20080714, 03:37  #34 
Quasi Admin Thing
May 2005
2×5×101 Posts 
That checks out. All dependent on the verification and testing speed, I hope to have it all to you on friday

20080714, 16:16  #35 
Quasi Admin Thing
May 2005
2·5·101 Posts 
I'm going to begin to make conjectures for all b<=1024. I'll begin conjecturing base 1024 and then move my way down, since I've no idea which bases>31 (besides those mentioned on the website) that is actually conjectured I'll start working on the Sierpinski bases and then (unless someone reaches it before me) start conjecturing the Riesel bases.
Why bases<=1024 selected? Well it makes no sence to get to work on too high bases with current technology, and also there will be plenty of work for us to work on proving all bases <= 2^10 (1024)... Is by the way going to use following exponents: 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 36, 48, 60, 72, 96, 120, and 144 when using conjecture.exe program. Regards KEP Ps. Is sieving Sierpinski base 252 k=27 for n<=100K. After sieving completes, I'll begin LLR the range. Last fiddled with by KEP on 20080714 at 16:20 
20080714, 18:05  #36 
"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS
12,569 Posts 
Riesel base 256 all k's at n=40K; continuing.
Two primes already reported for n=35K40K. 
20080715, 10:08  #37  
"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS
12569_{10} Posts 
Quote:
I could have shown those had I so chosen on the web pages but the scope of this effort is already huge. I doubt that I'll post many more conjectures on the web pages in the near future; let alone 9001000 of them. So you can leave us with the info. if you like but don't expect to see it 'up in lights' so to speak. Perhaps you'll want to create your own web pages with them on there. On the exponent, although I found that to be part of the issue with the covering set, you also had to reduce the maximum factor. New suggestion; try this: Exponents of 4, 12, 48, and 144 Max factors of 100, 300, 1000, and 10000. Even the above is unlikely to give the covering set with the fewest factors in some instances. For that reason, you have to experiment with each base at Alperton's site, which can take up to 1520 mins. to get it correct. You have to carefully analyze which factors are eliminating which modulos of n. Doing 9001000 exponents correctly is a huge task. Combine that with k=27 on base 252 to n=100K (~23 CPU months!) and Riesel base 3 to k=500M & n=25K and I see where this is leading... KEP, you're taking on too much work again and I see you getting bored with it before it's finished! Let's take it easy; please! Please think through your reservations before posting here. Why don't you try it with 100 bases, see how comfortable figuring out what the correct covering sets are, and then see if you want to continue? I have an alternative suggestion: Consider doing some searches on our LLRnet server port 6 for Sierp base 6. Well sieved files are ready to test. We'd really like to have some work done on that. There are also manual reservations with sieved files available for both Riesel and Sierp base 16, well into the top5000 range. Bases that are powers of 2 test far faster than bases that are not. What I'm getting at is that there is plenty of work without making more. Thank you, Gary Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 20080716 at 21:13 

20080718, 18:25  #38  
Quasi Admin Thing
May 2005
2·5·101 Posts 
Quote:
So here is what I have left to do: 1. Sierpinski base 252 for k=27: Take it to n<=100K (currently at n=42287, ~600 sec. per k/n pair) 2. Finish Riesel base 3 for all k<=500M... ETA between 2 or most likely 4 weeks Well if you can send me a PM or an email containing the files that I need to launch and run LLRNet, I would really like to see if I can get the LLRNet working. A lonely/abandoned base is never a good thing to have ... please notice that I can't guarantee that any work will actually be done So now I'll sit back and wait patiently... and see if the LLRNet system is the same as for Riesel and Sierp Base 5 Regards KEP 

20080719, 10:08  #39  
"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS
12,569 Posts 
Quote:
Here is the thread about a general discussion about setting up and running LLRnet servers. It is virtually the same as Riesel and Sierp base 5. Here is the thread that contains the server and port for Sierp base 6. Everything is explained somewhere in these threads. Any questions...just ask. On coming up with the conjectures for all bases <=1024, you communicated correctly. What I'm saying is this: When coming up with the conjectures, correct covering sets are also needed. Otherwise it is of only small help to us. In order to come up with the conjectures, you can run covering.exe in several batch processes and accomplish it quickly: perhaps < 1 CPU day if the parameters are set up correctly. Coming up with the correct covering sets takes far longer. I know of no software yet developed that gives the correct smallest covering set so it must be done manually. I explained how I do it previously. Perhaps Willem has an idea on how he does it. If you want to provide us with all of the conjectured values only, that's fine. We will keep them for future use but it is of only a small amount of help and is generally outside the scope of the current project. How many tests remain for Sierp base 252 at n=42287? Some info. for you: A test at n=2*42287=84574 will take you 600 secs * 4 = 2400 secs. (40 mins.) so hopefully you will find a prime before that. Gary Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 20080719 at 10:11 

20080719, 10:23  #40 
Sep 2004
101100001110_{2} Posts 
I would stick to manual LLRing and not use llrnet, the latter is slower, default 10 % but can go as high as 20 % upon the n size of the number.
Last fiddled with by em99010pepe on 20080719 at 10:23 
20080719, 10:25  #41  
Quasi Admin Thing
May 2005
2×5×101 Posts 
Quote:
Take care Kenneth! 

20080719, 10:46  #42  
"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS
11000100011001_{2} Posts 
Quote:
Gary 

20080719, 11:05  #43  
"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS
12569_{10} Posts 
Quote:
People make way too big of a deal about a 1020% boost in speed. Anon and I had a PM exchange about this. My motto: Slow and steady wins the race. In the long run, if your machines are always running, you will outpace most searchers whose computers spend at least 1020% of their time idle because of reserving manual ranges or deciding what to do next. I suspect that for many people, it is longer than that because they are trying to decide what to do. It's why I keep finding primes dayin and dayout at NPLB with almost no effort since I moved 5+ quads to drive 1. Those babies never stop! I'm out of town right now and I can't do anything with my machines. They just crunch away and suck my electricity while I'm gone. lol So my opinion: Ignore the speed boost and put over half of your machines on LLRnet from some project. For less than half that you can always quickly add manual files to: Use those for manual reservations. The best of both worlds... Gary 

20080719, 13:09  #44  
Jan 2006
Hungary
100001100_{2} Posts 
Quote:
By hand it is easy to do with pfgw. Willem. 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Bases 632 reservations/statuses/primes  gd_barnes  Conjectures 'R Us  1438  20231003 22:22 
Bases 5011030 reservations/statuses/primes  KEP  Conjectures 'R Us  4373  20231001 16:39 
Bases 33100 reservations/statuses/primes  Siemelink  Conjectures 'R Us  1804  20231001 15:59 
Bases 101250 reservations/statuses/primes  gd_barnes  Conjectures 'R Us  1056  20230820 14:15 
Riesel base 3 reservations/statuses/primes  KEP  Conjectures 'R Us  1149  20230728 16:07 