the Email until later.

Gary[/QUOTE]

If you're only interested in recieving the primes above n=1000 then I have to change the instructions, so expect from the rookies to recieve all n primes and from me to recieve only those above 1000. This also means that I stop reconstructing the primes for k<250M for n<=500. In the future I will only send those to you which has n>1000, but expect nothing like that from the users not familiar with using sieve for some part of the search.

Regards

KEP

Ps. I'll try to put up some instructions on how to run with the use of sieve, since it is faster to use sive for n>1000, however it involves a bit more instruction, and I think that these instructions is not quite there yet.

Thanks for understanding!

 michaf 2008-11-19 17:20

Better results

Indeed, I must have made a mistake someplace before:

The _real_ left-over k's for range 500-510 are:

[CODE]500145402
500968542
501526364
501628284
501947956
502362446
502579034
502598216
502683156
502732374
503092266
503163566
503210228
503449428
503961636
504291412
504632274
505022722
505107656
505118318
505145078
505222342
505418852
505452236
506017942
506089034
506142848
506187022
506199006
506573908
506664016
506983772
507098062
507440456
507551554
508092638
508213728
508556816
508570676
508647428
508849246
509119594
509258192
509361646
509511018
509884904
509938334
[/CODE]

It also took noticable longer to process :)

 henryzz 2008-11-19 17:36

i did up to 2500 with pfgw so i have a file sorted by k of primes for n values from 0 to 2500
do u have a script that will split them
i will do it different next time if u want
i you push me i will do up to 1000 again

 kar_bon 2008-11-20 09:27

[QUOTE=henryzz;149885]i did up to 2500 with pfgw so i have a file sorted by k of primes for n values from 0 to 2500
do u have a script that will split them
i will do it different next time if u want
i you push me i will do up to 1000 again[/QUOTE]

you don't need a script.
in DOS try 'help sort':
you can sort a text-file beginning at position 10 like this (assuming the pfgw-file contains one k-n-pair per line):

sort /+10 input.txt >sorted.txt

so the file will be sorted by the second number (here n).
edit the '+10' to the length you need.

 henryzz 2008-11-20 16:44

[quote=kar_bon;149992]you don't need a script.
in DOS try 'help sort':
you can sort a text-file beginning at position 10 like this (assuming the pfgw-file contains one k-n-pair per line):

sort /+10 input.txt >sorted.txt

so the file will be sorted by the second number (here n).
edit the '+10' to the length you need.[/quote]
thanks that should work
i will do it when everything else is finished this weekend

 gd_barnes 2008-11-22 23:43

[quote=KEP;149871]If you're only interested in recieving the primes above n=1000 then I have to change the instructions, so expect from the rookies to recieve all n primes and from me to recieve only those above 1000. This also means that I stop reconstructing the primes for k<250M for n<=500. In the future I will only send those to you which has n>1000, but expect nothing like that from the users not familiar with using sieve for some part of the search.

Regards

KEP

Ps. I'll try to put up some instructions on how to run with the use of sieve, since it is faster to use sive for n>1000, however it involves a bit more instruction, and I think that these instructions is not quite there yet.

Thanks for understanding![/quote]

Kenneth,

I didn't know this was going to be some big hassle to only send me primes for n>1000.

What is easiest for you that does NOT involve sending me every prime?! lol

I'm fine receiving all primes for n>500 if that is easier.

Gary

 gd_barnes 2008-11-23 00:05

[quote=michaf;149883]Indeed, I must have made a mistake someplace before:

The _real_ left-over k's for range 500-510 are:

[code]500145402
500968542
501526364
501628284
501947956
502362446
502579034
502598216
502683156
502732374
503092266
503163566
503210228
503449428
503961636
504291412
504632274
505022722
505107656
505118318
505145078
505222342
505418852
505452236
506017942
506089034
506142848
506187022
506199006
506573908
506664016
506983772
507098062
507440456
507551554
508092638
508213728
508556816
508570676
508647428
508849246
509119594
509258192
509361646
509511018
509884904
509938334
[/code]

It also took noticable longer to process :)[/quote]

Kenneth,

I double-checked the removal of multiples of the base (MOB) with your site. Looks great! There were no k's remaining that are divisible by 3. A total of 12 were eliminated leaving 35 k's remaining for the range. Nice work! :smile:

I will no longer check the removal of MOB's. You've got it!

Something does smell a little bit fishy here though:
[code]
k-range k's remaining
500M-505M 8
505M-510M 27
510M-515M 15
515M-520M 30
[/code]

This 8 k's remaining for such a high k=5M range at n=25K is a fairly extreme deviation from normal and that 1st range was originally a problem range. I'm kind of wondering about it. What does everyone think?

Gary

 Flatlander 2008-11-23 00:45

[quote=gd_barnes;150289]...
Something does smell a little bit fishy here though:
[code]
k-range k's remaining
500M-505M 8
505M-510M 27
510M-515M 15
515M-520M 30

This 8 k's remaining for such a high k=5M range at n=25K is a fairly extreme deviation from normal and that 1st range was originally a problem range. I'm kind of wondering about it. What does everyone think?

Gary[/quote]
Let me know if you want me to do some double-checking.:smile:

 KEP 2008-11-23 06:47

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;150287]Kenneth,

I didn't know this was going to be some big hassle to only send me primes for n>1000.

What is easiest for you that does NOT involve sending me every prime?! lol

I'm fine receiving all primes for n>500 if that is easier.

Gary[/QUOTE]

It is not a big hassle, but for the rookies unfamiliar with sieving it is going to be more difficult to participate in the project. However once I get the proper instructions created everyone will be able to participate and send you only the primes for n>1000 (like I'll do in the future) :smile:

KEP

 henryzz 2008-11-23 08:30

[quote=kar_bon;149992]you don't need a script.
in DOS try 'help sort':
you can sort a text-file beginning at position 10 like this (assuming the pfgw-file contains one k-n-pair per line):

sort /+10 input.txt >sorted.txt

so the file will be sorted by the second number (here n).
edit the '+10' to the length you need.[/quote]
unfortunately this has not worked
it produced a file with n values in the order
[code]1
10
100
1000
1001
[/code]etc.
which is not very easy to split

 gd_barnes 2008-11-23 13:42

[quote=Flatlander;150293]Let me know if you want me to do some double-checking.:smile:[/quote]

Chris, can you double-check the k=500M-505M range? I messed around with it for a bit but don't feel I can spare the resources at the moment...too many other efforts going on.

Thanks,
Gary

 michaf 2008-11-23 13:47

While testing my 80M range (520M-600M)

I first tried pfgw to 1000 using Karsten's scripts,
then sieve it, and tried Karsten's 'high-n' script

That took about 4 minutes writing time when a prime was found, so it was waaaay too slow :)

second,I tried to n=2000 with pfgw, sieved, and then high-n'd it, which was way better (30 sec/write). I'm finishing that now as it is quick enough.

I think that running pfgw to 2500 or even 3000 is the most efficient.
I will test on following ranges what is best (I'll go for 100M ranges then, and will note total time taken. expect an update in about 10 weeks :) )

 Flatlander 2008-11-23 14:14

[quote=gd_barnes;150334]Chris, can you double-check the k=500M-505M range? I messed around with it for a bit but don't feel I can spare the resources at the moment...too many other efforts going on.

Thanks,
Gary[/quote]
No problem. I'll start when the NPLB rally finishes. :smile:

 gd_barnes 2008-11-24 11:38

I have done some preliminary double-check work on the k=500M-506M range. After getting primes from Micha for n=1004-25000, I decided to just run the entire range up to n=1005 to have an n=2 overlap.

Then using the primes for n=1004-25000 that Micha sent me and my remaining k's after my testing, I was able to determine the k's that should be remaining at n=25K. To my surprise, they are correct as listed by Micha. (No offense! :smile:) I'm just amazed that there are only 8 k's remaining at n=25K for k=500M-505M!

I did find a few problems with either Micha's testing or Karsten's scripts though. For the range of n=1001-1004, I found 6 primes that Micha had as remaining when starting the 2nd part of Karsten's automated processing at n=1004 (n=1005 for some k's it seems). What that means is that he effectively "missed" those primes, which could have caused k's to be remaining that weren't. Fortunately all of the k's eventually yielded primes before n=2100.

Below are n=1001-1004 primes that were missed when starting the 2nd part of the automated processing at n=1004 (or n=1005). The prime on the left is the one that I found, the prime on the right in paranthesis is the one found by Micha.

500656302*3^1003-1 is prime (prime found at n=1300)
502183398*3^1004-1 is prime (prime found at n=1758)
502572138*3^1002-1 is prime (prime found at n=1785)
503150118*3^1002-1 is prime (prime found at n=1909)
505353468*3^1002-1 is prime (prime found at n=1620)
505663726*3^1001-1 is prime (prime found at n=2091)

Note that the automated process had some n=1004 primes in it so it is very confusing that it did not find the k=502183398 prime at n=1004. My overlap up to n=1005 confirmed the 3 n=1005 primes found by the automated process.

