mersenneforum.org

mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   Conjectures 'R Us (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=81)
-   -   Overall Project Progress (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=22170)

KEP 2017-04-01 08:54

Overall Project Progress
 
As of April 1st 2017 the total overall progress is as follows:

563,674,901,215,566 Total Riesel k's to test (all bases)
142,501,532,757,170 Total Sierpinski k's to test (all bases)
[B]706,176,433,972,736[/B] Total k's to test (both sides, all bases)

563,642,894,149,240 Untested Riesel k's (all not fully tested bases)
142,494,941,423,544 Untested Sierpinski k's (all not fully tested bases)
[B]706,137,835,572,784[/B] Total untested k's (both sides, all not fully tested bases)

648,589 Remaining Riesel k's (all fully and partially tested bases)
186,421 Remaining Sierpinski k's (all fully and partially tested bases)
[B]835,010[/B] Remaining k's (both sides, all fully and partially tested bases)

[B]706,137,836,407,794[/B] Total k's remaining (both sides, untested+remaining k's)

[B]38,597,564,942[/B] Total k's tested or primed

0.0054657112706% of k's tested or primed
99.9945342887294% of k's remaining untested or unprimed

VBCurtis 2017-04-02 03:47

Stats that would be more relevant to track over the course of years than raw number of k's:
Number of bases proven
Number of bases with 1 k remaining
Number of bases with 2 k's remaining
Perhaps number of bases with 10 or fewer k's remaining

gd_barnes 2017-04-02 09:32

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;456000]Stats that would be more relevant to track over the course of years than raw number of k's:
Number of bases proven
Number of bases with 1 k remaining
Number of bases with 2 k's remaining
Perhaps number of bases with 10 or fewer k's remaining[/QUOTE]

We already have detailed stats for bases proven and bases with 1, 2, and 3 k's remaining:
[URL]http://www.noprimeleftbehind.net/crus/vstats_new/crus-stats.htm[/URL]
[URL]http://www.noprimeleftbehind.net/crus/tab/CRUS_tab.htm[/URL]

I too think that the total number of k's remaining on the project is not very relevant. Although I have kept a few files from testing for S280, I don't plan to ever keep track of either R280 or S280 on the pages. There are a few other huge conjectures that I don't plan to track.

I feel like KEP's statistic just encourages people to start huge bases. That is not a direction that I would like to see the project take. I would ask that people not start huge bases unless they plan to start them as part of their own side project.

gd_barnes 2017-04-02 09:38

[QUOTE=KEP;455954]As of April 1st 2017 the total overall progress is as follows:

563,674,901,215,566 Total Riesel k's to test (all bases)
142,501,532,757,170 Total Sierpinski k's to test (all bases)
[B]706,176,433,972,736[/B] Total k's to test (both sides, all bases)

563,642,894,149,240 Untested Riesel k's (all not fully tested bases)
142,494,941,423,544 Untested Sierpinski k's (all not fully tested bases)
[B]706,137,835,572,784[/B] Total untested k's (both sides, all not fully tested bases)

648,589 Remaining Riesel k's (all fully and partially tested bases)
186,421 Remaining Sierpinski k's (all fully and partially tested bases)
[B]835,010[/B] Remaining k's (both sides, all fully and partially tested bases)

[B]706,137,836,407,794[/B] Total k's remaining (both sides, untested+remaining k's)

[B]38,597,564,942[/B] Total k's tested or primed

0.0054657112706% of k's tested or primed
99.9945342887294% of k's remaining untested or unprimed[/QUOTE]

I think that this is misleading. Are you taking into account k's that have trivial factors for bases that have not been started? If not, that would amount to a huge reduction in the number of k's remaining. Regardless this is mostly irrevelant.

rebirther 2017-04-02 09:42

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;456020]We already have detailed stats for bases proven and bases with 1, 2, and 3 k's remaining:
[URL]http://www.noprimeleftbehind.net/crus/vstats_new/crus-stats.htm[/URL]
[URL]http://www.noprimeleftbehind.net/crus/tab/CRUS_tab.htm[/URL]

I too think that the total number of k's remaining on the project is not very relevant. Although I have kept a few files from testing for S280, I don't plan to ever keep track of either R280 or S280 on the pages. There are a few other huge conjectures that I don't plan to track.

I feel like KEP's statistic just encourages people to start huge bases. That is not a direction that I would like to see the project take. I would ask that people not start huge bases unless they plan to start them as part of their own side project.[/QUOTE]

I like the tracking method. Never or less we will reach these huge bases in the future.

gd_barnes 2017-04-02 10:07

[QUOTE=rebirther;456024]I like the tracking method. Never or less we will reach these huge bases in the future.[/QUOTE]

The tracking method does not reduce the number of k's remaining for k's with trivial factors or algebraic factors on bases that have not been started. I say that because it would take a tremendous amount of time to get that figure exactly correct. So it is extremely misleading. KEP can you confirm that?

Bases R280 and S280 and several other conjectures could not be solved in the entire life of the known universe even with exponentional increases in computing power or with quantum computers. That's because the number of digits in the size of the final prime would be greater than the number of electrons in the entire universe. I'm not talking actual size of the prime; I'm talking the number of digits in the size of the prime. Currently our largest known prime is over 20M digits. Primes for base 280 would have well over a googol (10^100) digits. In other words the actual prime would be well over a googolplex [10^(10^100)]. There's not enough power in the entire universe to solve it. It's pointless to start many of these bases.

With the exception of bases 3/7/15, I do not plan to attempt to track any base with a conjecture > 1e9 on the pages. It is way too much effort. Others are welcome to track them as a side project and I can put a link to that project on the pages. I currently cringe when people start bases with conjectures > 1e6 now. Bases with over 10,000 k's remaining are a lot of admin effort.

