Quote:
Originally Posted by gd_barnes
OK, I will change your reservation from k=110M111M to 110M120M.
I responded to your PM on the Riesel conjecture. The script on the input file would be the same except 1 instead of +1. Like the Sierp conjecture, only even k's need to be tested so no change there.
But there is a slight change on the command line. Instead use:
input.txt f100 l100k.txt tp
The tp switch tells it to prove the primality of "1" numbers vs. "+1" numbers.
Good luck and thank you for attacking these huge bases!
Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Actually, no. tp signifies that PFGW should do an N+1 test (as opposed to an N1 test with just plain t), which can be used for numbers that an N1 test can't prove primality for. (I've run into those occasionally.) Both N1 and N+1 tests are not dependent on any form of number, so either should work for both +1 and 1 numbers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by axn1
Actually, to successfully run an N+1 primality test, N+1 must be factored to atleast 33% of its length (meaning, if N is 100 digits, then at least 33 digits worth of prime factorization should be known). Vice versa for N1. If the 33% factorization criteria is not met, then the test can't "prove" the primality.
Since N+1 factorization of a "1" number is trivial, it makes sense to use N+1 for "1" (and N1 for "+1" numbers).

As I stated originally for KEP's Riesel testing and without getting into the technical details of this; if you wish to prove the following:
Riesel numbers (1) tests; use the tp switch in PFGW
Sierpinski numbers (+1) tests; use the t switch in PFGW
For all other forms, a good starting point it to try tc, which effectively attempts to prove the number prime using both of the above but is very unlikely to do so if it is a random form.
For numbers with random forms and (I think) < 10000 digits, Primo is the best way that I know how to prove them.
Gary