Please be careful when making the transition from one part of the automated process to the next. It would be easy to drop a k that had no prime or include a k that already had a prime. In this case, we included 6 k's that already had primes.

Chris, please continue your double-check process also. Testing to n=1000 is all that I felt I had time for. Your double-check process is needed for checking up to n=25K. This kind of detailed checking is needed for a new automated process such as this.

Thanks,
Gary

 michaf 2008-11-24 21:26

Hmm.. no offense taken :)

I find it troubling that there are some misses though.

another thing: I just found out the hard way that doing large ranges just isn't doable.
The harddrive thrashes, and just keeps on writing/reading, while the processor is out of work...
I will do all the ranges by 10M now :)

 gd_barnes 2008-11-25 03:12

[quote=michaf;150562]Hmm.. no offense taken :)

I find it troubling that there are some misses though.

another thing: I just found out the hard way that doing large ranges just isn't doable.
The harddrive thrashes, and just keeps on writing/reading, while the processor is out of work...
I will do all the ranges by 10M now :)[/quote]

Since the missing primes are all n=1001-1004, my impression is that you stopped testing your "1st run" at n=1000 but started testing your "2nd run" at n=1004 with the k's that were remaining at n=1000. Perhaps it was something to do with having to re-run the "2nd run" as a result of only doing the k=500M-502M range the 1st time around. Although that still doesn't explain why the 2nd run found 2 primes for n=1004 but missed 1 other prime for n=1004.

Can you check where you started and stopped your 2 runs? We need to know if there is a bug in Karsten's process or if it was just a "user error". :smile:

Gary

 henryzz 2008-11-25 07:12

[quote=henryzz;150311]unfortunately this has not worked
it produced a file with n values in the order
[code]1
10
100
1000
1001
[/code]etc.
which is not very easy to split[/quote]
once i have a solution for this i will be able to send my results to gary

 Flatlander 2008-11-25 15:32

Gary, either everyone here thinks you are infallible [B]or[/B] nobody reads your posts!

[quote]Something does smell a little bit fishy here though:
[code]
k-range k's remaining
500M-505M 8
505M-510M 27
510M-515M 15
515M-520M 30
[/code][/quote]Er, there weren't [B]8[/B] ks between 500M and 505M in michaf's post, there were [B]17[/B]! I can't belive no-one noticed! lol

I have just confirmed them:
[code]
500145402
500968542
501526364
501628284
501947956
502362446
502579034
502598216
502683156
502732374
503092266
503163566
503210228
503449428
503961636
504291412
504632274[/code]This is a very reassuring double check. :smile:
I'll stop laughing soon.:missingteeth:

 Flatlander 2008-11-25 16:48

[quote=gd_barnes;150289]...
I double-checked the [B]removal of multiples of the base[/B] (MOB) with your site. Looks great! There were no k's remaining that are divisible by 3. A total of 12 were eliminated leaving 35 k's remaining for the range. Nice work! :smile:
Gary[/quote]

Looks like the joke's on me. lol

 michaf 2008-11-25 17:28

[quote=gd_barnes;150602]
Can you check where you started and stopped your 2 runs? We need to know if there is a bug in Karsten's process or if it was just a "user error". :smile:
Gary[/quote]

The sieve started at n=1000, but that doesn't imply an error in the script.
I have had some very hard working days, so any user error that is possible to make, will most likely be made :)

 gd_barnes 2008-11-26 03:38

[quote=Flatlander;150647]Gary, either everyone here thinks you are infallible [B]or[/B] nobody reads your posts!

Er, there weren't [B]8[/B] ks between 500M and 505M in michaf's post, there were [B]17[/B]! I can't belive no-one noticed! lol

I have just confirmed them:
[code]
500145402
500968542
501526364
501628284
501947956
502362446
502579034
502598216
502683156
502732374
503092266
503163566
503210228
503449428
503961636
504291412
504632274[/code]This is a very reassuring double check. :smile:
I'll stop laughing soon.:missingteeth:[/quote]

I am infallible. You didn't understand. The # of k's remaining is AFTER removing k's that are divisible by the base that don't need to be searched. Just look at Kenneth's website and you'll see!

Divide all the k's by 3. If a k is divisible by 3, subtract 1 and see if it is composite. If so, remove it; if not keep it. In almost all cases, you will remove it because k/3^q is already being searched or already has a prime.

Ha, ha, ha. Now I laugh times 3! :missingteeth::missingteeth::missingteeth:

Gary

Edit: I just now saw that you said the "joke's on me". I can delete your posts and this post if you want but I have to admit I couldn't resist getting in a dig on you. BTW, both Kenneth and Max have caught errors on my web pages before. :-)

 Flatlander 2008-11-26 14:19

[quote=gd_barnes;150749]...
Edit: I just now saw that you said the "joke's on me". I can delete your posts and this post if you want but I have to admit I couldn't resist getting in a dig on you. BTW, both Kenneth and Max have caught errors on my web pages before. :-)[/quote]

No, I think my public humilation should stand. It might teach me to keep my big mouth shut!

 michaf 2008-11-26 21:46

[quote=michaf;150666]The sieve started at n=1000, but that doesn't imply an error in the script.
I have had some very hard working days, so any user error that is possible to make, will most likely be made :)[/quote]

As 'always', the error was human: I had a left-over llr.ini from a testrun, which went into the wrong directory someway (I suspect a computer-error there, but let's say that _I_ placed it there...)

 Flatlander 2008-11-29 16:42

I've had some stability problems the last week or so forcing me to restart 600-650M twice. The main problem was LogMeIn garbling the display forcing me to reboot. I've uninstalled it now.

More worryingly, I've today found a "pfgw_err.log" file in my 610-630M folder. I've been getting "SUM(INPUTS) != SUM(OUTPUTS)" errors on one core since Wednesday.:cry:

I'm now unsure of the stability of this machine. I'm going to lower the overclocking, run a Prime95 torture test again, and then run a double check on my 510-520M range before starting again on 600-650M.

edit:
Just checked inside and the CPU fan was covered in dust. I only cleaned it last month. I think it's because we've started letting our rabbits out indoors again. I'll have to air blast them each time!

 KEP 2008-11-29 20:11

[QUOTE=Flatlander;151257]I've had some stability problems the last week or so forcing me to restart 600-650M twice. The main problem was LogMeIn garbling the display forcing me to reboot. I've uninstalled it now.

More worryingly, I've today found a "pfgw_err.log" file in my 610-630M folder. I've been getting "SUM(INPUTS) != SUM(OUTPUTS)" errors on one core since Wednesday.:cry:

I'm now unsure of the stability of this machine. I'm going to lower the overclocking, run a Prime95 torture test again, and then run a double check on my 510-520M range before starting again on 600-650M.

edit:
Just checked inside and the CPU fan was covered in dust. I only cleaned it last month. I think it's because we've started letting our rabbits out indoors again. I'll have to air blast them each time![/QUOTE]

Flatlander, it sounds like a very good plan, to do a doublecheck, since we have to be sure that the initial phase at least is flawless. Please let us know what you find out about your machine and about your doublechecks. Finally thanks for keeping on eye for error-logs, I actually has never seen such an error log when using WinPFGW.exe, so I guess that this will mean that my machine is at least stable.

Good luck and again thanks for joining the race to complete "Level 1" (Bring all k up to n=25000) :smile:

Regards

Kenneth!

 henryzz 2008-11-30 11:08

after a brainwave in the middle of the night i have managed to remove all the primes in my file from n=0 to n=999
i did it by using regular expressions
i replaced "^......... .\$", "^......... ..\$" and "^......... ...\$" with ""
i then removed the extra "\n"s by replacing "\n\n" with "\n"
i am about the email all results to Gary:smile:
650M-660M is complete to 25k with 70ks remaining

 Flatlander 2008-12-02 14:36

[quote=Flatlander;151257]I'm now unsure of the stability of this machine. I'm going to lower the overclocking, run a Prime95 torture test again, and then run a double check on my 510-520M range before starting again on 600-650M.[/quote]
I've lowered the overclocking to slightly lower than I used all summer.
Prime95 torture test okay on various settings.:smile:
510-520M double check produced identical files.:smile:
So now I can proceed at last.