If someone wants to start a side project for bases with conjectures over 1e9 I'm very much in favor of it.

MisterBitcoin 2017-04-02 12:45

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;456027]The tracking method does not reduce the number of k's remaining for k's with trivial factors or algebraic factors on bases that have not been started. I say that because it would take a tremendous amount of time to get that figure exactly correct. So it is extremely misleading. KEP can you confirm that?

Bases R280 and S280 and several other conjectures could not be solved in the entire life of the known universe even with exponentional increases in computing power or with quantum computers. That's because the number of digits in the size of the final prime would be greater than the number of electrons in the entire universe. I'm not talking actual size of the prime; I'm talking the number of digits in the size of the prime. Currently our largest known prime is over 20M digits. Primes for base 280 would have well over a googol (10^100) digits. In other words the actual prime would be well over a googolplex [10^(10^100)]. There's not enough power in the entire universe to solve it. It's pointless to start many of these bases.

With the exception of bases 3/7/15, I do not plan to attempt to track any base with a conjecture > 1e9 on the pages. It is way too much effort. Others are welcome to track them as a side project and I can put a link to that project on the pages. I currently cringe when people start bases with conjectures > 1e6 now. Bases with over 10,000 k's remaining are a lot of admin effort.

If someone wants to start a side project for bases with conjectures over 1e9 I'm very much in favor of it.[/QUOTE]


It might be usefull to add on more admin to CRUS to focus on bases ck>1e6. That would reduce the amount of admin time for you.
I did some testings on S280. Sofar I can see on S280 and S540 the prime density is rising on higher k-values. We can even see the same on S3.
I might usefull to start any base with ck<1e6 before starting any other base. (exept 280)

KEP 2017-04-02 13:23

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;456027]The tracking method does not reduce the number of k's remaining for k's with trivial factors or algebraic factors on bases that have not been started. I say that because it would take a tremendous amount of time to get that figure exactly correct. So it is extremely misleading. KEP can you confirm that?
[/QUOTE]

No this tracking method, does not remove the k's with trivial and algebraric factors, from the amount of untested k's. However it does remove the k's that you do not show on your website, from the number of remaining k's, from the fully started ranges (ranges=fully started conjecture or partially started and now shown on the CRUS website conjecture).

Since srbsieve is not really using much effort to track down the trivially factored and GFN k's, I really don't see the harm in waiting for the day that all ranges are started, to have a statistics that does only show the k's remaining that actually requires quite an effort to remove from the overall total of k's remaining :smile:

Well, since I solved my problems with accessing srbase (by using the new adress), I think I'll just post there for the future as I did for the past. It really doesn't seem like anyone here (who isn't able to find the stats at srbase website) bothers about these stats, so for the future I'll post an update at srbase website :smile:

And no, this was not to encourage anyone to start big bases, it was what it is, just plain statistics on how much effort has been done and what remains to be done :smile:

KEP 2017-04-02 13:26

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;456000]Stats that would be more relevant to track over the course of years than raw number of k's:
Number of bases proven
Number of bases with 1 k remaining
Number of bases with 2 k's remaining
Perhaps number of bases with 10 or fewer k's remaining[/QUOTE]

Well, it was also available on the srbase advanced version of the overall project progress. I however need to recontruct my spreadsheet, so it actually isn't as time consuming to show how many conjectures remain with a given amount of k's remaining. Also I need to have a better spreadsheet created, to better know how many conjectures are tested to a given n :smile:

I'm not sure, when, but it will happen over the next months, maybe around may 1st, you will again see the advanced stats returning to srbase.

MisterBitcoin 2017-04-02 14:09

[QUOTE=KEP;456034]Well, it was also available on the srbase advanced version of the overall project progress. I however need to recontruct my spreadsheet, so it actually isn't as time consuming to show how many conjectures remain with a given amount of k's remaining. Also I need to have a better spreadsheet created, to better know how many conjectures are tested to a given n :smile:

I'm not sure, when, but it will happen over the next months, maybe around may 1st, you will again see the advanced stats returning to srbase.[/QUOTE]

I´d like to see these stats here, too. :)

MyDogBuster 2017-04-03 21:12

[QUOTE]99.9945342887294% of k's remaining untested or unprimed [/QUOTE]

I find it very disappointing that after 9 years and about 200 million tests by me, that the above stat is true. Doesn't instill get up and go. I'd rather not know.

gd_barnes 2017-04-03 22:18

[QUOTE=MisterBitcoin;456030]It might be usefull to add on more admin to CRUS to focus on bases ck>1e6. That would reduce the amount of admin time for you.
I did some testings on S280. Sofar I can see on S280 and S540 the prime density is rising on higher k-values. We can even see the same on S3.
I might usefull to start any base with ck<1e6 before starting any other base. (exept 280)[/QUOTE]

That is incorrect. The prime density is lower for higher k-values. It's a mathematical certainty and could easily be demonstrated. Likely your sample size is too small. Because the smallest primes for higher k values are much higher than for smaller k values meaning fewer n=1, n=2, n=3, etc. primes for them. Just take a look at most bases and see the k's remaining for k<=1000 and k>1000.

Why are so many of the project's current participants so enamored by such huge conjectured bases? It was not that way up until a couple of years ago. Perhaps it was the advent of the srbase program. These large conjectured bases will never be proven. The point of the project was originally to prove as many of the conjectures as possible. It even states as much. I would be fine if we just stuck with bases where ck < 1M. If we complete those then moving on to CK=1M-2M is fine, etc.

