
View Poll Results: What direction should 'conjectures' effort go?  
Continue filling bases <=32 (except 3/7/15/Sierp 31)  3  50.00%  
Focus on bases that are powers of 2  3  50.00%  
Extend bases up to 50 or 100  0  0%  
Other; post ideas in thread  0  0%  
Voters: 6. You may not vote on this poll 

Thread Tools 
20071219, 17:15  #1 
May 2007
Kansas; USA
2·5,113 Posts 
Poll on direction of conjectures effort
I'd like to get some input on the direction that people feel that the "Conjectures 'R Us" effort should go.
The current intent of the effort is to search and 'fill in' as many of the bases as possible for bases 232 not being worked by other projects but I'd like to find out more about what people think. I'm posting an 'other' category. If you have another idea that you think fits in with this effort other than those listed, then click on that and post your thoughts here. Let me know what you think. Thanks, Gary 
20071219, 17:33  #2 
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT5)
79^{2} Posts 
I voted to continue filling in bases <=32, but I was confused about one thing: why leave out bases 3, 7, and Sierpinski 31?
I imagine that quite a lot of the project's computing power will be thrown on the bases that are powers of 2 (simply because they're quite attractive to users)though I don't think that in any way the project should be limited to those. In fact, most of the bases that are at all close to having their conjectures proven are not powers of 2. Probably if we do any team drives in the future, we might want to focus them on powerof2 bases, though, since those bases would be the most attractive to new users (team drives are great for "testdriving" a project)and, in the case of Base 16 Sierpinski, are some of the farthest away from being proven. 
20071219, 18:15  #3  
May 2007
Kansas; USA
10011111110010_{2} Posts 
Quote:
We don't know the conjectures yet on bases 3, 7, 15, and Sierp 31. The first 3 are likely k > 10e10 and Sierp Base 31 is definitely k > 5e6. They're just too unmanageable with today's computing power and knowledge. That said, if people are open to the idea, I might suggest searching some of those up to k=100K at some point to get future generations of prime searchers started on those huge efforts. To me, the main thing is collecting data for us and for future generations to analyze. I like the idea of a team drive for powers of 2, namely Sierp base 16. We will definitely look to do that in the future. It LLR's as fast as base 2 and we'll definitely get some top5000 primes out of it with 57 k's remaining (55 not reserved). And we haven't even started on Riesel base 16. There's plenty of work to do on both sides. As for team efforts for other powers of 2; we'd have to go up to base 64, 128, or 256, which is certainly an option. Base 2 is being worked by other projects as well as base 4 Sierp. Base 4 Riesel is down to 6 k's remaining for our effort so that is out. Base 8 is proven and base 32 is proven or cannot possibly be proven with today's knowledge. We can even somewhat combine the first two choices in the poll while maintaining more focus on one or the other. We could open up bases 64, 128, or 256 for a possible team effort (I don't know the conjectures yet...most may be too low...I need to check) but keep our main focus on bases <= 32. I think that flexibility is important in this type of effort. Gary 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Move 19 game direction  MooMoo2  Other Chess Games  8  20160201 17:50 
Large Sequence Project direction  henryzz  Aliquot Sequences  17  20130809 00:15 
NPLB future direction  gd_barnes  No Prime Left Behind  16  20090513 16:45 
Future direction of NPLB  gd_barnes  No Prime Left Behind  33  20080911 15:26 
Poll for new conjectures prime search effort  gd_barnes  Conjectures 'R Us  14  20071222 07:13 