mersenneforum.org Untested Sierp conjectures sorted by conjecture
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

2010-01-14, 16:10   #12
Mini-Geek
Account Deleted

"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA

427110 Posts

.
Attached Files
 unworked-lists.zip (6.3 KB, 301 views)

 2010-01-15, 05:26 #13 gd_barnes     May 2007 Kansas; USA 10,597 Posts Outstanding Tim! If you can run that about once every 3 days or so, I'll continue updating the first 2 posts of each thread, which I'll do now shortly. Right now, we're in a spate of new bases being worked. I know that Ian will be doing all the reasonably-sized Riesel bases where b==(4 mod 5) due to algebraic factors over the next few weeks. Perhaps after the big push is through, we could go to running it once every 1-2 weeks. Edit: All 4 posts now updated. I was bumping up against the char. limit in post 1 so I reduced the # of spaces in between the base and conjecture and made the dividing line between the lists at a conjecture of 10K (vs. 100K), which evened things out a little more. Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2010-01-15 at 06:08
2010-01-15, 13:47   #14
rogue

"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the

653910 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by gd_barnes Edit: All 4 posts now updated. I was bumping up against the char. limit in post 1 so I reduced the # of spaces in between the base and conjecture and made the dividing line between the lists at a conjecture of 10K (vs. 100K), which evened things out a little more.
Which is fine. I used 100K because a longer list could not be posted in one message. I was forced to post it as two lists. In a couple of years, it might be down to a single list.

Gary, do you have any guidelines regarding how many n should be tested for each k? For example, does it make sense for someone to tackle one of the harder bases, but only test to 10K (or lower) just to get it off of the list? Does it make sense to reserve some bases for "group efforts" only unless they can demonstrate that they have the horsepower to tackle a more difficult base?

Last fiddled with by rogue on 2010-01-15 at 13:47

 2010-01-22, 09:10 #15 gd_barnes     May 2007 Kansas; USA 245458 Posts Tim, Can you provide a quick updated list here for both sides? I'll then update the 1st post in this and the Riesel thread. Ian has taken a lot of new bases in the last few days. 1-2 others have taken a couple of them also. Thanks, Gary
2010-01-22, 09:27   #16
gd_barnes

May 2007
Kansas; USA

10,597 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by rogue Which is fine. I used 100K because a longer list could not be posted in one message. I was forced to post it as two lists. In a couple of years, it might be down to a single list. Gary, do you have any guidelines regarding how many n should be tested for each k? For example, does it make sense for someone to tackle one of the harder bases, but only test to 10K (or lower) just to get it off of the list? Does it make sense to reserve some bases for "group efforts" only unless they can demonstrate that they have the horsepower to tackle a more difficult base?
For "reasonable sized" bases, I like to see them tested to n=25K. No, no guideline on what is reasonable. For larger conjectured bases (perhaps such as your Riesel base 58), getting a good run of all k's up to n=10K is a sufficient start.

I'd personally prefer that people avoid most bases with > ~1500-2000 k's remaining at n=10K. (Much better is bases with < 200-250 k's remaining at n=10K, especially if you have less than ~2 quads for testing.) Perhaps that is the best guideline that I can come up with. I think Riesel base 39 has something like ~4500 k's remaining at n=15K. Ian put a huge amount of personal and CPU effort into that as well as base 40, I think. I think he got it there within 2-3 months or so. But he has quite a bit of resources (and personal stamina) to be able to stomach so many 1000's of small primes. I would not recommend that to most people.

I can't stop people from reserving bases well out of proportion with their resources [although will properly chastise them if I think they are :-)] and don't really have a guideline for that other than they should be able to get it at least to n=10K within 3-6 months. There are a couple of new bases out there that have been reserved for a long time (>3 months) with what I believe to be very little work done.

For these lists, the bases would be removed if someone simply reserves a new base. It doesn't take actually searching them. But if someone goes AWOL and doesn't respond to requests for a status, then I would unreserve them and we'd put them back on the list here.

As you all well know, I'm pretty anal on how statuses are reported. But when it comes to coordinating a group effort on a single base or several bases, I'm quite happy to let someone else take the lead. I promise I won't be "too" anal about how it is done. :-) I just don't have the time to coordinate large-scale sieving/testing efforts on multiple bases or 100's of thousands or millions of k's. That's why I unstickied the base 3 threads several months ago. I'm happy if people do a little here-and-there on them but it takes too much time when doing group efforts of millions of k's.

If someone does take the lead in such a group effort, I'll just make sure the web pages are kept properly updated and do the balancing of k's remaining as needed. I just want to make sure the math is right in all aspects whenever possible so that nothing gets missed and extra CPU/personal time is avoided.

And finally and you've all heard this numerous times before: It's still my preference that we extend the testing of already tested bases and/or fill in the "base holes" for bases < ~150-200. I took a few new smaller-conjectured bases <= 150 recently to knock out some of them but generally stick with checking or double checking others work or pushing "under" tested existing bases a little higher. Within a few weeks, I'll probably reserve a few already-tested bases <= 150 that are only at n=10K or 15K to push them up to n=25K or higher. Once all "reasonable" bases <= 150 are at n=25K, I might find a few "unreasonable" bases <= 150 to take to n=25K (> ~100 k's remaining at n=25K) or will do some work on the lower bases to n=50K or 100K. As an interesting side note on that: I recently reserved new Riesel base 91 with a conjecture of k>220K. Although it has 235 k's remaining at n=2500, due to its high weight, I estimate that it will have 90-100 k's remaining at n=25K. So it is what I would call a "borderline case" as to whether it is "reasonable" or not. Also, I kind of have a personal interest in the high-weight k==(1 mod 30) bases, hence my year-long effort to get Sierp base 31 up to n=25K on ONE core. lol (It's currently at n=24K and will have 1100-1105 k's remaining when done. That's actually very low for a conjecture of k>6.3M.)

