mersenneforum.org Help Us Keep Our Lead By Number of Found Primes
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2005-11-07, 05:27 #111 Kosmaj     Nov 2003 362210 Posts No probs. BTW, Bmaxx sent me results for the 483-489 range, no primes.
 2005-11-07, 18:34 #112 segmtfault     Jun 2004 California 4258 Posts 498-500 done, no primes
 2005-11-08, 02:35 #113 nibble4bits     Nov 2005 2·7·13 Posts My desktop is working on 369854 right now. Had a crash because of conflicting software but LLR restarted the number just after the last completed test so it's hopefully ok. Hehe I guess I'll ask how to submit 2*23^21+1 and 2*23^261+1 assuming they're not already known. Is there specific place to check these and submit them to get verified? "LLR tests only k*2^n±1 numbers, so, we will do a PRP test of 2*23^21+1 2*23^21+1 is a probable prime. Time: 18.505 ms. Please credit George Woltman's PRP for this result! LLR tests only k*2^n±1 numbers, so, we will do a PRP test of 2*23^261+1 2*23^261+1 is a probable prime. Time: 15.533 ms. Please credit George Woltman's PRP for this result!"
 2005-11-08, 04:07 #114 Kosmaj     Nov 2003 70468 Posts Your base 23 primes are cute but too small Currently reportable primes must have at least 61119 digits, therefore in base 23, the minimum reportable exponent is 44900. One such prime is known: 2*23^47589+1 therefore you better begin from n=50,000. You will see that both sieving and testing is much slower in base 23 than in base 2.
 2005-11-09, 10:08 #115 nibble4bits     Nov 2005 2×7×13 Posts I kind of figured that but was going to mention it anyway. Yeah, 23^n=horrible to calculate for n>50000.
 2005-11-17, 01:11 #116 nibble4bits     Nov 2005 2668 Posts Done - I sent to the results file.
 2005-11-17, 13:34 #117 Kosmaj     Nov 2003 70468 Posts Nibble4bits Thanks for your help! But it seems you skipped/missed a few numbers. The input file has 517 candidates while your file has only 503 results for 355424355*2^n-1. The first one missing is 355424355 369167 Can you check your other files. Or maybe something went wrong when stopping and restarting LLR. If you cannot find what's wrong never mind, I'll locate and do the remaining 14.
 2005-12-07, 02:22 #118 nibble4bits     Nov 2005 2·7·13 Posts Sorry didn't see this until now - It wasn't until last night that I was able to load LLR again. I reinstalled my OS on my desktop so I could move to a 40GB and had tons of problems with scratched disks. :/ I'll submit the results of my reserved ranges when I'm done. If you send me those missed numbers then I can finish them (probally already done though).

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post emily Math 34 2017-07-16 18:44 wildrabbitt Hardware 8 2015-06-22 10:29 paulunderwood NeRDs 15 2015-02-28 09:24 CRGreathouse Probability & Probabilistic Number Theory 15 2014-08-13 18:46 MooooMoo Twin Prime Search 35 2007-11-04 07:11

All times are UTC. The time now is 05:41.

Tue Aug 4 05:41:16 UTC 2020 up 18 days, 1:28, 0 users, load averages: 1.58, 1.38, 1.29

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.