I'm spending 75% of my total project update time messing with these thousands and millions of teeny primes, removing duplicate primes for the same k, and removing k's remaining. I just now finished your latest posting for S15. It took me 20-30 minutes just for that one base and there are many other things to keep updated. I had to sort the primes, remove the primes that were duplicate for each k (since that was not done like I would prefer), split out the k's remaining for only k=10M-50M, remove the primes from the remaining k's file, and format them in a manner that can be shown on the web pages. Then I have to upload the pages to the server. It is no small task.

There is virtually no one that would take on the task of doing udpates for monster conjectered bases. It is a huge task. See the above paragraph. KEP had originally taken on ONLY R3 himself as his own side project. He gave it up after less than 3 months because he saw how much effort it was just for one large conjectured base.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy doing the updates but not the huge updates. My favorite thing to do is to change one of the bases from green to gray. :-) But I also like removing k's from bases with a few hundred or especially fewer than 10 k's remaining because we can potentially prove those.

gd_barnes 2017-04-03 22:20

[QUOTE=MyDogBuster;456138]I find it very disappointing that after 9 years and about 200 million tests by me, that the above stat is true. Doesn't instill get up and go. I'd rather not know.[/QUOTE]

Like I said before and KEP aknowledged the figure is extremely over inflated. It does not remove k's with trivial or algebraic factors on bases that have not been started.

gd_barnes 2017-04-03 22:29

[QUOTE=KEP;456033]No this tracking method, does not remove the k's with trivial and algebraric factors, from the amount of untested k's. However it does remove the k's that you do not show on your website, from the number of remaining k's, from the fully started ranges (ranges=fully started conjecture or partially started and now shown on the CRUS website conjecture).
[/QUOTE]

So my point stands. The figure of k's remaining is likely over-inflated by double or even triple or more because 99.9+% of the k's remaining are on bases that have not been started. Even if you removed all odd k's on unstarted odd bases, you'd likely remove 10's of trillions of k's. So the figure means little.

[QUOTE=KEP;456033]
Since srbsieve is not really using much effort to track down the trivially factored and GFN k's, I really don't see the harm in waiting for the day that all ranges are started, to have a statistics that does only show the k's remaining that actually requires quite an effort to remove from the overall total of k's remaining :smile:
[/QUOTE]

I wish people could understand about the magnitue of storage and computing capacity required for searching 100's of trillions of k's even to only n=10K. They clearly do not.

You say srbase is not using much effort for trivially factored and GFN k's. Sure enough but try doing it on every base with 100's of trillions of k's in order to get a reasonably accurate figure for your first post here. I doubt you'll find it to be a trivial effort.

MisterBitcoin 2017-04-04 08:24

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;456139]That is incorrect. The prime density is lower for higher k-values. It's a mathematical certainty and could easily be demonstrated. Likely your sample size is too small. Because the smallest primes for higher k values are much higher than for smaller k values meaning fewer n=1, n=2, n=3, etc. primes for them. Just take a look at most bases and see the k's remaining for k<=1000 and k>1000.

Why are so many of the project's current participants so enamored by such huge conjectured bases? It was not that way up until a couple of years ago. Perhaps it was the advent of the srbase program. These large conjectured bases will never be proven. The point of the project was originally to prove as many of the conjectures as possible. It even states as much. I would be fine if we just stuck with bases where ck < 1M. If we complete those then moving on to CK=1M-2M is fine, etc.

I'm spending 75% of my total project update time messing with these thousands and millions of teeny primes, removing duplicate primes for the same k, and removing k's remaining. I just now finished your latest posting for S15. It took me 20-30 minutes just for that one base and there are many other things to keep updated. I had to sort the primes, remove the primes that were duplicate for each k (since that was not done like I would prefer), split out the k's remaining for only k=10M-50M, remove the primes from the remaining k's file, and format them in a manner that can be shown on the web pages. Then I have to upload the pages to the server. It is no small task.

There is virtually no one that would take on the task of doing udpates for monster conjectered bases. It is a huge task. See the above paragraph. KEP had originally taken on ONLY R3 himself as his own side project. He gave it up after less than 3 months because he saw how much effort it was just for one large conjectured base.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy doing the updates but not the huge updates. My favorite thing to do is to change one of the bases from green to gray. :-) But I also like removing k's from bases with a few hundred or especially fewer than 10 k's remaining because we can potentially prove those.[/QUOTE]


I´m sorry about S15 because I used the script for starting the range.
I´ll finish my S540 reservation and will make some bases n<100K.

rogue 2017-04-04 09:20

Gary, you should consider transferring the work for S7/S15/S280 etc to someone else. As you stated management of those bases waste a lot of your time.

KEP 2017-04-04 15:57

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;456141]So my point stands. The figure of k's remaining is likely over-inflated by double or even triple or more because 99.9+% of the k's remaining are on bases that have not been started. Even if you removed all odd k's on unstarted odd bases, you'd likely remove 10's of trillions of k's. So the figure means little.



I wish people could understand about the magnitue of storage and computing capacity required for searching 100's of trillions of k's even to only n=10K. They clearly do not.

You say srbase is not using much effort for trivially factored and GFN k's. Sure enough but try doing it on every base with 100's of trillions of k's in order to get a reasonably accurate figure for your first post here. I doubt you'll find it to be a trivial effort.[/QUOTE]

Something isn't quite right. On ALL odd bases ALL odd k's has been removed. However I cannot without testing all k's for trivial, GFN and MOB, remove any further k's.

