mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   Miscellaneous Math (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=56)
-   -   I am curious why someone won't do what I want (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=26873)

 sweety439 2021-05-29 04:45

I am curious why someone won't do what I want

Lucas(148091) is certificated to be prime in September 2015 (see [URL="https://primes.utm.edu/top20/page.php?id=48"]prime pages[/URL]), but why no one certificate Fibonacci(148091)? Fibonacci(148091) is smaller than Lucas(148091), and 148091 may be the largest n such that Fibonacci(n) and Lucas(n) are both primes.

 paulunderwood 2021-05-29 05:31

[QUOTE=sweety439;579366]Lucas(148091) is certificated to be prime in September 2015 (see [URL="https://primes.utm.edu/top20/page.php?id=48"]prime pages[/URL]), but why no one certificate Fibonacci(148091)? Fibonacci(148091) is smaller than Lucas(148091), and 148091 may be the largest n such that Fibonacci(n) and Lucas(n) are both primes.[/QUOTE]

These numbers take months if not years of certification on dedicated hardware. Maybe you could invest some time and money in the endeavors to provide such proofs instead of squawking about how pitiful our hard efforts have been.

 sweety439 2021-06-02 07:07

I am curious why someone won't do what I want

I am curious that why none has reserved the Wagstaff number (2^95369+1)/3, it has only 28709 digits, much smaller than the partition number Partition(1289844341) (40000 digits), which is already reserved and proven to be prime (see [URL="http://www.ellipsa.eu/public/primo/top20.html"]http://www.ellipsa.eu/public/primo/top20.html[/URL]), and Wagstaff numbers are much more important (and seems to be easier to be proven prime) than partition numbers.

 paulunderwood 2021-06-02 07:23

More attacks on our hard efforts! "Only 28709 digits" -- have you tried running Primo, even at 10k digits? it is O(log(n)^(4+eps)). It is not trivial to do such certifications. It is absurd to say that Wagstaff is "much more important" than a partition number. The latter has greater entropy and show off the effectiveness of ECPP. There are couple of aims here: big ECPP and proving classic top20 PRPs. We aim to do both. Please stop harping on about our efforts and start doing some Primo work.

 sweety439 2021-06-04 03:17

[QUOTE=paulunderwood;579747]More attacks on our hard efforts! "Only 28709 digits" -- have you tried running Primo, even at 10k digits? it is O(log(n)^(4+eps)). It is not trivial to do such certifications. It is absurd to say that Wagstaff is "much more important" than a partition number. The latter has greater entropy and show off the effectiveness of ECPP. There are couple of aims here: big ECPP and proving classic top20 PRPs. We aim to do both. Please stop harping on about our efforts and start doing some Primo work.[/QUOTE]

I only have Windows10, and there is no Windows version for Primo.

 Batalov 2021-06-04 06:05

 kar_bon 2021-06-04 06:21

[QUOTE=sweety439;579916]I only have Windows10, and there is no Windows version for Primo.[/QUOTE]
You can download Primo 3.0.9 from my [url='https://www.rieselprime.de/']page[/url] running under WIN, so you get an idea, how long a certificate would take for a 'only' 5000 digit number.
Sure this version is slower than the current one, but try it.

 axn 2021-06-04 06:34

Option 1 - Install WSL2 inside Windows 10
Option 2 - Install a linux as dual boot.

 sweety439 2021-06-04 11:02

[QUOTE=kar_bon;579922]You can download Primo 3.0.9 from my [url='https://www.rieselprime.de/dl/Primo309.zip']page[/url] running under WIN, so you get an idea, how long a certificate would take for a 'only' 5000 digit number.
Sure this version is slower than the current one, but try it.[/QUOTE]

S73: (14*73^21369+1)/3 (may be too large)
S105: (191*105^5045+1)/8
S256: (11*256^5702+1)/3

R7: (197*7^181761-1)/2 and (367*7^15118-1)/6 (may be too large)
R73: (79*73^9339-1)/6
R91: (27*91^5048-1)/2
R100: (133*100^5496-1)/33
R107: (3*107^4900-1)/2

 xilman 2021-06-04 11:56

[QUOTE=sweety439;579926]I want to run these numbers to prove ...[/QUOTE]If you want to run them, please go ahead and run them. No-one will stop you.

 mathwiz 2021-06-04 17:45

[QUOTE=sweety439;579926]I want to run these numbers[/QUOTE]

Then you should acquire the necessary hardware/VM and software and run it yourself. Not sure why you expect others to do it for you?

All times are UTC. The time now is 00:24.