View Single Post
Old 2017-04-02, 10:07   #6
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

101001110011012 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rebirther View Post
I like the tracking method. Never or less we will reach these huge bases in the future.
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.

Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2017-04-02 at 10:09
gd_barnes is online now   Reply With Quote