It would be manageable, to remove the k's but it would mean about 700000+ spreadsheet tables would have to be created and that would require about 2100000+ minutes of work. So it could be managed, but it would make the stats much harder to do :smile:

MisterBitcoin 2017-04-04 16:57

[QUOTE=rogue;456167]Gary, you should consider transferring the work for S7/S15/S280 etc to someone else. As you stated management of those bases waste a lot of your time.[/QUOTE]


That´s an good idea. I´m willing to take care about S3/S7/S15, if you let me know what must be done.
Managing 1042 (x2) Bases is way to much for 1 person (even for two).

henryzz 2017-04-04 17:33

The correct method would be to give a database the job. It would need some initial programming but would be more efficient long term. It would also allow for through checking of bases by storing all primes n>=1(This would require a lot of disk space for bases like R3 but disk space is cheep.)

LaurV 2017-04-05 06:05

This was posted on April 1st... :smile:

sweety439 2017-04-05 16:54

[QUOTE=KEP;455954]As of April 1st 2017 the total overall progress is as follows:

563,674,901,215,566 Total Riesel k's to test (all bases)
142,501,532,757,170 Total Sierpinski k's to test (all bases)
[B]706,176,433,972,736[/B] Total k's to test (both sides, all bases)

563,642,894,149,240 Untested Riesel k's (all not fully tested bases)
142,494,941,423,544 Untested Sierpinski k's (all not fully tested bases)
[B]706,137,835,572,784[/B] Total untested k's (both sides, all not fully tested bases)

648,589 Remaining Riesel k's (all fully and partially tested bases)
186,421 Remaining Sierpinski k's (all fully and partially tested bases)
[B]835,010[/B] Remaining k's (both sides, all fully and partially tested bases)

[B]706,137,836,407,794[/B] Total k's remaining (both sides, untested+remaining k's)

[B]38,597,564,942[/B] Total k's tested or primed

0.0054657112706% of k's tested or primed
99.9945342887294% of k's remaining untested or unprimed[/QUOTE]

KEP:
How do you count with k's? Do you include trivial k's (i.e. gcd(k+-1,b-1) is not 1)? I am doubted since some bases (like SR71 and SR280) have very large CK. Besides, do you include the k's with full/partial algebraic factors? And do you include the k's which are rational powers of b?

sweety439 2017-04-05 16:59

The count of the remain k's is not the same as the count of the remain k's in [URL]http://www.noprimeleftbehind.net/crus/tab/CRUS_tab.htm[/URL].

MisterBitcoin 2017-04-05 19:37

[QUOTE=sweety439;456232]The count of the remain k's is not the same as the count of the remain k's in [URL]http://www.noprimeleftbehind.net/crus/tab/CRUS_tab.htm[/URL].[/QUOTE]

The remain k´s from CRUS_tab are the sum from all started bases/ranges.
KEP´s remain status is including the unstarted bases/ranges.

KEP 2017-04-06 20:02

[QUOTE=MisterBitcoin;456236]The remain k´s from CRUS_tab are the sum from all started bases/ranges.
KEP´s remain status is including the unstarted bases/ranges.[/QUOTE]

Correct :smile:

masser 2017-04-07 21:46

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;456020]We already have detailed stats for bases proven and bases with 1, 2, and 3 k's remaining:
[URL]http://www.noprimeleftbehind.net/crus/vstats_new/crus-stats.htm[/URL]
[URL]http://www.noprimeleftbehind.net/crus/tab/CRUS_tab.htm[/URL]

I too think that the total number of k's remaining on the project is not very relevant. Although I have kept a few files from testing for S280, I don't plan to ever keep track of either R280 or S280 on the pages. There are a few other huge conjectures that I don't plan to track.

I feel like KEP's statistic just encourages people to start huge bases. That is not a direction that I would like to see the project take. I would ask that people not start huge bases unless they plan to start them as part of their own side project.[/QUOTE]

+1. I like the stats pages Gary posted above. The only improvement might be if we added a row for "unsolvable" bases, but then we have problems defining what unsolvable means. Consider R6. I suspect the probability of finding a prime for that sequence is less than 1 now. Consider R3. As Gary mentioned, the final primes for that base won't be computable. R3 and R6 are very different cases, but both might be considered unsolvable.

MisterBitcoin 2017-04-07 21:57

[QUOTE=masser;456383]+1. I like the stats pages Gary posted above. The only improvement might be if we added a row for "unsolvable" bases, but then we have problems defining what unsolvable means. Consider R6. I suspect the probability of finding a prime for that sequence is less than 1 now. Consider R3. As Gary mentioned, the final primes for that base won't be computable. R3 and R6 are very different cases, but both might be considered unsolvable.[/QUOTE]

Well, I think both bases are solveable, but it´s a matter of time (and resources). It will take many years to do it, but it´s possible.
If BOINC would only take R3 we would see a massive progress on it. :)

VBCurtis 2017-04-08 02:58

[QUOTE=MisterBitcoin;456384]Well, I think both bases are solveable, but it´s a matter of time (and resources). It will take many years to do it, but it´s possible.
If BOINC would only take R3 we would see a massive progress on it. :)[/QUOTE]

Huh? BOINC has been working on R3 for over a year now, and we have seen massive progress. What are you talking about?

MisterBitcoin 2017-04-08 14:09

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;456388]Huh? BOINC has been working on R3 for over a year now, and we have seen massive progress. What are you talking about?[/QUOTE]

If there would be more persons for sieving on R3, BOINC would do more tests. The only person who sieves on R3 (sofar I saw it) are you.

VBCurtis 2017-04-08 19:10

[QUOTE=MisterBitcoin;456411]If there would be more persons for sieving on R3, BOINC would do more tests. The only person who sieves on R3 (sofar I saw it) are you.[/QUOTE]

Also false (well, OK, I am the only siever...). Reb nearly always has a sieve file from me in reserve from R3 that is not pushed to BOINC; there are simply more interesting things to do with those resources than to fill the channels with all R3.

