mersenneforum.org Most wanted
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2008-11-28, 11:07 #1 kar_bon     Mar 2006 Germany 32×52×13 Posts Most wanted I post here some results in need to make the Database 'databaseable' :-) There're many remarks like (90 primes to 50k)' in there (see data for 10^9 at the end) and i filled them up from time to time on my own. Also there're many high weighted k's without any prime displayed for now So everyone is invited to resolve such remarks.
 2008-11-28, 22:57 #2 mdettweiler A Sunny Moo     Aug 2007 USA (GMT-5) 3×2,083 Posts Knocked out one of these annoying little buggers (k=4259877765), which is listed as "91 primes 0-50K". I searched it for n=0-50K with LLR; I then re-verified the primes with PFGW since LLR apparently had to do a PRP test for some of the lower ones. Many of them, apparently, were then subsequently proven by LLR, but since they're all very small anyway I figured I'd buzz them through PFGW to play things safe. So, without further ado, here are the 91 primes for n=0-50K: 4, 6, 10, 15, 16, 24, 25, 32, 34, 37, 38, 47, 53, 54, 56, 64, 74, 85, 86, 90, 102, 105, 106, 110, 117, 119, 130, 137, 166, 168, 175, 185, 196, 205, 212, 310, 322, 363, 369, 389, 423, 482, 503, 506, 561, 593, 659, 715, 893, 1029, 1042, 1149, 1157, 1278, 1350, 1626, 1692, 1829, 1867, 1895, 2041, 2782, 2845, 2926, 3705, 3785, 3946, 4512, 4969, 5360, 5490, 6203, 6228, 6646, 7992, 8222, 8505, 13332, 14469, 14978, 16527, 16972, 20916, 21000, 21168, 24577, 28763, 28847, 29956, 48093, 49429 Last fiddled with by kar_bon on 2009-05-19 at 22:15 Reason: changed prime-listing
 2008-11-29, 10:28 #3 henryzz Just call me Henry     "David" Sep 2007 Cambridge (GMT/BST) 24·7·53 Posts llr wont work if the k is larger than 2^n
2008-11-29, 17:21   #4
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo

Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

624910 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by henryzz llr wont work if the k is larger than 2^n
Yeah, I noticed some error messages to that effect. Example output:
Code:
max@max:/tmp$./llr -d -q4259877765*2^4-1 4259877765 > 2^4, so we can only do a PRP test for 4259877765*2^4-1. Starting probable prime test of 4259877765*2^4-1 Using generic reduction FFT length 32 4259877765*2^4-1 is a probable prime. Time : 0.769 ms. But what was more confusing is what I got for some of the later results: Code: max@max:/tmp$ ./llr -d -q4259877765*2^119-1
Starting probable prime test of 4259877765*2^119-1
Using generic reduction FFT length 32
4259877765*2^119-1 is a probable prime.  Time : 0.352 ms.
Please credit George Woltman's PRP for this result!
Starting Lucas Lehmer Riesel prime test of 4259877765*2^119-1
Using General Mode (Rational Base) : Mersenne fftlen = 32, Used fftlen = 32
V1 = 5 ; Computing U0...done.
4259877765*2^119-1 is prime!  Time : 0.314 ms.
Yes, this is for just *one* number. It apparently did a PRP test for this number, and then after find it probably prime, did an LLR test on it as a proof! Does anyone know why it does this?

2008-11-29, 17:26   #5
axn

Jun 2003

120738 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mdettweiler Yes, this is for just *one* number. It apparently did a PRP test for this number, and then after find it probably prime, did an LLR test on it as a proof! Does anyone know why it does this?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by LLR Readme.txt Version 3.6 : -The program is now directly linked with the George Woltman's gwnums library archive, and the source does no more contain included gwnums C code files. -It has been rather much tested on no SSE2 machines, so the "Beta" has been removed. -The k*b^n±1 numbers, were the base b is a power of two, are now converted into base two numbers before beeing processed, instead of doing a PRP test on them. -An iteration in the "Computing U0" loop is two times more time-consuming than a computing power one, so it is better to make a previous PRP test before a LLR one, as soon as the k multiplier's bit length reaches 10% of the bit length of the number to test. That is that is done in this version. On the other hand, the Proth test is slightly faster than the PRP one, so, it is done directly. -To avoid any confusion, the output line for composite numbers now shows of which algorithm the residue is the result : RES64: "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" (PRP test) LLR RES64: "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" (LLR test) Proth RES64: "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" (Proth test)

2008-11-29, 17:28   #6
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo

Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

3·2,083 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by axn
Ah, I see. I *did* read through the readme file, but I must have missed the part about doing a "previous PRP test before an LLR one". Thanks.