 KEP 2008-12-02 15:22

[QUOTE=Flatlander;151646]I've lowered the overclocking to slightly lower than I used all summer.
Prime95 torture test okay on various settings.:smile:
510-520M double check produced identical files.:smile:
So now I can proceed at last.[/QUOTE]

Good job Flatlander. Its nice to see that people who supports the CRUS efforts aswell this very big effort, care about error messages. Just glad that you can finally proceed, wince it is going to be a while before I can contribute with initial work again, since taking the single k remaining below k=5M to n=1M, is going to be a greater task than anticipated and also I've suffered some technical issues last night, which seems to be resolved by now. I still hope that we all by a combined effort, can complete untill level 3 (n=100000) before the 10 year aniversary (April 12th 2018).

Now I just hope that Henryzz can soon send me his remaining k's so the range can finally be submitted as complete on the forum aswell on the website :smile:

Regards

KEP

 henryzz 2008-12-02 15:34

[quote=KEP;151649]Now I just hope that Henryzz can soon send me his remaining k's so the range can finally be submitted as complete on the forum aswell on the website :smile:

Regards

KEP[/quote]
sorry after sending the results to Gary and posting here i clean forgot that you would need the ks remaining:smile:
here they are:
[code]650113792*3^n-1
650180144*3^n-1
650444908*3^n-1
650512274*3^n-1
650681326*3^n-1
650688996*3^n-1
650950166*3^n-1
651097008*3^n-1
651294582*3^n-1
651384028*3^n-1
651591736*3^n-1
651817468*3^n-1
651936858*3^n-1
652073522*3^n-1
652093846*3^n-1
652264856*3^n-1
652283394*3^n-1
652468202*3^n-1
652479166*3^n-1
652523576*3^n-1
652728506*3^n-1
652847952*3^n-1
653376348*3^n-1
653408352*3^n-1
653839294*3^n-1
654034228*3^n-1
654182296*3^n-1
654215628*3^n-1
654320826*3^n-1
654446378*3^n-1
654528722*3^n-1
654625026*3^n-1
654934164*3^n-1
654943084*3^n-1
654982324*3^n-1
654987316*3^n-1
655309084*3^n-1
655482876*3^n-1
655564066*3^n-1
655625174*3^n-1
655775558*3^n-1
655874332*3^n-1
656080434*3^n-1
656120414*3^n-1
656133318*3^n-1
656209698*3^n-1
656364692*3^n-1
656464576*3^n-1
656627778*3^n-1
656656724*3^n-1
656694086*3^n-1
656787088*3^n-1
656892128*3^n-1
657376404*3^n-1
657430398*3^n-1
657437322*3^n-1
657581434*3^n-1
657604104*3^n-1
657697628*3^n-1
657702184*3^n-1
657878906*3^n-1
658496952*3^n-1
658783726*3^n-1
658960734*3^n-1
659135174*3^n-1
659218426*3^n-1
659285784*3^n-1
659420178*3^n-1
659518798*3^n-1
659547794*3^n-1
[/code]

 KEP 2008-12-02 19:48

[QUOTE=henryzz;151653]sorry after sending the results to Gary and posting here i clean forgot that you would need the ks remaining:smile:
here they are:
[code]650113792*3^n-1
650180144*3^n-1
650444908*3^n-1
650512274*3^n-1
650681326*3^n-1
650688996*3^n-1
650950166*3^n-1
651097008*3^n-1
651294582*3^n-1
651384028*3^n-1
651591736*3^n-1
651817468*3^n-1
651936858*3^n-1
652073522*3^n-1
652093846*3^n-1
652264856*3^n-1
652283394*3^n-1
652468202*3^n-1
652479166*3^n-1
652523576*3^n-1
652728506*3^n-1
652847952*3^n-1
653376348*3^n-1
653408352*3^n-1
653839294*3^n-1
654034228*3^n-1
654182296*3^n-1
654215628*3^n-1
654320826*3^n-1
654446378*3^n-1
654528722*3^n-1
654625026*3^n-1
654934164*3^n-1
654943084*3^n-1
654982324*3^n-1
654987316*3^n-1
655309084*3^n-1
655482876*3^n-1
655564066*3^n-1
655625174*3^n-1
655775558*3^n-1
655874332*3^n-1
656080434*3^n-1
656120414*3^n-1
656133318*3^n-1
656209698*3^n-1
656364692*3^n-1
656464576*3^n-1
656627778*3^n-1
656656724*3^n-1
656694086*3^n-1
656787088*3^n-1
656892128*3^n-1
657376404*3^n-1
657430398*3^n-1
657437322*3^n-1
657581434*3^n-1
657604104*3^n-1
657697628*3^n-1
657702184*3^n-1
657878906*3^n-1
658496952*3^n-1
658783726*3^n-1
658960734*3^n-1
659135174*3^n-1
659218426*3^n-1
659285784*3^n-1
659420178*3^n-1
659518798*3^n-1
659547794*3^n-1
[/code][/QUOTE]

All forgiven :smile: To your information your 70 k's were reduced to 56 k's that needs further testing beyond n=25K. Good job, hopes to see you attack this conjecture further in the future :smile:

KEP!

 henryzz 2008-12-02 20:43

[quote=KEP;151693]All forgiven :smile: To your information your 70 k's were reduced to 56 k's that needs further testing beyond n=25K. Good job, hopes to see you attack this conjecture further in the future :smile:

KEP![/quote]
i will do another range at some point but i will be helping finish the nlpb 1st drive for about 3 weeks

 Flatlander 2008-12-11 18:43

1 Attachment(s)
600-650M complete. 371 ks remaining.

Reserving 660-700M.

 KEP 2008-12-11 18:53

[QUOTE=Flatlander;152943]600-650M complete. 371 ks remaining.

Reserving 660-700M.[/QUOTE]

Good job Chris. I've handed back the Riesel base 3 effort to Gary, but just out of curiosity, I've removed the redundant k's. A total of 293 k's remained after removing redundant k's :smile:

KEP!

 jasong 2008-12-14 04:32

Reserving 700M-800M (to n=10000)

I have a quad-core, but I have no idea how quickly these numbers are completed. Are there benchmarks posted anywhere for this?

 jasong 2008-12-14 07:21

[QUOTE=jasong;153247]Reserving 700M-800M (to n=10000)

I have a quad-core, but I have no idea how quickly these numbers are completed. Are there benchmarks posted anywhere for this?[/QUOTE]
I'm going to take them to n=25000.

Does anyone know how to do newpgen in batches, one after the other with the command-line? In Windows, btw.

 gd_barnes 2008-12-15 04:46

[quote=jasong;153253]I'm going to take them to n=25000.

Does anyone know how to do newpgen in batches, one after the other with the command-line? In Windows, btw.[/quote]

I suggest that you do something else Jasong. If you're thinking about using NewPGen for this effort, you're in trouble.

Before I reserve it for you, I'd like a detailed plan of how you are going to attack it.

This is not something you can get in the middle of and then hand off to someone else without creating a HUGE mess.

We have Riesel and Sierp base 3 mini drives that a quad would be very effective on and that are easy to run. But you do have to send a completed results file on them when you are done.

Thanks,
Gary

 gd_barnes 2008-12-15 07:10

[quote=KEP;151693]All forgiven :smile: To your information your 70 k's were reduced to 56 k's that needs further testing beyond n=25K. Good job, hopes to see you attack this conjecture further in the future :smile:

KEP![/quote]

I'm having some serious concerns upon an initial review of this effort. First, there is no web page. Now, there's a problem with the above.

The 70 k's reduce to 47 k's not 56. KEP, if you're still around, I need you to answer some questions for me.

Balancing for these k remaining:
70 remaining
25 k's divisible by 3
45 k's not divisible by 3

Of the 25 k's that are divisible by 3, only 2 of them have a prime at n=0 (or are prime for k-1) and hence remain.

Adding back the 2 that remain leaves 47 k's remaining.

The only 2 k's that remain that are divisible by 3 because they have a prime at n=0 are:
653408352
656080434

This forces me to review far more than I wanted to, namely the manner in which KEP reduced Chris's k=600M-650M range from 371 k's to 293 k's remaining after he reported them. ARGH!!

I will be adding the corrected k's remaining to my web pages in a little while.

Everybody be nice to me because I'm getting quite irritable now.

Gary

 gd_barnes 2008-12-15 08:19

[quote=KEP;152945]Good job Chris. I've handed back the Riesel base 3 effort to Gary, but just out of curiosity, I've removed the redundant k's. A total of 293 k's remained after removing redundant k's :smile:

KEP![/quote]

This is also incorrect, there are 255 not 293 k's remaining after removing k's that are multiples of 3 that do not have a prime at n=0.

KEP, there must be something wrong in your algorithm when figuring out what k's should be removed.