I have the resources to keep BOINC running 50-100% faster on R3 than it does, but R3 just isn't a priority. We're making nice progress with the current setup, as are the multitude of other bases that Reb runs on BOINC.

rebirther 2017-04-08 19:27

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;456431]Also false (well, OK, I am the only siever...). Reb nearly always has a sieve file from me in reserve from R3 that is not pushed to BOINC; there are simply more interesting things to do with those resources than to fill the channels with all R3.

I have the resources to keep BOINC running 50-100% faster on R3 than it does, but R3 just isn't a priority. We're making nice progress with the current setup, as are the multitude of other bases that Reb runs on BOINC.[/QUOTE]

I will start some ranges for R3 soon. Due the lack of time in the past months I had no time to manage things.

gd_barnes 2017-04-10 05:22

[QUOTE=MisterBitcoin;456181]That´s an good idea. I´m willing to take care about S3/S7/S15, if you let me know what must be done.
Managing 1042 (x2) Bases is way to much for 1 person (even for two).[/QUOTE]

Good luck with that! It is far more effort than you will ever realize to get it completely right, even for one such huge base. You'll be dealing with huge primes and results files, lots of different people with different motivations, managing reservations, answering 100s of questions, dealing with many software changes that you have to make sure are right before they can be used, removing k's that have been primed, sorting primes and results, removing duplicated primes, and publicly posting and maintaining the status of the base, the k's remaining, and the reservations. I cannot begin to demonstrate the amount of effort involved.

I would definitely like CRUS to maintain the management of R3 and S3. If someone can demonstrate that they understand what is involved in managing a huge base and can demonstrate that they will stick with it for 5 years or longer and will not lose interest, I will gladly turn it over to them. I'm fine with turning over all of bases 7 and 15 and any other base with CK > 1G. Keep in mind that some of the huge bases are 10s to 100s of times larger than R3 and S3.

I am out of town now for another 10 days and don't really have time to explain in detail what needs to be done to manage a huge base. This is all that I have time to post. KEP has attempted the task. KEP can you talk with MisterBitcoin about possibly managing a huge base?

gd_barnes 2017-04-10 05:31

[QUOTE=KEP;456176]Something isn't quite right. On ALL odd bases ALL odd k's has been removed. However I cannot without testing all k's for trivial, GFN and MOB, remove any further k's.

It would be manageable, to remove the k's but it would mean about 700000+ spreadsheet tables would have to be created and that would require about 2100000+ minutes of work. So it could be managed, but it would make the stats much harder to do :smile:[/QUOTE]

Of course all odd k's on odd bases have been removed. They have a trivial factor of 2. Keep in mind that the starting bases script does not write odd k's to the trivial file for odd bases. It assumes that the user knows that such k's don't need to be tested.

Doing what you stated is a pointless task. If you want to track something meaningful for us, do this:
Look at all bases with a conjectured k less than 1M. Run all such unstarted bases through the starting bases script to get a close estimate of the number of k's that have to actually be primed for unstarted bases. Add those k's together with the k's remaining on all started bases and post those figures. That would be something that the project could reasonably shoot for.

gd_barnes 2017-04-10 05:43

[QUOTE=MisterBitcoin;456384]Well, I think both bases are solveable, but it´s a matter of time (and resources). It will take many years to do it, but it´s possible.
If BOINC would only take R3 we would see a massive progress on it. :)[/QUOTE]

I feel a little Silverman in me right now. This is ridiculous. It could not be done using all of the resources in the entire universe until the heat death of the known universe. Have you read this?:

[URL]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=456027&postcount=6[/URL]

I don't have time to explain to you why this is the case if you cannot understand it. All that you have to do is some research into the exponentional increase in the size of the final primes on bases as well as the exponentional increase into the size of the testing time.

I'll tell you what...Why don't you reserve some really big tests on a base that has a chance to be proven? You seem to think that others can just find these large primes easily. How about reserving R31 that is currently tested to n=1M? Run that up to n=2M using all of the resources that you have and get back with me on solving bases. For that matter enlist 10 of your friends to help you search that base. See how long you all last with it.

I guess I get a little tired of demonstrating to people the size of the efforts needed to prove even smaller-conjectured bases.

gd_barnes 2017-04-10 05:48

[QUOTE=rebirther;456433]I will start some ranges for R3 soon. Due the lack of time in the past months I had no time to manage things.[/QUOTE]

Take your time. Large-conjectured bases are low priority. I'd much rather you continue with the way things are going.

LaurV 2017-04-10 05:56

Gary, you are taking this too hard. Nobody wants to take away your job :razz: (and your hard earned fame, hehe).

And to the others, believe me, I did R66 to n=10k, with only 100 million k's to test, it took me more than a year and half and it was freaking difficult to manage. And of course the 706 [U]tera-k's[/U] to be tested would require at least as many tera-bytes to store the exhibited primes (assuming optimistically that you store each prime in a single byte, with some form of clever compression trick). People who want to manage giga-bases and this sort, they don't know what they are talking about and they were all sucked into this joke. Because it is nothing else than a first of April joke, I am sure KEP knew exactly what he is doing when he posted it on April first (see my post #20 in this thread). At the time of posting I was reading it and laughing and did not expect it to get to some people so deep :smile:

It is time to end the joke before you start punching and kicking each-other...

You are all April Fools now :razz:

gd_barnes 2017-04-10 06:19

I am more than happy to give away parts of my "job" on this project. lol I just want whomever does it to know what is involved. Keep in mind that very early in the project I was happy to give away R3 to KEP but he decided to give it back on his own. Now that all k's have been searched to n>=25K it is not quite so difficult to manage and so we'd like to hang on to it. Managing 100,000-300,000 k's is easier than 30G k's. ...and since we have R3 I feel we should keep S3 also. Any other base with a CK > 1G is fair game to me for others to take as their own project. For that matter I could be talked out of many bases with a CK > 1M.