 2008-12-04, 10:05 #7 gd_barnes     May 2007 Kansas; USA 293516 Posts I always use PFGW for n<=1000. LLR used to have a bug where it would sometimes report primes as composites or visa-versa on small n (even for k's that were not very large) and even for n>50 at times. There is an RPS thread about it. Presumably it has been fixed but it seems as though people keep finding another situation that wasn't considered and so it has been "fixed" several times. Regardless of the size of k, I don't trust LLR for n<=1000 and so always use PFGW for it. PFGW seems to be able to handle about any size of k accurately. That is the safest way to go for very small primes. Gary Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2008-12-04 at 10:06
 2009-02-11, 10:36 #8 kar_bon     Mar 2006 Germany 32×52×13 Posts the WIN-GUI-Version of LLR V3.7.1c (2008-12-21) from J.Penne can be found here: http://jpenne.free.fr/ i've tested all primes from the Database for n=1 to 300k and no errors were found! i did this before and sent Jean some small issues about that and he updated his LLR-Version so all seems to be fine with small n- or k-values now!
 2009-05-19, 15:29 #9 cipher     Feb 2007 211 Posts Filling the GAPS for Riesel list (k·2n-1 prime) for 10^7 < k < 10^8 http://www.rieselprime.de/Data/10e07.htm Code:  K Highest N value 16545165 10k 29058315 10K 47912205 10K 19474455 50k 20934375 50K 24107655 50K 27114615 50K 28397655 50K 35900025 50K 44702775 50K 51010245 50K 78290355 50K 80555475 50K 96623835 50K Found 14k with primes reported but not listed. Will report the results when done. Thanks cipher Last fiddled with by cipher on 2009-05-19 at 15:29
 2009-05-19, 17:23 #10 cipher     Feb 2007 211 Posts COMPLETED Code: 16545165 10k 29058315 10K 47912205 10K Tested upto n<10k Attach with all the primes for all three K gapprime.txt I will post the results for remaining 11k's in 3 days. Correction 16545165 listed 62 primes for n <10k i only found 61 29058315 listed 60 primes for n <10k i only found 59 47912205 listed 61 primes for n <10k i only found 60 Thanks Cipher kar_bon: primes for these 3 k's inserted Last fiddled with by kar_bon on 2009-05-19 at 22:17 Reason: merged two posts
 2009-05-20, 11:39 #11 cipher     Feb 2007 211 Posts One more K knocked out 50K, approx LLR time 4 hours, so the remaining 10 K will take approx 40-44 hours of LLR i will submit them in 2 days. Primes found 89 just as it was reported originally. Code: 3, 5, 9, 10, 11*, 14, 17*, 18, 27, 32, 35, 37, 51, 64, 68*, 89, 91, 100, 102, 113, 119, 145, 185, 200, 225, 230, 248, 286, 408, 492, 553, 554, 606, 613, 663, 673, 707, 718, 745, 781, 798, 844, 950, 963, 999, 1033, 1042, 1229, 1308, 1333, 1419, 1522, 1884, 2010, 2098, 2284, 2354, 3008, 3194, 3258, 3533, 3998, 4120, 4212, 4534, 4824, 5255, 6791, 7140, 7171, 7345, 8830, 9620, 10270, 11453, 12785, 13088, 15685, 16770, 17828, 20523, 20750, 23855, 33887, 40062, 41613, 41793, 44450, 49581 Thanks cipher kar_bon: primelist changed, twins (*) marked, inserted in 10^7-page Last fiddled with by kar_bon on 2009-06-02 at 14:31

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post rogue FermatSearch 35 2021-03-15 14:06 ET_ FermatSearch 12 2016-11-09 13:31 Prime95 Data 18 2012-02-12 18:07 R.D. Silverman Cunningham Tables 1 2010-09-21 16:16 Citrix Factoring 24 2004-02-22 01:05

All times are UTC. The time now is 01:41.

Sun Nov 28 01:41:59 UTC 2021 up 127 days, 20:10, 0 users, load averages: 1.19, 1.39, 1.24