Balancing on this one:
Chris's k's remaining: 371
k's remaining divisible by 3: 119
k's remaining not divisible by 3: 252

3 out of the 119 k's remaining that are divisible by 3 have a prime at n=0 (i.e. where k-1 is prime) and hence remain. Those k's are:
603384492
604404414
612445908

Adding back the 3 k's to 252 leaves 255 k's remaining. :ermm::confused::huh::sad:

Edit: I did find a list from you of k's remaining after removing redundant k's for Chris's range here. I checked 4 of the k's that you should have removed but did not. It appears hat you are not removing k's that are divisible by 9 or 27 or 81, etc. Only the k's divisible by 3 and not 9 are being removed. I also noticed that all of those k's had primes for n>25K. Regardless, it doesn't matter whether the k's in this range are divisible by 3, 9, 27, or any power of 3 nor does it matter whether the smaller k's have primes for n>25K or are still remaining without a prime found, the k in this range should be removed.

I guess I'll need to check the entire k=250M-500M range also. Bleh! Long night here...

Gary

 KEP 2008-12-15 09:29

@ Gary:

To remove redundant k's, I've done the following:

Copied them to a spreadsheet which held all remaining k's at n=25000. I then used 3^q division on the k's sent to me, and asked the spreadsheet to check if the 3^q divided number appeared previously in the list. If it appeared, then no need to check remaining k, if the division however did not appear, there is need to still check the number for prime at a later basis.

I'm puzzled why using 3^q reduction should all the sudden give a problem, sinec the list used to compare to contains all k's remaining at n=25000 for all k<=500M which is far higher than any divisionable result using 3^q division.

Anyway I'll still send you a compressed version of my website, in hope it makes things a bit more clear. However due to reasont mistakes, I'm glad that I at this early stage decided to handback the Riesel base 3 conjecture, since something that shouldn't have been errorneous was somehow made errorneous.

Hope that you figure it out.

Regards

KEP

 jasong 2008-12-16 07:00

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;153377]I suggest that you do something else Jasong. If you're thinking about using NewPGen for this effort, you're in trouble.

Before I reserve it for you, I'd like a detailed plan of how you are going to attack it.

This is not something you can get in the middle of and then hand off to someone else without creating a HUGE mess.

We have Riesel and Sierp base 3 mini drives that a quad would be very effective on and that are easy to run. But you do have to send a completed results file on them when you are done.

Thanks,
Gary[/QUOTE]
I understand your concern, seeing as I have been unreliable in the past. But, actually, my intention was to use pfgw and the scripts to only test to n=10,000, then find a way to daisy-chain sieve the numbers with no prime n below 10,000. I think it will speed up the process a great deal. Actually, assuming some really reliable scripts, I think pfgw should only be used up to about n=1,000 to 5,000 then daisy-chain the remaining n s for the second run.

(I just talked to someone in IRC, and they recommended srsieve and srfile for the task)

Have faith in the Mad One. ;)

 gd_barnes 2008-12-17 03:23

[quote=jasong;153542]I understand your concern, seeing as I have been unreliable in the past. But, actually, my intention was to use pfgw and the scripts to only test to n=10,000, then find a way to daisy-chain sieve the numbers with no prime n below 10,000. I think it will speed up the process a great deal. Actually, assuming some really reliable scripts, I think pfgw should only be used up to about n=1,000 to 5,000 then daisy-chain the remaining n s for the second run.

(I just talked to someone in IRC, and they recommended srsieve and srfile for the task)

Have faith in the Mad One. ;)[/quote]

I haven't a clue what you mean by "daisy chain" nor do I think anyone else here does either as the term has never been used in any of the 3 projects that I have worked on or been an admin for. Srsieve sieves many k's at once (>100000 of them I think) if that is what you are referring to.

How about reserving a much smaller range? Until you know fully how to do something, it helps the admins if you'll just bite off a small piece. It's a tremendous effort to review things on this base if there are errors.

Please reserve k=700M-710M instead. It doesn't hurt to start small like others did at first. If you get the hang of it there, then do the remaining k=710M-800M.

Here is what I need from you when you are done:
All primes for n>= 1000.
All k's remaining.

I will double-check the effort by running the range up to n=1000 and using the k's remaining at that point to remove k's where you found a prime for n>=1000 to balance to the k's remaining.

One more thing: Will you be testing to n=25K?

Edit: One final thing: Why have you chosen to do one of the most difficult efforts on virtually this entire project? I'm just curious. Seeing as you haven't participated in the project previously, wouldn't it make more sense to choose something different to get your feet wet first?

Gary

 gd_barnes 2008-12-17 04:01

[quote=KEP;153402]@ Gary:

To remove redundant k's, I've done the following:

Copied them to a spreadsheet which held all remaining k's at n=25000. I then used 3^q division on the k's sent to me, and asked the spreadsheet to check if the 3^q divided number appeared previously in the list. If it appeared, then no need to check remaining k, if the division however did not appear, there is need to still check the number for prime at a later basis.

I'm puzzled why using 3^q reduction should all the sudden give a problem, sinec the list used to compare to contains all k's remaining at n=25000 for all k<=500M which is far higher than any divisionable result using 3^q division.

Anyway I'll still send you a compressed version of my website, in hope it makes things a bit more clear. However due to reasont mistakes, I'm glad that I at this early stage decided to handback the Riesel base 3 conjecture, since something that shouldn't have been errorneous was somehow made errorneous.

Hope that you figure it out.

Regards

KEP[/quote]

Clearly the problem is related to k's divisible by 3^q where q>=2. That is k's divisible by 9, 27, 81, etc.

This is something that we had gone over several times before and I'm 100% sure that you had it right or I wouldn't have recommended you to admin this effort. It seems that you're leaving a step out now.

Here are the first 5 k's that you had remaining for your k=250M-500M range that are not truly remaining:

k=250318188 divisible by 3^6 giving k=343372; prime at n=178255
k=259005168 divisible by 3^3 giving k=9592784; prime at n=52541
k=259292268 divisible by 3^2 giving k=28810252; lower k is remaining
k=259613766 divisible by 3^2 giving k=28845974; lower k is remaining
k=259662978 divisible by 3^2 giving k=28851442; prime at n=32807

These k's divisible by 3 you had correct:
k=257199354 divisible by 3^3 giving k=9525902; prime at n=3
(n <= q hence k=257199354 remains)
k=267813198 divisible by 3^2 giving k=29757022; prime at n=2
(n <= q hence k=267813198 remains)

But as you know, more easily, you can tell that the latter two k's are correctly remaining because they have a prime at n=0, i.e. k-1 is prime.

In the future if you test or review this effort, please check k's remaining that are divisible by 3 for a prime at n=0. If so, then they remain (very few of them); if not, then they are eliminated. That is FAR easier than going thru the 3^q process. That is why I pointed it out when the "light bulb" went on in my head in another thread.

I'm sure you can probably figure out where you went wrong by comparing the above to your spreadsheet but if you would like to attach your spreadsheet, I can point out the problem. I'm confident that it is related to k's divisible by 3^q where q>=2.

Whatever error you made on your range appeared to be the same error as when you were reviewing the other's ranges.

Gary

 KEP 2008-12-17 08:57

1 Attachment(s)
As requested is my spreadsheet attached. If it says in the code "tæl.hvis" it means "count.if" else remaining coding should be compareable to english litterature/language :smile:

KEP

 gd_barnes 2008-12-17 11:32

1 Attachment(s)
[quote=KEP;153702]As requested is my spreadsheet attached. If it says in the code "tæl.hvis" it means "count.if" else remaining coding should be compareable to english litterature/language :smile:

KEP[/quote]

Have you attached the correct spreadsheet? I hope not because this spreadsheet makes no sense at all. It has bunch of countif functions that add up to 0. How can that be correct? There are many k's that are divisible by 3 in the group so it has to be wrong.

There is nothing for me to analyze. You were doing it correctly before and I don't know why you tried to shortcut the process with this. You should go back into the original base 3 thread where we had discussions about it and I said you had done it perfectly on at least 2 occassions that I can recall.

If you tried to go with this spreadsheet method, I've attached a corrected spreadsheet so you'd at least have a decent starting point. I've then taken the k's divided by 3^q and analyzed a few of them for you. You can't just use a bunch of countif functions to determine how many are divisible by a power of 3. Please check out the formulas in the spreadsheet closely and make sure they make sense to you. After doing that, go to cell N1270. There are instructions for continuing with the analysis there.

Note that I had to change the forumlas to values in columns B thru K for k>300M due to the size restruction on postings here. But that won't affect any analysis that you do on primes for the reduced k's as instructed.

Needless to say, it's a lot easier just to look for a prime at n=0 when the k is divisible by 3 then to try to analyze back on whether the reduced k has a small prime such that the k in your list needs to remain.

BTW, your spreadsheet still has duplicate k's for k=500M-520M.

Gary

 KEP 2008-12-17 16:26

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;153715]Have you attached the correct spreadsheet? I hope not because this spreadsheet makes no sense at all. It has bunch of countif functions that add up to 0. How can that be correct? There are many k's that are divisible by 3 in the group so it has to be wrong.