I do not think KEP posted it as an April fools joke. That is why it has gotten such discussion.

KEP 2017-04-10 12:54

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;456474]KEP can you talk with MisterBitcoin about possibly managing a huge base?[/QUOTE]

Yes, done :smile:

KEP 2017-04-10 12:58

[QUOTE=LaurV;456479]You are all April Fools now :razz:[/QUOTE]

Sadly not. But I do feel sad that my human error of forgetting the "-" in srbase new website name, made me resort to post here. It was not to start a debate or discussion and it was not an april fools joke. For several years I have posted these stats on the srbase website and everyone looked at them and no one really said anything about them.

Maybe this thread afterall should just be deleted, it seems to be way off topic and it really does not benefit this project. For those interested in "my version" of the overall project progress, it will remain on the srbase website. So Gary, if you ever decide to delethe this entire thread, you won't hear any rejections from me. Of course other posters has to be asked before :smile:

KEP 2017-04-10 13:01

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;456480]I am more than happy to give away parts of my "job" on this project. lol I just want whomever does it to know what is involved. Keep in mind that very early in the project I was happy to give away R3 to KEP but he decided to give it back on his own. Now that all k's have been searched to n>=25K it is not quite so difficult to manage and so we'd like to hang on to it. Managing 100,000-300,000 k's is easier than 30G k's. ...and since we have R3 I feel we should keep S3 also. Any other base with a CK > 1G is fair game to me for others to take as their own project. For that matter I could be talked out of many bases with a CK > 1M.

I do not think KEP posted it as an April fools joke. That is why it has gotten such discussion.[/QUOTE]

Well the starting up a base has gotten easier, since Rogue created srbsieve. One of the reasons I abandoned R3 in the first place, were because I had too many k's remaining in my list. With srbsieve, we are not likely to see that mistake again. But yes, it does require a lot to administrate a huge base and I admire you for the will to do it.

gd_barnes 2017-04-11 05:54

I would never delete a thread with such an extensive discussion even if there are differences of opinion where discussions might get a little heated as long as no one is trolling. That is what makes projects interesting in the long run. :smile:

KEP 2017-04-11 15:49

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;456544]I would never delete a thread with such an extensive discussion even if there are differences of opinion where discussions might get a little heated as long as no one is trolling. That is what makes projects interesting in the long run. :smile:[/QUOTE]

Well as long as this thread doesn't end up hurting the project I'm also okay with us keeping the thread :smile:

LaurV 2017-04-12 14:18

Keep it.

gd_barnes 2017-12-30 22:58

[QUOTE=KEP;475402](has been delayed due to me working on creating an accurate statistics on our overall progress).[/QUOTE]

Does this include the trillions of k's (99.9%+) that the project has not searched on huge conjectured bases? If so, why? That would be useless information and is very misleading about what we have accomplished. We already have a reasonable overall progress here: [url]http://www.noprimeleftbehind.net/crus/vstats_new/crus-stats.htm[/url].

Priority now instead of finding billions and trillions of teeny primes should be to test some of the bases with < 5 k's remaining that have only been searched to n=100K. There are many of those, their test times are reasonable, and we can reasonably prove some of them.

KEP 2017-12-31 11:14

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;475482]Does this include the trillions of k's (99.9%+) that the project has not searched on huge conjectured bases? If so, why? That would be useless information and is very misleading about what we have accomplished. We already have a reasonable overall progress here: [url]http://www.noprimeleftbehind.net/crus/vstats_new/crus-stats.htm[/url].

Priority now instead of finding billions and trillions of teeny primes should be to test some of the bases with < 5 k's remaining that have only been searched to n=100K. There are many of those, their test times are reasonable, and we can reasonably prove some of them.[/QUOTE]

It includes no teeny tiny primes. Because of the way srbsieve works, it is very easy to automatize the process of finding out exactly how many k's each conjecture has that are Trivial k's, MOB and for the Sierpinski side GFN. It is not useless, at least thats not how it is viewed by the thousand new users that support CRUS through BOINC at srbase.

To be clear, I'm not (like when I created the srbsieve.ini files) searching for any primes other than on base 16 for now. But even though the stats we already have now is good and great, they say nothing at all about how far we have actually gotten :smile:

I'm btw gonna publish my version 0.1 of the more accurate statistics on srbase website, very soon. The stats I publish will contain the data available on january 1st on the various subpages on the CRUS website. So far more than 22T trivial factors has been counted and 374 GFN aswell as 2.5+T MOB's

Happy new year everyone :smile:

Take care

gd_barnes 2018-01-01 09:10

[QUOTE=KEP;475556]It includes no teeny tiny primes. Because of the way srbsieve works, it is very easy to automatize the process of finding out exactly how many k's each conjecture has that are Trivial k's, MOB and for the Sierpinski side GFN. It is not useless, at least thats not how it is viewed by the thousand new users that support CRUS through BOINC at srbase.

To be clear, I'm not (like when I created the srbsieve.ini files) searching for any primes other than on base 16 for now. But even though the stats we already have now is good and great, they say nothing at all about how far we have actually gotten :smile:

I'm btw gonna publish my version 0.1 of the more accurate statistics on srbase website, very soon. The stats I publish will contain the data available on january 1st on the various subpages on the CRUS website. So far more than 22T trivial factors has been counted and 374 GFN aswell as 2.5+T MOB's

Happy new year everyone :smile:

Take care[/QUOTE]


You took my posting out of context. Trillions of teeny primes...trillions of trivial k's...trillions of k's that are MOB. It's all of what I am talking about.

