20050919, 03:05  #34 
Nov 2003
2·1,811 Posts 
Citrix
All k's you listed above are already on the low weight stats page. Creating another page will require updating two pages instead of one. But if you want to create such a page you are welcome, I can put it up on the server. About reserving 53 values, I think it's not realistic. How many machines do you have? Some of these k's are already checked to 1M or more. So please have a look at the stats page and tell me what k's do you want to reserve so that you can have some results within a month or so. 
20050919, 03:27  #35 
Jun 2003
1,579 Posts 
If you read my post it says if no one else is interested. I can always reserve work as needed from main thread as available if other people are also interested. But if no one else is interested, you reserve them for me.
Kosmaj, do you have a script to generate such a page. If you could generate such a page for me, I can update it myself. Ill take 48973 to start with and when I am done, take more. Thanks, Citrix Last fiddled with by Citrix on 20050919 at 03:34 
20050919, 04:14  #36 
Jun 2003
1,579 Posts 
Instead of working on all of them, I would like to search all of them for primes under n=100K. then take the best 23 candidates higher. Since I don't have enough power to work on all of them myself.
Citrix 
20050919, 04:30  #37 
Jun 2003
1,579 Posts 
Please help test these to 100K
48973 81 4 primes // checked by citrix 74201 92 124679 80 131069 92 192509 88 216367 92 256453 86 278077 95 284579 83 313979 99 327163 73 332159 95 334331 81 370421 99 473279 91 487811 86 612509 74 643843 91 648433 95 671413 92 685183 99 700057 92 700477 84 780427 71 783073 75 953429 95 961573 75 967597 65 981493 49 1006469 79 1034503 66 
20050919, 07:40  #38  
Nov 2003
2·1,811 Posts 
Citrix
Please stop this nonsense! Quote:
Quote:
And so on and so on. Your call is meaningless. Now, with respect to the following: Quote:
Last fiddled with by Kosmaj on 20050919 at 07:43 

20050919, 07:46  #39  
Jun 2003
1,579 Posts 
Quote:
I have checked the k to 100K and there are no new primes to report. Citrix 

20050919, 16:35  #40  
Mar 2005
Internet; Ukraine, Kiev
11·37 Posts 
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:


20050921, 21:06  #41 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
123F_{16} Posts 
Sieving on a celeron is a waste of resources, if you have an Athlon.. The athlon is over 50% more efficient at the same speed (and yours is even faster than your celeron, so even faster, relatively!)
edit: you said celeron 1.2 that's P3 based, I think, making it better even than an Athlon for sieving. Never mind! 1.5T should be plenty for sieving to n=1M, for any lowweight number. I'll find my formula notes at home tonight and see if I can find the pvalue estimation. The most basic equialence says to sieve until time per factor found is equal to LLR time on an exponent 70% of the way from minn to maxn. For you, that's around n=850k. LLR time increases roughly with the square of n, so LLRing an 850k power should take you about 9000 seconds per power. If 10 or more factors are found in a day, you should continue sieving. If 8 or fewer, stop for sure. If 9 factors in a day, it's right at the "sieved enough" point, and you should do whichever you prefer, as the choice is not relevant from an efficiency standpoint. Curtis 
20050921, 21:30  #42  
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
4671_{10} Posts 
Citrix:
Quote:
If you want to LLR just small numbers, then sieve each candidate to 100G or so (for Nvalues up to 1M, since that is the standard on the stats page and server), LLR to your preferred cutoff, and post results. Doing this to 100k takes more time to post and admin than to actually run, so isn't very helpful. Choose a cutoff point that has you processing no less than 2 weeks on each number, and I'm happy to help admin/update the page/etc for your work. You can even email me the sievedbutnotLLRed files, which I'll eventually post on the server. I suggest n=500k as a nice balance between variety and depth, to keep you interested and the administration manageable. 400k is tolerable, but 300k will happen REALLY fast on each numberI think I used to get to 250k in a weekend on a P3500, so a modern machine could sieve to 100G and LLR to 300k in something like 2 days. I imagine even 400k would happen in less than a week, thus my suggestion of 500k as your target. This would still get you through all 53 numbers by yourself in something less than 6 months, less if someone decides to join your method of progress. Note that even 1M takes around a month on a midlevel (2.4Ghz) P4 hardly a huge commitment. I have a bunch of publicschool P3class machines running, which is why my updates seem so much slower than these estimates indicate. Curtis 

20050921, 21:51  #43 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
4671_{10} Posts 
reserving k=403993, to help Citrix with his search. I'll put a P3 from school on it, and report times to sieve to 100G and LLR to 500k.
Curtis 
20050921, 22:07  #44 
Nov 2003
2·1,811 Posts 
Citrix, no problems, please take a few at the time and keep on going.
But I agree that checking one k to n=100k will not be very helpful in deciding is it a prolific one. For example for k=80857169 for n up to about 1.3M (?) Thomas found only two primes, for n=4 and n=1251076. Finally, I don't want to sound like a parrot but k=403993 mentioned by Curtis has been already checked by Joss to 405k. Do you intend to double check? 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
TPS stats page  Oddball  Twin Prime Search  0  20111029 18:34 
Fulltext stats page  ET_  PrimeNet  0  20090110 15:02 
odd entry on stats page  mdettweiler  Prime Sierpinski Project  3  20080827 18:34 
Updated Server Stats Page  Old man PrimeNet  Lounge  15  20031125 02:09 
Program version wrong on stats page.  Deamiter  Software  1  20021109 06:24 