There is nothing for me to analyze. You were doing it correctly before and I don't know why you tried to shortcut the process with this. You should go back into the original base 3 thread where we had discussions about it and I said you had done it perfectly on at least 2 occassions that I can recall.

If you tried to go with this spreadsheet method, I've attached a corrected spreadsheet so you'd at least have a decent starting point. I've then taken the k's divided by 3^q and analyzed a few of them for you. You can't just use a bunch of countif functions to determine how many are divisible by a power of 3. Please check out the formulas in the spreadsheet closely and make sure they make sense to you. After doing that, go to cell N1270. There are instructions for continuing with the analysis there.

Note that I had to change the forumlas to values in columns B thru K for k>300M due to the size restruction on postings here. But that won't affect any analysis that you do on primes for the reduced k's as instructed.

Needless to say, it's a lot easier just to look for a prime at n=0 when the k is divisible by 3 then to try to analyze back on whether the reduced k has a small prime such that the k in your list needs to remain.

BTW, your spreadsheet still has duplicate k's for k=500M-520M.

Gary[/QUOTE]

KEP

 gd_barnes 2008-12-18 08:40

KEP[/quote]

It looks like formula errors to me (i.e. a user error, lol). How else could you get a value of zero for a count of 3^q division when there are hundred of k's divisible by 3 within the list of k's remaining?

I'm quite familiar with many different Excel formulas and I don't understand the formulas that you have used.

One final thing: On any such effort as this, especially when administering it, always double-check yourself using a method that is completely different. Here, it's easy to look at the first 5-10 k's in your k=250M-500M range that are divisible by 3 and conclude that the spreadsheet must contain errors when it says that none of the k's are divisible by any power of 3. You can't always assume that your formulas are correct. My perception is that you double-checked yourself before.

Gary

 jasong 2008-12-18 23:53

I'm not going to rehash old stuff, but suffice it to say, I didn't understand fully what the scripts were supposed to do. so, after much wasted effort, plus some fighting with my machine to dual-boot with Linux(which was simply a distraction that caused my computer to not crunch anything for a few days) my computer has, within the last 15 minutes, begun to crunch things properly.

It should be ready for submission in about 50-55 hours. :)

Since my reservation doesn't seem to have been noted, it's for k=700M-800M

 gd_barnes 2008-12-19 19:00

[quote=jasong;153924]I'm not going to rehash old stuff, but suffice it to say, I didn't understand fully what the scripts were supposed to do. so, after much wasted effort, plus some fighting with my machine to dual-boot with Linux(which was simply a distraction that caused my computer to not crunch anything for a few days) my computer has, within the last 15 minutes, begun to crunch things properly.

It should be ready for submission in about 50-55 hours. :)

Since my reservation doesn't seem to have been noted, it's for k=700M-800M[/quote]

It hasn't been noted because I asked that you reserve a smaller range so that you can get your feet wet with this tricky effort. Did you read ANY of my last post to you? By your response, it appears not. (bangs head)

I'll ask again, why have you chosen by far the most difficult effort on this entire project as your first try at CRUS? We have many other interesting efforts that are far easier to get started with.

Jason, I don't want to be doing a large amount of verification on your range. That's why I've asked that you take a smaller range. I'll go ahead and note your large reservation now but for such a large range, if it isn't near perfect, I'll toss the whole thing out and have others do it who have more experience with it. I hope you know what you're doing and what you need to post/Email for verification.

BTW, you must be putting multiple cores on this to complete it in < 2.5 days! How are you dividing up the range across your cores?

Gary

 jasong 2008-12-21 09:32

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;154093]BTW, you must be putting multiple cores on this to complete it in < 2.5 days! How are you dividing up the range across your cores?

Gary[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it looks like it's going to take longer than I thought it would. Also, it interferes with my online gaming, so I've demoted it to only running on two cores. Not sure when it will be done, probably in the next month or so. I'll give an update at the beginning of the New Year.

I've calculated the a range of 100 million will make a file that's between 1.5 and 2GB uncompressed, and since opening the files is a real hassle, I'll go ahead and track it by file size. At the moment, they're both at about 82MB. Still a ways to go.

 KEP 2008-12-21 10:36

[QUOTE=jasong;154379]Yeah, it looks like it's going to take longer than I thought it would. Also, it interferes with my online gaming, so I've demoted it to only running on two cores. Not sure when it will be done, probably in the next month or so. I'll give an update at the beginning of the New Year.

I've calculated the a range of 100 million will make a file that's between 1.5 and 2GB uncompressed, and since opening the files is a real hassle, I'll go ahead and track it by file size. At the moment, they're both at about 82MB. Still a ways to go.[/QUOTE]

If you test it to n=25000 using only -f and PRP testing, you will most likely be able to complete 4M k's a day, which gives a completion time of ~25 days :smile:

Just hope you get the PRPs being composite right and that you get the remaining k's right, since that really needs to be accurate.

Regards

KEP

EDIT: My assumption of 25 days is only correct or close to correct, if you only test even k's and use the "at most 1 prime" function, else you're going to be in for a lot longer race.

 jasong 2008-12-26 08:22

[QUOTE=KEP;154380]EDIT: My assumption of 25 days is only correct or close to correct, if you only test even k's and use the "at most 1 prime" function, else you're going to be in for a lot longer race.[/QUOTE]
lol, if that were true, 25 centuries would probably be a better estimate.

Edit: I must only have noticed your -f subconsciously, because I didn't realize my mistake until after I had already posted another message. So a lot of time has been wasted, but I fixed the problem. :) As for the other two things, they were already being done.

Thanks for accidentally helping me to figure out why my file size was growing slower than before.

 gd_barnes 2008-12-27 11:32

[quote=jasong;155111]lol, if that were true, 25 centuries would probably be a better estimate.

Edit: I must only have noticed your -f subconsciously, because I didn't realize my mistake until after I had already posted another message. So a lot of time has been wasted, but I fixed the problem. :) As for the other two things, they were already being done.

Thanks for accidentally helping me to figure out why my file size was growing slower than before.[/quote]

I believe this is a hopeless cause and am unreserving the range because I would want others to double-check your effort anyway.

Clearly, you don't know what you're doing and you STILL haven't answered my question as to why you reserved such a large range for one of the most difficult efforts on this project.

The fact that it interferes with your online gaming indicates little dedication to accurately completing the range.

Please find an easier effort here or another project to work on.

Gary

 gd_barnes 2008-12-27 11:34

Micha,

What is the status of your k=520M-600M range? There has been no word on it since Nov. 15th.

Chris,

What is the status of your k=660M-700M range?

Thanks,
Gary

 Flatlander 2008-12-27 12:33

[quote=gd_barnes;155293]Micha,

What is the status of your k=520M-600M range? There has been no word on it since Nov. 15th.

Chris,

What is the status of your k=660M-700M range?

Thanks,
Gary[/quote]
660-680 is complete, I just need to make sure everything 'adds up'.
680-700 is half done. 2nd half postponed while I push the new sieving drive at NPLB for a week or two.

 gd_barnes 2008-12-27 12:56

[quote=Flatlander;155297]660-680 is complete, I just need to make sure everything 'adds up'.
680-700 is half done. 2nd half postponed while I push the new sieving drive at NPLB for a week or two.[/quote]

Great, thanks. Feel free to post the info. for the completion of the partial range after you have reviewed it if you want to and have the time.

I'm trying to get all of the reservations as up-to-date as possible for year end.

 Flatlander 2008-12-27 15:28

I'm fiddling with a little program that compares a file of candidates with a file of primes and outputs a file with the remaining ks? (It's very specific to this conjecture.)
I have it working but I'm going to refine it. Which format do you prefer for remaining ks?

xxxxxxxx
yyyyyyy
zzzzzzzz
or
xxxxxxxx*3^n-1
yyyyyyy*3^n-1
zzzzzzzz*3^n-1

 gd_barnes 2008-12-27 18:55

[quote=Flatlander;155303]I'm fiddling with a little program that compares a file of candidates with a file of primes and outputs a file with the remaining ks? (It's very specific to this conjecture.)
I have it working but I'm going to refine it. Which format do you prefer for remaining ks?

xxxxxxxx
yyyyyyy
zzzzzzzz
or
xxxxxxxx*3^n-1
yyyyyyy*3^n-1
zzzzzzzz*3^n-1[/quote]

The first one. I can quickly concatenate it into a bunch of k's to list on the web pages.

Gary

 jasong 2008-12-28 11:08

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;155292]I believe this is a hopeless cause and am unreserving the range because I would want others to double-check your effort anyway.

Clearly, you don't know what you're doing and you STILL haven't answered my question as to why you reserved such a large range for one of the most difficult efforts on this project.

