mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Data > Marin's Mersenne-aries

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2021-12-24, 20:43   #1
kriesel
 
kriesel's Avatar
 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

3·2,161 Posts
Default Let's finish DC of old "dubious" claims of primes

Of the roughly 90 "dubious" claims exponents, I have the following as not yet having a factor found, matching DC or TC, or PRP with proof & successful cert.
Code:
PRP=1,2,86225219,-1,76,0
PRP=1,2,87232913,-1,76,0
PRP=1,2,89023807,-1,76,0
PRP=1,2,96532433,-1,76,0
PRP=1,2,97970567,-1,76,0
PRP=1,2,103404713,-1,76,0
PRP=1,2,108575167,-1,77,0
PRP=1,2,110000017,-1,78,0
PRP=1,2,122628553,-1,78,0
PRP=1,2,137362691,-1,80,0
PRP=1,2,231695603,-1,79,0
PRP=1,2,276036017,-1,80,0
PRP=1,2,285754177,-1,80,0
PRP=1,2,315690521,-1,80,0
PRP=1,2,333333223,-1,81,0
PRP=1,2,369452123,-1,81,0
PRP=1,2,852348659,-1,86,0
Please reserve any you take on. PRP with GEC and proof generation would be preferable, since it is much more reliable and efficient than the other choices.

Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2021-12-24 at 20:43
kriesel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-12-24, 21:35   #2
mathwiz
 
Mar 2019

2·131 Posts
Default

Why do these exponents deserve special attention, just because someone made a claim about them? (in other words: don't feed the trolls).
mathwiz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-12-24, 23:15   #3
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

2×34×5×13 Posts
Default

Those from the "Guess Mxx" threads should usually be taken with 10g NaCl crystals.
Uncwilly is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-12-25, 01:40   #4
tuckerkao
 
"Tucker Kao"
Jan 2020
Head Base M168202123

2·5·73 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncwilly View Post
Those from the "Guess Mxx" threads should usually be taken with 10g NaCl crystals.
How about raise the trial factoring depth 2~3 bits higher than the recommended levels, maybe double the P-1 bounds.
tuckerkao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-12-25, 01:52   #5
kriesel
 
kriesel's Avatar
 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

145238 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncwilly View Post
Those from the "Guess Mxx" threads
Overlap is rare.
M852348659 appeared elsewhere and was classified as a dubious claim first, before someone entered it in the predict m52 thread, so it is not counted again in the predict m52 total.
I found no other overlap between my dubious claim DC list in post 1 and the predict-Mxx lists on my server share (M45, M49, M50, M51, M52).
Predict Mn guesses are not counted again if reused in Mo (o>n) guesses, in the counts I occasionally update.
Quote:
with 10g NaCl crystals.
If usual table use size, that is a LOT of grains of salt. If softener salt, still quite a few.

Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2021-12-25 at 02:15
kriesel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-12-25, 02:11   #6
tuckerkao
 
"Tucker Kao"
Jan 2020
Head Base M168202123

2×5×73 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathwiz View Post
Why do these exponents deserve special attention, just because someone made a claim about them?
If it's like a horse race and all users have gotten only 3 active guesses. Unless they on-purposely enter the bad guesses(such as has a known factor, ridiculously large), the final answers to their declarations should be worked on further if Kriesel grants them. The only oversized exponent seems to be M852348659, other entries are valid and looks okay.

A horse can only be declared lost if the result is a certified composite. In addition, there are barely around 90 of them, not 9,000.

Maybe UncWilly should add this rule to the Mxx thread, exponent guesses must not be greater than 4x the size of the exponent of the current largest known Mersenne Prime or 3x the size of the exponent of the current wavefront milestone, whichever one is larger, but it's up to UncWilly to decide.

A lot of complains have been generated because someone places down a large guess in the M800M+ or M900M+ ranges which will take around a year or 2 to test the exponent, there can be an easy fix to this. Is this what you've meant the trolls?

Last fiddled with by tuckerkao on 2021-12-25 at 03:08
tuckerkao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-12-25, 03:07   #7
retina
Undefined
 
retina's Avatar
 
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair

645610 Posts
Default

There is no obligation to test exponents the others have suggested. So there are no grounds for complaints IMO.

If you want to test them then go ahead. Else leave it to the person suggesting to test their own exponents.

If you don't like the their suggestion then just ignore it and carry on with whatever are your own preferred exponents.
retina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-12-25, 10:50   #8
Zhangrc
 
"University student"
May 2021
Beijing, China

3728 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tuckerkao View Post
How about raise the trial factoring depth 2~3 bits higher than the recommended levels, maybe double the P-1 bounds.
By finding a factor to prove that they are really wrong?
Zhangrc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-12-25, 11:22   #9
tuckerkao
 
"Tucker Kao"
Jan 2020
Head Base M168202123

10110110102 Posts
Default

M89023807 which is the 3rd exponent on Kriesel's list was already certified from the PRP branch although LL wasn't verified yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhangrc View Post
By finding a factor to prove that they are really wrong?
That's more of ViliamF's way because he has better graphic cards.
tuckerkao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-12-25, 12:54   #10
kriesel
 
kriesel's Avatar
 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

3·2,161 Posts
Default

I'm running PRP=1,2,86225219,-1,76,0 on gpuowl on a Radeon VII, which should take ~16 hours. Can't register it because of the old LLDC reservation lingering for years.

Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2021-12-25 at 12:56
kriesel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-12-27, 23:11   #11
kriesel
 
kriesel's Avatar
 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

3·2,161 Posts
Default Updated list

Most of these I did a first test on, so the server won't issue DC to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kriesel View Post
Of the roughly 90 "dubious" claims exponents, I have the following as not yet having a factor found, matching DC or TC, or PRP with proof & successful cert.
Please reserve any you take on. PRP with GEC and proof generation would be preferable, since it is much more reliable and efficient than the other choices.
Code:
PRP=1,2,87232913,-1,76,0
PRP=1,2,96532433,-1,76,0 I have reserved this one
PRP=1,2,97970567,-1,76,0
PRP=1,2,103404713,-1,76,0
PRP=1,2,108575167,-1,77,0
PRP=1,2,110000017,-1,78,0
PRP=1,2,122628553,-1,78,0 I have reserved this one
PRP=1,2,231695603,-1,79,0
PRP=1,2,276036017,-1,80,0
PRP=1,2,285754177,-1,80,0
PRP=1,2,315690521,-1,80,0
PRP=1,2,333333223,-1,81,0 I have reserved this one
PRP=1,2,369452123,-1,81,0
PRP=1,2,852348659,-1,86,0
kriesel is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Mixed Sierpinski conjecture base 5" proven!! (if probable primes allowed) sweety439 Sierpinski/Riesel Base 5 1 2020-12-21 14:08
Is "mung" or "munged" a negative word in a moral sense? Uncwilly Lounge 15 2020-04-14 18:35
Aouessare-El Haddouchi-Essaaidi "test": "if Mp has no factor, it is prime!" wildrabbitt Miscellaneous Math 11 2015-03-06 08:17
Palindrome primes (a.k.a. Elementary S03E03 "Just a Regular Irregular") Batalov And now for something completely different 12 2014-11-16 19:03
Would Minimizing "iterations between results file" may reveal "is not prime" earlier? nitai1999 Software 7 2004-08-26 18:12

All times are UTC. The time now is 22:40.


Tue May 24 22:40:36 UTC 2022 up 40 days, 20:41, 0 users, load averages: 3.27, 2.67, 2.47

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