You could remove those statistics at SRBase and the BOINC users would be better off. What they should be encouraged to look at is the number of proven, 1k, 2k, 3k, etc. bases remaining. Encourage them to move bases into such colums.

Our statistics say everything that we need to about how far we have gotten. K's remaining on all bases is useless information and a waste of your time and CPU resources. CRUS will never take on bases like R280/S280. Why waste your time?

I indicated my displeasure in this thread with such statistics before. The starting of large-conjectured bases should not be encouraged.

We have all of the statistics that we need about the project here: [URL]http://www.noprimeleftbehind.net/crus/[/URL]. We don't need any more.

I have an idea: Perhaps we can close off the project for future bases with conjectures > 1M. Then your statistics would be meaningless unless of course you want to take on managing those conjectures yourself.

:rant::glare:

gd_barnes 2018-01-01 09:48

This issue apparently has gotten out of hand on the SRBase site and that is my fault. The project admins here at CRUS needed to take more personal time to give the project a better direction. I now have more such time. I had not taken a look at the site in over a year and had not realized that these untested k's and bases have been over-emphasized on the main page there. I just now had a look at that page and was a little disappointed by what I saw in two places, especially after indicating a year ago in this thread how such information encourages the project to move in an incorrect direction. I would like to suggest that we shut that down because it is conterproductive to accomplishing what the project needs: proving bases and reducing k's remaining on reasonably-conjectured bases.

For the uninitiated, the SRBase BOINC home page is here:
[URL]http://srbase.my-firewall.org/sr5/[/URL]

Two sections in question:

(1)
>>
[B]Project status:
[/B][LIST][*][B]Riesel Base: 392/1031[/B] proven (18.09.2017)[*][B]Sierpinski Base: 384/1032[/B] proven (19.02.2017)
278 unstarted bases (09.12.2017)

[B]706,136,815,151,905[/B] Total k's remaining (01.06.2017)
[B]0.0055%[/B] done[/LIST]<<

Reb, I'd like to ask for the removal of the total number of k's remaining as well as unstarted bases. You could show the number of bases with 1, 2, or 3 k's remaining. Alternatively, perhaps in that area you could provide a link to our pages that show the number of proven bases, and the number of bases with 1/2/3 k's remaining as shown here:
[URL]http://www.noprimeleftbehind.net/crus/vstats_new/crus-stats.htm[/URL] Alternative #2: You could remove all of your "hard-coded" statistics there and just provide the link. That would give your searchers all of the info. that they really need for the project.

Even though the above link shows the number of unstarted bases, it can be seen in the larger context of how many bases are at different places in their search depth: a much better picture. (VBCurtis had also suggested showing something along these lines in post #2 in this thread.)

(2)
>>
Compared with last years the following process was made:

2014-2015 - 87M WUs processed, 1 base solved, 314 bases unstarted
2015-2016 - 88M WUs processed, 5 bases solved, 297 bases unstarted
[B]2016-2017 - 99M WUs processed, 5 bases solved, 282 bases unstarted[/B]
in total - 274M WUs processed, 11 bases solved, 282 bases unstarted
<<

Reb, I'd like to ask for the removal of bases unstarted. CRUS will not be starting all bases such as R280/S280 anyway so it is misleading. Besides, all unstarted bases (except one) have conjectures greater than 1e5 now and so the remaining untested bases will be done very slowly.

I like all of the other info. in those two sections.

Reb, we greatly appreciate everything that BOINC and the community have done for the project. I'd like not to offend you in suggesting this but I feel it is necessary so that we encourage more searching where it is is needed.

And two final things:
First, this request has nothing to do with my or anyone else's effort involved in managing large conjectured bases. I now have much more personal time than I did a few months ago and that will not change in the near future.

Second, I do plan to request some admin help in the near future. Ian does help me from time-to-time but he has taken on a lesser role in the last few years.

In other words, this has to do with project direction, not my personal effort or anyone else's effort.


Gary

rebirther 2018-01-01 11:35

Thx for the suggestions Gary, I have removed the total k's and the percent status but will keep the unstarted bases, it is interesting for all to see how many bases are left to start and motivate users to run some of them.

If you have some important bases on the recommended side add them to the table.

pepi37 2018-01-01 19:26

If I may say something.
Many of us here are people that have one, two computers, so dont have many cores on disposal. I like CRUS project very much, and will stay, and will give my small contribution as long as I can. And there is one most important thing:you can choose any of many bases, and work on any K you wish ( that is part where you Gray come, and say: OK take only one K from that conjuncture and work on it, and for that part I am very grateful.) First part of making and solving any base is sieve. And that is most boring part since you spent time, and you cannot find anything. And I can say : finding prime is to all of us main goal. Now we have YOYO at home to help us.
Person behind that project is great. I ask to help me sieving my own repdigit sequences, and he didn't spend any micro seconds to say: of course that you can send me all files you have. Second, YOYO can in with current resources sieve to depth that I , like individual can only dream off. And since you can never over sieved any CRUS sequences, right question is: why dont "join" YOYO and CRUS.
From one side, YOYO will have work for many months, and for us: we will have properly sieved sequence , will have many of them and at least will removed many small exponent/candidates. We all know that will not solve all CRUS bases in our lifetime, but we can make more or less work, right? So make it more work :) Also we can concentrate on solving bases,we dont need to make sieve.
Reb , with his project will also have benefit:properly sieved files are welcome to him also. Why spend somebody else resources on any base because REB was taking under sieved sequence. If we have resources, then use it in most efficient way: dont spent time, because sieve depth is not good for even 500K candidate and he tested 1M candidate ( for example).