The fact that it interferes with your online gaming indicates little dedication to accurately completing the range.

Please find an easier effort here or another project to work on.

Gary[/QUOTE]
DO NOT unreserve my range, I intend to complete it. As for my "gaming addiction" there are plenty of people who don't like to run DCing projects ALL THE TIME.

With all due respect, I feel like I am being DISRESPECTED. If my range ends up being a mish-mashed piece of crap then don't accept it, but don't just unreserve it on a whim.

Edit: How about I send you what I've already done so you know I'm reliable? I've had to restart my machine at least once since I started, meaning an edit to one of the files. So if you find any mistakes(which I don't think you will), than you can tell me to give it up and I'll do something else.

Sound fair?

 gd_barnes 2008-12-29 06:06

[quote=jasong;155427]DO NOT unreserve my range, I intend to complete it. As for my "gaming addiction" there are plenty of people who don't like to run DCing projects ALL THE TIME.

With all due respect, I feel like I am being DISRESPECTED. If my range ends up being a mish-mashed piece of crap then don't accept it, but don't just unreserve it on a whim.

Edit: How about I send you what I've already done so you know I'm reliable? I've had to restart my machine at least once since I started, meaning an edit to one of the files. So if you find any mistakes(which I don't think you will), than you can tell me to give it up and I'll do something else.

Sound fair?[/quote]

Yes, you are being disrespected and I'm intentionally doing so because you refuse to answer my questions so I'll ask them a 3rd time below. It's not a whim that I've unreserved your range as you'll see below.

What irritates me so much about this, Jason, is not so much that you took on one of the most difficult efforts here while knowing little about it, it's that you reserved such a HUGE range on one of the most difficult efforts and proceeded to inspire no confidence in your manner of attacking it. That after you reserved a huge sieving range at NPLB and messed it up badly after messing up your LLRing range. The sieving mess delayed us nearly 2 weeks on that sieving drive as we piece-mealed together to find out what ranges that you had left undone, which were many of them. You reserved nearly half of the range that we had in the entire sieving drive. I and several others were not happy at all.

On this effort, you initially indicated that you would try to "daisy chain" sieve (whatever that means) using NewPGen before finding out that you needed to use srsieve. You have had to restart twice, missed the very elementary PFGW switch -f, and didn't have it stop after finding one prime for each k, another very elementary mistake. You also gave a 2.5-day estimate for at least a 30-day effort on 2 cores. You'll have to excuse me if you don't inspire any confidence nor respect after that and the NPLB mess.

Back to your post: I won't be able to judge how accurate you are until I see you complete at least part of the range to n=25K. Do you have any part of the range complete to n=25K yet? It's easy to use PFGW to get it up to n=2.5K or 5K or 10K. Making the transition to the sieving and LLRing/Phroting for n=2.5K-25K (or 5K-25K or 10K-25K) is not easy at all unless you know exactly what you are doing. If you're still PFGWing, me checking you won't give me any confidence that you will correctly make the transition to the higher n-range.

I'll tell you what, I will re-reserve the range for you on one condition only: I will ask for the THIRD time and I expect an answer this time:

1. Why have you chosen one of the most difficult efforts at CRUS?

2. Why have you reserved such a huge range? Why not just try k=700M-710M? There would be no problem finishing that in 3-4 days on 2 cores.

One more question that I want answered but you never did so satisfactorily:

How do you intend to attack this, what is your estimated completion date, and how did you arrive at your estimate? I need exact details that might look something like:
1. PFGW all k's to n=5K using the -f switch.
2. Use xxxx script/program/process to compare primes found to total k's in the range to determine k's remaining.
3. Use k's remaining from #2 to sieve n=5K-25K using srsieve. (Note: Please state HOW you will use srsieve...that is the switches you will use and the input file that you will use.)
4. Use Phrot to test k's remaining for n=5K-25K.
5. Estimated completion is Jan. 30th. It took me X days to complete an k=10M range to n=25K therefore, it should take 10X days to complete the k=100M range to n=25K.

That is not the method that I recommend nor necessarily a reasonable estimate but it is the level of detail that I need to know that you understand what you are doing.

Answering those questions will force you to plan ahead, which is what is needed on a difficult effort like this. This is not something that you can do a whim like many efforts.

If the idea of these conjectures interests you, why not reserve some files from one of our pre-existing drives? We have plenty of them and if you reserve small ranges that would take less than one week on 1-2 cores, I won't ask any questions. :smile:

Gary

 KEP 2008-12-29 16:56

Status for Riesel base 3 k>100M to k<200M:

Core 1: n=61078 (67 PRPs found)
Core 2: n=68871 (79 PRPs found)
Core 3: n=54007 (51 PRPs found)
Core 4: n=57834 (54 PRPs found)

+ 16 additional PRPs for the n=25001 to n=26000 range.

A total of PRPs out of 490 possible is found. Less than 250000 tests remain. ETA is 4-6 weeks, maybe less since now a total of 4 commited cores on the Quad has been reinstated for this particular challenge.

Regards

KEP

EDIT: k=3677878 is still at n=298000 and testings is not scheduled to begin for earliest 1 week from now! (~13550 remain)

 michaf 2008-12-29 21:09

I have had very little time due to work-issues (moving a whole shop around, moving another one to a new location, and now, a few days more worth of counting every item we have in stock. (with an approx count of 80k items...)

Status now:
done upto 550M,
550-560M done, but need to do the accounting,
560-600M done upto 2k
560-570M sieving done

[quote=gd_barnes;155293]Micha,

What is the status of your k=520M-600M range? There has been no word on it since Nov. 15th.

Chris,

What is the status of your k=660M-700M range?

Thanks,
Gary[/quote]

 jasong 2008-12-30 05:08

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;155546]On this effort, you initially indicated that you would try to "daisy chain" sieve (whatever that means) using NewPGen before finding out that you needed to use srsieve.[/quote]
NewPGen, even though it isn't documented, accepts command-line arguments in Windows. I was going to ask a friend of mine to help me make a script to do this. This is before I discovered that a script was already made.

[quote]Back to your post: I won't be able to judge how accurate you are until I see you complete at least part of the range to n=25K. Do you have any part of the range complete to n=25K yet? It's easy to use PFGW to get it up to n=2.5K or 5K or 10K. Making the transition to the sieving and LLRing/Phroting for n=2.5K-25K (or 5K-25K or 10K-25K) is not easy at all unless you know exactly what you are doing. If you're still PFGWing, me checking you won't give me any confidence that you will correctly make the transition to the higher n-range.[/quote]
Since Windows doesn't seem to have any good programs for dealing with large text files, and since my Linux laptop has kicked the bucket(hopefully, only temporarily) I am forced to use indirect methods to gauge my progress. I've calculated that when my range is finished, I will have a little over 415,000kB of data. Right now, I have about 87,000kB of data, plus whatever is still in the write cache. I have no idea when I will finish, but I'll stick with it.

[quote]I'll tell you what, I will re-reserve the range for you on one condition only: I will ask for the THIRD time and I expect an answer this time:

1. Why have you chosen one of the most difficult efforts at CRUS?[/quote]
I mean this with the utmost respect, my apology will come at the end of the message, but...I am not a stupid person. I am not accusing you of calling me stupid or insulting me, even though I'm sure many people on Mersenne Forum think I'm an idiot. Between the time of the fiasco with NPLB range(I think that was the project affected) and now, I have had the opportunity to start on, and adjust to, a new psychiatric medication. Despite the fact that I've been away from psychiatric hospitals for about a decade, it is only recently that I found a medication that causes me to be consistently stable and, to be honest, not as much of an ass.(I hope) I believe I am now capable of handling complex tasks, such as baby-sitting one of these ranges. I still have crazy moments, but now the come less frequently and it's easier for me to come down from them.

I intend to be very careful with this range and do my best(high chance of success, in my opinion) to make 4 sub-range files of first prime below n=25,000 for each k in my range.

I will then compress these large files, along with a list of the remaining ks and email them to the required address.

[quote]2. Why have you reserved such a huge range? Why not just try k=700M-710M? There would be no problem finishing that in 3-4 days on 2 cores.[/quote]
That's a good question. Honestly, while you may not like this, I intended to run it for a few days to see how long it would take, and then possibly unreserve a chunk. Hindsight tells me this was disrespectful, and I'm sorry, but I do intend to complete the range as reserved.

