mersenneforum.org A Sierpinski/Riesel-like problem
 User Name Remember Me? Password
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

2020-10-19, 15:47   #1068
sweety439

Nov 2016

2·1,249 Posts

At n=26544, found a new (probable) prime: (376*70^24952-1)/3
Attached Files
 pfgw.log (100 Bytes, 9 views)

 2020-10-22, 14:48 #1069 sweety439     Nov 2016 249810 Posts For the Sierpinski bases 2<=b<=128 and b = 256, 512, 1024: proven: 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 27, 29, 34, 35, 39, 41, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 51, 54, 56, 57, 59, 61, 64, 65, 69, 71, 73 (with PRP), 74, 75, 76, 79, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, 94, 95, 100, 101, 105 (with PRP), 110, 111, 114, 116, 119, 121, 125, 256 (with PRP) weak proven (only GFN's or half GFN's remain): 12, 18, 32, 37, 38, 50, 55, 62, 72, 77, 89, 91, 92, 98, 99, 104, 107, 109 1k bases: 25, 53, 103, 113, 118 2k bases but become 1k bases if GFN's and half GFN's are excluded: 10, 36, 68, 83, 86, 117, 122, 128 4k bases but become 1k bases if GFN's and half GFN's are excluded: 512 2k bases: 26, 30, 33, 46, 115 3k bases but become 2k bases if GFN's and half GFN's are excluded: 67, 123 3k bases: 28, 102 4k bases but become 3k bases if GFN's and half GFN's are excluded: 93 5k bases but become 3k bases if GFN's and half GFN's are excluded: 1024
 2020-10-22, 14:59 #1070 sweety439     Nov 2016 2×1,249 Posts For the Riesel bases 2<=b<=128 and b = 256, 512, 1024: proven: 4, 5, 7 (with PRP), 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 41, 44, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73 (with PRP), 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 81, 83, 84, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91 (with PRP), 92, 95, 98, 99, 100 (with PRP), 101, 103, 104, 107 (with PRP), 109, 110, 111, 113, 114, 116, 119, 121, 122, 125, 128, 256, 512 1k bases: 43, 70, 85, 94, 97, 118, 123 2k bases: 33, 105, 115 3k bases: 46, 61, 80
2020-10-25, 19:43   #1071
sweety439

Nov 2016

249810 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by sweety439 No other (probable) primes found for R70 k = 376, 496, 811 up to n=22813
R70 at n=37634, no new (probable) prime found

2020-10-28, 00:07   #1072
sweety439

Nov 2016

249810 Posts

R70 at n=41326, no other (probable) primes found
Attached Files
 R70 status.txt (73.3 KB, 5 views)

2020-10-28, 00:09   #1073
sweety439

Nov 2016

1001110000102 Posts

R43 at n=18122, no (probable) primes found

Unfortunately, srsieve cannot sieve R43, since k and b are both odd.
Attached Files
 R43 status.txt (618.6 KB, 5 views)

2020-10-29, 00:49   #1074
sweety439

Nov 2016

2·1,249 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by sweety439 R70 at n=41326, no other (probable) primes found
R70 at n=43008, one new (probable) prime found: (376*70^42427-1)/3

Unfortunately, this does not help for the R70 problem, since k=376 already has the prime (376*70^6484-1)/3, and the only remain k (k=811) still does not have any (probable) primes

Last fiddled with by sweety439 on 2020-10-29 at 00:50

 2020-10-29, 03:28 #1075 sweety439     Nov 2016 2×1,249 Posts If k is rational power of base (b), then .... (let k = b^(r/s) with gcd(r,s) = 1) * For the Riesel case, this is generalized repunit number to base b^(1/s) * For the Sierpinski case, if s is odd, then this is generalized (half) Fermat number to base b^(1/s) * For the Sierpinski case, if s is even, then this is generalized repunit number to negative base -b^(1/s)
 2020-10-31, 00:22 #1076 sweety439     Nov 2016 2×1,249 Posts These problems generalized the Sierpinski problem and the Riesel problem to other bases (instead of only base 2), since for bases b>2, k*b^n+1 is always divisible by gcd(k+1,b-1) and k*b^n-1 is always divisible by gcd(k-1,b-1), the formulas are (k*b^n+1)/gcd(k+1,b-1) for Sierpinski and (k*b^n-1)/gcd(k-1,b-1) for Riesel, for a given base b>=2, we will find and proof the smallest k>=1 such that (k*b^n+1)/gcd(k+1,b-1) (for Sierpinski) or (k*b^n-1)/gcd(k-1,b-1) (for Riesel) is not prime for all n>=1, any k that obtains a full covering set in any manner from ALGEBRAIC factors will be excluded, in many instances, this includes k's where there is a partial covering set of numeric factors (or a single numeric factor) and a partial covering set of algebraic factors that combine to make a full covering set, all k below the lowest k found to have a NUMERIC covering set must have a prime including multiples of the base (MOB) but excluding the k's that obtains a full covering set in any manner from ALGEBRAIC factors, for the lowest k found to have a NUMERIC covering set for all bases b<=2048 and b = 4096, 8192, 16384, 32768, 65536, see Sierpinski and Riesel
2020-10-31, 00:24   #1077
sweety439

Nov 2016

249810 Posts

reserving S36 k=1814 for n = 87.5K - 100K, currently at n=92334, no (probable) prime found
Attached Files
 S36 status.txt (19.6 KB, 5 views)

 2020-10-31, 00:54 #1078 sweety439     Nov 2016 2×1,249 Posts For Riesel problem base b, k=1 proven composite by algebra factors if and only if b is perfect power (of the form m^r with r>1) For Sierpinski problem base b, k=1 proven composite by algebra factors if and only if b is perfect odd power (of the form m^r with odd r>1) In Riesel problem base b, k=1 can only have prime for n which is prime In Sierpinski problem base b, k=1 can only have prime for n which is power of 2

 Thread Tools

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post sweety439 sweety439 11 2020-09-23 01:42 sweety439 sweety439 20 2020-07-03 17:22 sweety439 sweety439 12 2017-12-01 21:56 robert44444uk Conjectures 'R Us 139 2007-12-17 05:17 rogue Conjectures 'R Us 11 2007-12-17 05:08

All times are UTC. The time now is 05:29.

Sun Nov 29 05:29:16 UTC 2020 up 80 days, 2:40, 3 users, load averages: 0.96, 1.50, 1.62

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.