So : to all in this New year: lets make some work: lets remember that 2018 is and will be good CRUS year, with many eliminated K and bases!

KEP 2018-01-01 19:27

Reb, please remove my connection to the statistics, the current effort is cancelled.

MisterBitcoin 2018-01-01 21:14

[QUOTE=KEP;475870]Reb, please remove my connection to the statistics, the current effort is cancelled.[/QUOTE]

:no:

So, bad news on this site.
Oh I´m also trying to bring sr2sieve into yoyo@home to speed up the search.
But I have some problems with the file size and double-checking in order to prevent false/missed factors.

As a result of the latest discussion I´ll no longer start new bases or start new ranges until it´s wished from Gary. Sorry rogue, you´ll need to finish S3 by your own.
Running work will be finished.

gd_barnes 2018-01-04 08:59

[QUOTE=MisterBitcoin;475885]:no:
So, bad news on this site.
Oh I´m also trying to bring sr2sieve into yoyo@home to speed up the search.
But I have some problems with the file size and double-checking in order to prevent false/missed factors.

As a result of the latest discussion I´ll no longer start new bases or start new ranges until it´s wished from Gary. Sorry rogue, you´ll need to finish S3 by your own.
Running work will be finished.[/QUOTE]

MisterBitcoin,

We have greatly appreciated your help in coordinating the sieving with yoyo. The tremendously sieved files are great for us especially for BOINC.

Just to clarify: I never stated that I wanted to stop the project efforts for [B]already [/B]started bases with conjectures > 1G. Continuing to work on S3 is great. It's over half done to n=25K at this point. We may as well get it completely searched to n=25K. Regardless I'm sure Mark (rogue) can finish it off sometime this year.

Will you be continuing on your base 7 and 15 reservations? What about new bases S196 and S732? I would especially like to see S732 finished to at least n=10K because that base and R411 (that I am working on) are the only bases left with conjecture < 100K that have not been completed to n=10K yet. It would be a great milestone for the project.

I know you enjoy working on new bases. I'm not against it but am ambivalent about them at this point. I'm certainly not stopping anyone. It's part of what makes the project interesting to some people. I just ask that we not start on any more new bases with conjectures > 1G. The project k's remaining statistic in this thread seemed to encourage as much.


Gary

gd_barnes 2018-01-04 09:12

[QUOTE=rebirther;475820]Thx for the suggestions Gary, I have removed the total k's and the percent status but will keep the unstarted bases, it is interesting for all to see how many bases are left to start and motivate users to run some of them.

If you have some important bases on the recommended side add them to the table.[/QUOTE]

Thanks Reb.

I suppose that seeing the history of the not started bases is somewhat interesting for your searchers. I'll back off that request.

As for the recommended bases, BOINC can run any of those in that thread even if they are not in the BOINC table. There are quite a few of them right now. There are three 1-k bases recommended, one of which is reserved. I am working on sieve files for the other two. One will be done this weekend. BOINC could work on those.

MrBitcoin recently sent us a lot of sieve files for 1-k bases that were done by his effort with Yoyo all deeply sieved up to n=1M. You might check the sieving thread. There are a large number of 1-k bases that BOINC could work on. We could prove a lot of bases just from those sieve files.

Here is my reasoning behind not having k's remaining statistics: The project could just remove all bases with conjectures > 1T. There is only something like 7-8 of them on each side (Riesel and Sierp). What would this do to such statistics? It would remove 99.9%+ of all k's that are remaining on the project!

I simply feel that showing the percentage of k's remaining makes the project look bad at this point and is unnecessarily misleading.


Gary

gd_barnes 2018-01-04 09:27

[QUOTE=KEP;475870]Reb, please remove my connection to the statistics, the current effort is cancelled.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure what this means. Can I ask either KEP or Reb, were there other statistics (other than total k's remaining on started and unstarted bases) that KEP was working on for SRBase?

rebirther 2018-01-04 17:27

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;476356]I'm not sure what this means. Can I ask either KEP or Reb, were there other statistics (other than total k's remaining on started and unstarted bases) that KEP was working on for SRBase?[/QUOTE]

I think this thread [URL]http://srbase.my-firewall.org/sr5/forum_thread.php?id=203[/URL]

MisterBitcoin 2018-01-04 18:25

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;476352]MisterBitcoin,

We have greatly appreciated your help in coordinating the sieving with yoyo. The tremendously sieved files are great for us especially for BOINC.

Just to clarify: I never stated that I wanted to stop the project efforts for [B]already [/B]started bases with conjectures > 1G. Continuing to work on S3 is great. It's over half done to n=25K at this point. We may as well get it completely searched to n=25K. Regardless I'm sure Mark (rogue) can finish it off sometime this year.

Will you be continuing on your base 7 and 15 reservations? What about new bases S196 and S732? I would especially like to see S732 finished to at least n=10K because that base and R411 (that I am working on) are the only bases left with conjecture < 100K that have not been completed to n=10K yet. It would be a great milestone for the project.

I know you enjoy working on new bases. I'm not against it but am ambivalent about them at this point. I'm certainly not stopping anyone. It's part of what makes the project interesting to some people. I just ask that we not start on any more new bases with conjectures > 1G. The project k's remaining statistic in this thread seemed to encourage as much.


Gary[/QUOTE]


S7, S15 will be done, hopefully [COLOR=Red]this[/COLOR] year.
S732 is nearly done, only a few LLR tests remaining.
S196 is on the fast lane! Passed 6K two days ago. :smile:

Don´t worry Mark, I´ll throw 8 cores into the S3 race. :bump2:


All times are UTC. The time now is 19:40.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.