Gary

Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2010-01-22 at 09:48

2010-01-22, 12:10   #17
Mini-Geek
Account Deleted

"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA

4,271 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by gd_barnes Tim, Can you provide a quick updated list here for both sides? I'll then update the 1st post in this and the Riesel thread. Ian has taken a lot of new bases in the last few days. 1-2 others have taken a couple of them also. Thanks, Gary
Updated lists are attached.
By the way, is it at all necessary to pull from the Riesel/Sierp reservations/statuses lists, or does just pulling from the 'conjectures and proofs' list suffice? I've been doing the latter, but recently realized that perhaps some new bases that are reserved but with nothing reported yet might only be on the former list.
Attached Files
 lists.zip (6.2 KB, 303 views)

Last fiddled with by Mini-Geek on 2010-01-22 at 12:12

2010-02-04, 11:10   #18
gd_barnes

May 2007
Kansas; USA

101001011001012 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Mini-Geek Updated lists are attached. By the way, is it at all necessary to pull from the Riesel/Sierp reservations/statuses lists, or does just pulling from the 'conjectures and proofs' list suffice? I've been doing the latter, but recently realized that perhaps some new bases that are reserved but with nothing reported yet might only be on the former list.
I've now updated the lists in the first 2 posts here and on the Riesel side as of this moment. With so many new bases done since your posting, I went ahead and manually keyed in the bases done from the pages. I then used VLOOKUP tables that had all bases and conjectures in Excel to remove the bases already started.

Bases that have been reserved should be removed from the lists, regardless of whether they have had actual work done on them or not. If the person decides to abandom them, then we can add them back to the lists.

For clarification, newer reservations on bases shown as "testing just started" on the pages would not be shown here but bases that show "no testing done" should be shown here because they have not been reserved. I'm just choosing to show the latter for one reason or another...generally because they are "kind of" a low base -or- they were started at one time and later unreserved with no work done -or- they are just a base of interest.

Gary

 2010-05-10, 14:26 #19 MyDogBuster     May 2008 Wilmington, DE 22×23×31 Posts Audit complete on posts 1 and 2. No problems
 2010-11-10, 14:04 #20 rogue     "Mark" Apr 2003 Between here and the 13·503 Posts I took each of the conjectures where the conjectured k>10000 and ran a range of 1000 up to n=500 with the script to get an idea as to the difficulty to proving them. The following list is an extrapolation of that data, showing the number of expected remaining k per conjecture at n=500. This list only shows those for which the expected remaining k < 10000. Code: Base Conjectured k Expected Remaining k 490 15123 136 697 14308 172 403 11412 194 150 49074 196 627 12354 222 382 11491 230 445 14986 285 640 11925 286 523 10872 294 663 10042 321 880 25282 329 355 23586 330 282 10807 346 658 20428 347 598 18568 371 642 10932 372 810 30008 420 957 19638 452 465 78056 468 1012 16207 470 943 15636 485 733 14314 501 235 15706 518 277 19578 529 772 23191 557 348 26523 557 808 24271 680 738 12767 702 592 23721 735 270 62060 745 625 17428 767 215 19924 777 555 32388 777 858 35218 845 522 32644 849 667 26218 891 927 28624 945 247 71392 1071 513 45828 1100 460 37803 1134 1005 54610 1147 430 22413 1278 568 23328 1330 660 74031 1333 292 40393 1333 591 16242 1364 918 24812 1365 843 28486 1367 432 46765 1403 997 36048 1406 971 14876 1473 708 28361 1475 982 39640 1506 381 18526 1519 742 30462 1554 871 21676 1561 735 174778 1573 621 19592 1607 243 40078 1643 852 34974 1644 223 57814 1792 442 36768 1949 431 20138 2155 262 110724 2214 820 30378 2218 283 106714 2241 388 90249 2346 807 53428 2404 841 22312 2410 1018 77443 2556 291 33232 2559 763 151462 2575 576 30651 2667 448 139191 2923 768 55367 2934 931 37978 2962 757 47376 2985 751 41032 3159 310 268392 3221 457 84958 3228 393 58608 3282 847 150678 3315 732 81364 3336 297 133654 3341 856 39457 3591 205 138330 3735 411 46246 3746 616 53061 4086 711 49572 4214 646 52701 4216 717 179678 4312 303 174742 4369 675 293812 4407 975 375364 4504 606 50380 4786 313 111312 5454 421 53806 5703 225 117406 5753 477 78152 5783 537 176734 5832 357 456628 5936 366 79231 5942 745 334816 6027 336 92000 6348 612 162446 6985 451 97068 6989 822 278173 9458 595 301128 9636
 2011-01-26, 18:29 #21 rogue     "Mark" Apr 2003 Between here and the 13×503 Posts After all conjectures for conjectured k < 10000 have been started, I suggest moving the conjectures for conjectured k < 1000000 into the first post.
2011-01-27, 02:27   #22
gd_barnes

May 2007
Kansas; USA

10,597 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by rogue After all conjectures for conjectured k < 10000 have been started, I suggest moving the conjectures for conjectured k < 1000000 into the first post.
Better yet: I've combined them all into one post now.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post rogue Conjectures 'R Us 36 2018-01-03 19:53 ONeil Information & Answers 4 2017-12-23 05:30 rogue Conjectures 'R Us 109 2017-04-29 01:28 moo Lone Mersenne Hunters 0 2005-03-24 22:38 wirthi Math 10 2003-10-05 13:02

All times are UTC. The time now is 19:51.

Thu Jan 27 19:51:45 UTC 2022 up 188 days, 14:20, 3 users, load averages: 2.37, 2.00, 2.02