LLRnet IB8000 has completed 352K355K; lresults emailed to Gary. :smile:

Reserving n=400K420K for port 8000. :smile:

Reserving n=420K430K for port 8000.

Ian has processed the results for n=355K360K to me. He will also be checking it against the sieve file and primes in several places. Once it is compared to the sieve file, it will be considered complete.

As of 11 PM AZ time on Jan. 26th (6 AM GMT Jan. 27th), here is an updated count of all primes found in the 8th drive. It includes 2 primes not yet posted since they have not been submitted at top5000 yet:
[code] k primes 14001500 32 15001600 33 16001700 34 Total 99 k primes 17001800 18 18001900 24 19002000 18 Total 60 [/code] Now, if you assume that the 233 start was just some random abberation and that it should be random from that point forward, subtracting that off still gives 7657 in favor of k=14001700. With the former krange continuing to dominate, clearly k=14001700 must have a higher avg. weight than k=17002000. If anyone has time to look up and compute the avg. from [URL="http://www.rieselprime.org"]www.rieselprime.org[/URL], I'd be very curious to see it. If it's not the weight, than something else is going on. If we are getting a higher percentage of primes from almost the same # of candidates in a sieve file for 2 distinct ranges, than we may have what we've been hoping for if this continues to run at such an alarming advantage for the smaller krange...that is proof that these things may not be as random as we think they are! :smile: Looking for this type of deviation from the norm is part of the reason the project was started...to have enough searched ranges without holes in them to prove a nonrandom deviation. A little wishful thinking just yet but certainly worth further investigation. Gary 
[quote=gd_barnes;160632]With the former krange continuing to dominate, clearly k=14001700 must have a higher avg. weight than k=17002000. If anyone has time to look up and compute the avg. from [URL="http://www.rieselprime.org"]www.rieselprime.org[/URL], I'd be very curious to see it.
If it's not the weight, than something else is going on. If we are getting a higher percentage of primes from almost the same # of candidates in a sieve file for 2 distinct ranges, than we may have what we've been hoping for if this continues to run at such an alarming advantage for the smaller krange...that is proof that these things may not be as random as we think they are! :smile: Looking for this type of deviation from the norm is part of the reason the project was started...to have enough searched ranges without holes in them to prove a nonrandom deviation. A little wishful thinking just yet but certainly worth further investigation. Gary[/quote] The average weight of k=14001700 is 1805.600. For k=17002000 it is 1746.167. That's a difference of 59.433. I'm not terribly familiar with what weights mean what, but that seems like an insignificant difference to me. (For reference, my two k's I've reserved in the individual k drive are weighted 1463 and 1416, a difference of 47. Over 600K1M, the difference in the number of candidates is only 137.) I think something else is going on, whether random or not. Edit: By the way, k=14001700 has 3885 primes listed on that page, k=17002000 has 3789 primes. This correlates closely to the weights, not the recent bunching. 
I have now processed the results for this drive up to n=360K. I have compared primes found vs. the 1st post in this thread, the k=3002000 page, and Karsten's 8th drive page. Everything looks good.
Karsten, the only inconsistency that I found was that you don't have k=1647 highlighted in blue on the k=3002000 page. It appears that you are showing all k's where NPLB has found a new prime in blue. We found 1647*2^3512621 prime. Max or Ian, whenever you can, please process the results for n=360K400K for this drive to me. The lowest k/n pair in the server is now n>400K. Thanks, Gary 
[QUOTE]Max or Ian, whenever you can, please process the results for n=360K400K for this drive to me. The lowest k/n pair in the server is now n>400K.[/QUOTE]
Max, I took care of it (I hope) Ian Results emailed (6.5mb zipped) Whew 
[quote=MyDogBuster;160862]Max, I took care of it (I hope) Ian
Results emailed (6.5mb zipped) Whew[/quote] ThanksI'm glad that now there's at least three people who can process results now (myself, Gary, and you). And since I've been very busy lately and haven't had much time to devote to stuff like processing results, that is greatly appreciated. :smile: 
[QUOTE]ThanksI'm glad that now there's at least three people who can process results now (myself, Gary, and you).[/QUOTE]
Well, I'm still in training so what I did may be junk. LOL 
[QUOTE=mdettweiler;160916]ThanksI'm glad that now there's at least three people who can process results now (myself, Gary, and you). And since I've been very busy lately and haven't had much time to devote to stuff like processing results, that is greatly appreciated. :smile:[/QUOTE]
oh, you forgot the fourth one  ME! but results for 7 (in words [b]S E V E N[/b]) servers it's hard to process them and update the pages too! 
All times are UTC. The time now is 00:10. 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000  2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.