[quote]One more question that I want answered but you never did so satisfactorily:

How do you intend to attack this, what is your estimated completion date, and how did you arrive at your estimate? I need exact details that might look something like:[/quote]
I do not know the completion date, I intend to figure it out in the next few days. But I'm fairly certain it will be completed before the end of January. IT IS a huge range, but no worse than the situation with first-pass Mersenne numbers. I intend to complete it
[quote]1. PFGW all k's to n=5K using the -f switch.[/quote]
PFGW all k's to n=25K using the -f switch. <--
[quote]2. Use xxxx script/program/process to compare primes found to total k's in the range to determine k's remaining.[/quote]
I barely have the skills to verify this stuff, I'm hoping it can be done when I report them. Unless I'm totally confused about the instructions I found in this forum, all the ks should be accounted for in the eight files I send, 4 sub-ranges of my range with found primes, and 4 files for ks that have no prime n below n=25,000 for the same range.
[quote]3. Use k's remaining from #2 to sieve n=5K-25K using srsieve. (Note: Please state HOW you will use srsieve...that is the switches you will use and the input file that you will use.)[/quote]
Actually, there are a couple things I could do. As I said earlier, Windows NewPGen has an undocumented command-line feature. I think it would be best to use a script to systematically take the unprimed ks to 1G with NewPGen, then combine the files with srfile and sieve the resulting file until I've got a good rate of n removal, at which point I'll post on the forum to see what the project wants me to do with the file after that.(I might do things differently, I'll be sure to clarify things when I submit my range.)
[quote]4. Use Phrot to test k's remaining for n=5K-25K.[/quote]
I've never used Phrot. As high as n=25,000 is, which is what I'm doing, I think LLR would suffice.
[quote]5. Estimated completion is Jan. 30th. It took me X days to complete an k=10M range to n=25K therefore, it should take 10X days to complete the k=100M range to n=25K.[/quote]
January 30 is the date you confiscate my reservation if it hasn't been returned. Does that sound good? :)

[quote]Gary[/QUOTE]
Thank you for you patience, I'm sorry if we got off on the wrong foot.

I know I promised an apology here, but I can't seem to come up with the words here. Truthfully, even though I've been rude to you in the past week, you are one of the more well mannered people on this Forum. Honestly, I somehow find the values I admire in meatspace reprehensible in cyberspace. Until I have time to think about things, of course.

HAVE A GREAT DAY!!! :)

 gd_barnes 2008-12-30 12:01

Well, Jason, you've answered my questions and I thank you. Answered, yes; satisfactorally, not really.

Despite how disrespectful I've been towards you, it's clear to me that you are not stupid...just unfocused and extremely disorganized. I've read some of your posts in other forums and you have some math skills. The problem is that if it's a difficult effort, you have to take the time to learn about it and that can require a lot of focus and a fair amount of organization by taking notes, saving links, etc. Sometimes learning about something and becoming more organized can get boring but when you're done, all of a sudden, it becomes more fun because you can do it right the first time!

Unfortunately there isn't really much that you wrote here that convinces me that you can give an accurate accounting of all of the k's in 30 days.

Are you really going to use PFGW to test every k to n=25000? If so, you're in trouble. The effort will take you months! You have to sieve and then run LLR or Phrot for the higher n-ranges. Trial factoring with the -f switch in PFGW will be far too slow for such a large k-range. I admit that I did just that for a k=10M range because I wanted to start it and forget it but I wouldn't dream of doing it for a k=100M range.

One thing I should warn you about PFGW: If you are telling it to stop processing a k when it finds a prime for the k (which you should), if you stop PFGW in the middle, it will NOT remember the k's that it has found primes for when you restart it. This can mess you up big! For that reason, I recommend doing one k to n=25K, the next k to n=25K, and so on instead of progressing upwards by n-value on all k's at once. If you have to restart, it's a quick change to the PFGW script to make it start at the k where it left off.

I need one more thing from you:

What is your current status? Let me give more detail:

I think you said you were running 2 cores so...
Please look in your 2 PFGW GUI windows and tell me what they say. By that I mean:
1. What k is it processing and what n-value is it at?
-or-
2. If it is scrolling thru the ranges too fast to see, please tell me what the last 3-PRP that it found is.

One of those two things will tell me just about all that I need to know. With that info., I can likely calculate a nearly exact estimated completion date for you.

If you give me that last bit of info., I'll be glad to reserve it for you until Jan. 31st; a few extra days even. I'll say this: I don't believe it is possible to get there using only PFGW unless you put a lot more than 2 cores on it.

Also, I may ask for that last bit of info. 1-2 times a week to make sure that you are progressing at a rate that would allow completion in the amount of time that you think it should.

Gary

 gd_barnes 2008-12-30 12:14

[quote=KEP;155611]Status for Riesel base 3 k>100M to k<200M:

Core 1: n=61078 (67 PRPs found)
Core 2: n=68871 (79 PRPs found)
Core 3: n=54007 (51 PRPs found)
Core 4: n=57834 (54 PRPs found)

+ 16 additional PRPs for the n=25001 to n=26000 range.

A total of PRPs out of 490 possible is found. Less than 250000 tests remain. ETA is 4-6 weeks, maybe less since now a total of 4 commited cores on the Quad has been reinstated for this particular challenge.

Regards

KEP

EDIT: k=3677878 is still at n=298000 and testings is not scheduled to begin for earliest 1 week from now! (~13550 remain)[/quote]

Thanks for the update and nice progress on k=100M-200M! :smile:

Kenneth, if you can forward me your primes at this point, that would help me out. I'm trying to encourage people to post statuses more frequently on efforts where a lot of primes are being found. Having them broken up in smaller pieces allows me to not get so far behind all at once in keeping the pages updated.

Without the primes, I can't reflect any n-range status updates on the pages because they would be out of sync with the primes and k's remaining.

Thanks!

Gary

 gd_barnes 2008-12-30 12:17

[quote=michaf;155660]I have had very little time due to work-issues (moving a whole shop around, moving another one to a new location, and now, a few days more worth of counting every item we have in stock. (with an approx count of 80k items...)

Status now:
done upto 550M,
550-560M done, but need to do the accounting,
560-600M done upto 2k
560-570M sieving done[/quote]

Micha,

Thanks for the update.

Can you send me your primes and k's remaining up to k=550M right now? Like I was saying to Kenneth in the last post, it helps me keep from getting too far behind on verification and udpating of the pages for efforts with a lot of primes and k's.

Thanks,
Gary

 KEP 2008-12-30 15:04

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;155768]Thanks for the update and nice progress on k=100M-200M! :smile:

Kenneth, if you can forward me your primes at this point, that would help me out. I'm trying to encourage people to post statuses more frequently on efforts where a lot of primes are being found. Having them broken up in smaller pieces allows me to not get so far behind all at once in keeping the pages updated.

Without the primes, I can't reflect any n-range status updates on the pages because they would be out of sync with the primes and k's remaining.

Thanks!

Gary[/QUOTE]

I can send you the primes as soon as I've the PRPs verified. Thanks for reminding me of having to send you the primes from time to time. I expect to find a total of 368 primes out of 490 possible. But in stead of yaping I should be getting to verify the PRPs.

Take care everyone!

Kenneth!

 Flatlander 2008-12-30 15:20

1 Attachment(s)
I have finished 660-700M. (I got restless.)

I ran it on two cores and got a surprising result.
660-680 resulted in 87 primes remaining.
680-700 resulted in 124 primes remaining.
(Redundant ks were not tested; as per your new testing idea.)

I have manually checked my script (k from 1 to 200) to make sure that everything is being tested as it should. Ks were tested/not tested exactly as expected.

"Primes are very strange" but perhaps you could check the distribution of the remaining ks to see if I need to double-check?

 michaf 2008-12-30 17:09

Sent two minutes ago.

[quote=gd_barnes;155769]Micha,

Thanks for the update.

Can you send me your primes and k's remaining up to k=550M right now? Like I was saying to Kenneth in the last post, it helps me keep from getting too far behind on verification and udpating of the pages for efforts with a lot of primes and k's.

Thanks,
Gary[/quote]

 jasong 2008-12-31 04:27

(Stuff that was important when it was written has been deleted because it doesn't apply to my reply :) )[QUOTE=gd_barnes;155767]Unfortunately there isn't really much that you wrote here that convinces me that you can give an accurate accounting of all of the k's in 30 days.

Are you really going to use PFGW to test every k to n=25000? If so, you're in trouble. The effort will take you months! You have to sieve and then run LLR or Phrot for the higher n-ranges. Trial factoring with the -f switch in PFGW will be far too slow for such a large k-range. I admit that I did just that for a k=10M range because I wanted to start it and forget it but I wouldn't dream of doing it for a k=100M range.[/quote]
I'm not really sure whether that's true or not, I've figured the total amount of data that will result by noticing that all the ks that don't yield primes are are comprised of a line 15 bytes long, like so...

7xxxxxxxx*3^n-1

So, that means that the minimum size of all the files at the end will be 15 bytes times 50,000,000 individual ks, which amounts to 750,000,000, which, while a definite minimum, is probably only about 10% less(if that) than what will actually result. The last I looked, I have two files so far, one is about 82,000kB and the other is about 89,000kB(this is how Windows displays things, so I'm going to keep things simple by going by that)

(random edit: I have recently eaten a huge meal and my sleeping patterns have been bad in the past few days, so I'm feeling decidely unsteady. I hope that doesn't show in my writing)

The scripts I'm using, which weren't written by me because I found them on the CRU forums, stop processing a k when a prime is found, and...While I don't think I'm capable of writing a program on my own in any decent amount of time, I am capable of understanding the very well written :exclaim: script enough that I can use a combination of my Linux laptop's tail program and a small change to the script to continue from where I left off. Unfortunately, my Linux laptop kicked the bucket a couple days ago, and my friend who was going to help me fix it(no offense meant if he's reading this) has gone temporarily AWOL.

[quote]One thing I should warn you about PFGW: If you are telling it to stop processing a k when it finds a prime for the k (which you should), if you stop PFGW in the middle, it will NOT remember the k's that it has found primes for when you restart it. This can mess you up big! For that reason, I recommend doing one k to n=25K, the next k to n=25K, and so on instead of progressing upwards by n-value on all k's at once. If you have to restart, it's a quick change to the PFGW script to make it start at the k where it left off.[/quote]
I'm fading fast, so I'll go ahead and leave this out of order. Sorry.

[quote]I need one more thing from you:

What is your current status? Let me give more detail:

I think you said you were running 2 cores so...
Please look in your 2 PFGW GUI windows and tell me what they say. By that I mean:
1. What k is it processing and what n-value is it at?
-or-
2. If it is scrolling thru the ranges too fast to see, please tell me what the last 3-PRP that it found is.

One of those two things will tell me just about all that I need to know. With that info., I can likely calculate a nearly exact estimated completion date for you.[/quote]
I'm not sure how long it will take for one of these files to open, so I'll click on both and hope they're open by the time I'm done with my bedtime routine.

Here we go:

714,193,524*3^3-1 and 740,618,462*3^2-1 (commas added by me) are the last primes found in the file. I'm doing them in ranges of 25 million, so both ranges have about 5 million numbers to go. Then, hopefully with a better strategy, I'll crunch 750 million to 800 million.

If I may make a request: NewPGen works command-line, very much like it's Linux counterpart. The file of ks that haven't yielded a prime is basically lines of the form 7xxxxxxxx*3^n-1. If someone could make a script that could take these k-values, whatever they are, listed this way, plus a range of n, and tell it to sieve that range to 1G, then someone could simply use srfile to patch them all together and sieve them higher. Not sure how difficult that would be, and I'm by no means demanding the script.
[quote]...Also, I may ask for that last bit of info. 1-2 times a week to make sure that you are progressing at a rate that would allow completion in the amount of time that you think it should.[/quote]
I'll watch it as well. I've got more free time than I deserve, so after my laptop gets fixed(hopefully) I intend to dig around on the Internet to try to make that script I mentioned.

[quote]Gary[/QUOTE]
Remember the Bon Jovi song,"Sleep When I'm Dead?" Well, if there's an earthquake or any other horrible emergency in the next 5 hours or so, I'm a goner. Good night.

 gd_barnes 2008-12-31 04:38

Thanks to all for sending the primes and k's remaining as needed. That will help a lot. I'll be on a business trip from Jan. 1st to 7th. Being able to partially update primes and k's remaining for your ranges will save me a lot of time when I get back.

Gary

 gd_barnes 2008-12-31 05:04

Jason,

I can tell quite a bit by the latest primes that you posted:

1. You are searching by k-value. (That's good!)

2. You have progressed far more quickly than I expected. (That's even better!) :smile:

3. I was correct in saying you could not finish in 30 days by only using PFGW but wrong in saying you could not finish by Jan. 31st. (That's good too! lol)

So all good news.

Here's an estimate for you:
Your starting date/time: Dec. 18th @ 11:40 PM GMT
(as per a post by you in this thread)

Current date/time of your recent status post: Dec. 31st @ 4:25 AM GMT

Amount of time elapsed so far: 12 days, 4 hour, 45 mins or 12.2 days. <-----

Ranges completed so far:
k=700M-714.19M or 14.19M
-and-
k=725M-740.62M or 15.62M

Total completed: 14.19M+15.62M = 29.81M

Total range to test k=700M-800M or 100M.

Percentage complete: 29.81M / 100M = 29.81% <-----

Total estimated time to complete entire range:

12.2 days / 29.81% = ~41 days

Starting date: Dec. 18th

Estimated completion date: Dec. 18th + 41 days = Jan. 28th <-----

Note: This assumes that you have set PFGW to search all k's up to n=25K. If so, you're in good shape. If not, you're in very bad shape.

Please use this as a guide for estimating completion dates in the future. It's quite simple once you've done it a couple of times. If you have any questions, just ask. Note: This only applies when you are searching by k-value. If searching by n-value, it is much trickier.

How about that? The estimate comes right in near the end of Jan! OK, you have your chance. Don't mess it up! lol I'll officially reserve the range for you. In your situation, using PFGW for the entire thing is probably best even if it's not very efficient. It's simple and you don't have to do much other than making sure that it is continuing to run. Please make sure that all k's are accounted for when you are done.

One more request: When your k=700M-725M and 725M-750M ranges are done, please sort the primes by n-value and send me all primes for n>500. That will save a lot of space going back and forth. It is no problem for me to rerun all of the primes for n<=500 in < 1 day for verification purposes. If you can't find a way to sort the file by n-value, then you should probably send me all of the primes. If you need to send 10 Emails to do so, that is fine.

One more instruction: Be sure and check for primes in both the prime-pfgw.log and pfgw.log files. You don't want to miss a bunch of them.

One final thing: Please make sure your computer is on at all times and crunching on 2 cores. Please think ahead here. Several problems that can affect continuous 24x7 efforts:
1. Make sure that any automatic Windows updates that restart your computer are turned off.
2. If it is an always connected machine, make sure that your virus protection is up to date.
3. If online gaming on the machine, make sure that your memory is sufficient so that the machine does not lock up while playing and running 2 cores on PFGW.
4. If others will use the machine, make sure that they know the machine is always turned on and not to mess with anything at the bottom of the screen. I've had my kids shut my machine off accidently when they were trying to turn it on because the monitor was turned off. They didn't know the machine was already on.

Gary

 gd_barnes 2008-12-31 13:36

[quote=Flatlander;155810]I have finished 660-700M. (I got restless.)

I ran it on two cores and got a surprising result.
660-680 resulted in 87 primes remaining.
680-700 resulted in 124 primes remaining.
(Redundant ks were not tested; as per your new testing idea.)

I have manually checked my script (k from 1 to 200) to make sure that everything is being tested as it should. Ks were tested/not tested exactly as expected.

"Primes are very strange" but perhaps you could check the distribution of the remaining ks to see if I need to double-check?[/quote]

Chris,

You'll need to send me the primes first for a reasonable verification.

I can only say two things at this point:
1. It appears that you have tested appropriate MOB. All 9 k's remaining that are divisible by 3 are prime for k-1.
2. Yes, it is very possible to have 87 k's remaining in one range and 124 k's remaining in the next range of the same size.

One final thing: The total of 211 k's remaining for a k=40M range compares very reasonably to the 144 k's remaining for a k=30M range (after removing appropriate MOB) that Micha just sent me.

After getting the primes for n>1000 or something close to that, I can do final verification and list the range as complete and show the k's remaining on the pages.

Thanks,
Gary

 gd_barnes 2008-12-31 14:09

[quote=KEP;155611]Status for Riesel base 3 k>100M to k<200M:

Core 1: n=61078 (67 PRPs found)
Core 2: n=68871 (79 PRPs found)
Core 3: n=54007 (51 PRPs found)
Core 4: n=57834 (54 PRPs found)

+ 16 additional PRPs for the n=25001 to n=26000 range.

A total of PRPs out of 490 possible is found. Less than 250000 tests remain. ETA is 4-6 weeks, maybe less since now a total of 4 commited cores on the Quad has been reinstated for this particular challenge.

Regards

KEP

EDIT: k=3677878 is still at n=298000 and testings is not scheduled to begin for earliest 1 week from now! (~13550 remain)[/quote]

Very good. Your total in this post is 267 primes but you sent me 269 primes. I assume that you found 2 more primes between the time you posted this and when you sent me the primes.

On the web pages, I will only eliminate k's and show primes for n<=54K since that is the highest range you have fully completed. If I knew what cores were on what k-range, it would still be too messy and time-consuming to divide up your range on the pages. The n-ranges and primes found have to be in sync or we can lose track of where we are at.

I won't lose the primes for n=54K-68K. They'll just be waiting to post later on when all of your k-ranges are at n>=68K.

Gary

All times are UTC. The time now is 04:10.