20170403, 22:18  #12  
May 2007
Kansas; USA
3^{2}·11·107 Posts 
Quote:
Why are so many of the project's current participants so enamored by such huge conjectured bases? It was not that way up until a couple of years ago. Perhaps it was the advent of the srbase program. These large conjectured bases will never be proven. The point of the project was originally to prove as many of the conjectures as possible. It even states as much. I would be fine if we just stuck with bases where ck < 1M. If we complete those then moving on to CK=1M2M is fine, etc. I'm spending 75% of my total project update time messing with these thousands and millions of teeny primes, removing duplicate primes for the same k, and removing k's remaining. I just now finished your latest posting for S15. It took me 2030 minutes just for that one base and there are many other things to keep updated. I had to sort the primes, remove the primes that were duplicate for each k (since that was not done like I would prefer), split out the k's remaining for only k=10M50M, remove the primes from the remaining k's file, and format them in a manner that can be shown on the web pages. Then I have to upload the pages to the server. It is no small task. There is virtually no one that would take on the task of doing udpates for monster conjectered bases. It is a huge task. See the above paragraph. KEP had originally taken on ONLY R3 himself as his own side project. He gave it up after less than 3 months because he saw how much effort it was just for one large conjectured base. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy doing the updates but not the huge updates. My favorite thing to do is to change one of the bases from green to gray. :) But I also like removing k's from bases with a few hundred or especially fewer than 10 k's remaining because we can potentially prove those. Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 20170403 at 22:47 

20170403, 22:20  #13 
May 2007
Kansas; USA
3^{2}·11·107 Posts 
Like I said before and KEP aknowledged the figure is extremely over inflated. It does not remove k's with trivial or algebraic factors on bases that have not been started.

20170403, 22:29  #14  
May 2007
Kansas; USA
3^{2}×11×107 Posts 
Quote:
Quote:
You say srbase is not using much effort for trivially factored and GFN k's. Sure enough but try doing it on every base with 100's of trillions of k's in order to get a reasonably accurate figure for your first post here. I doubt you'll find it to be a trivial effort. Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 20170403 at 22:48 

20170404, 08:24  #15  
"Nuri, the dragon :P"
Jul 2016
Good old Germany
7×11^{2} Posts 
Quote:
I´m sorry about S15 because I used the script for starting the range. I´ll finish my S540 reservation and will make some bases n<100K. 

20170404, 09:20  #16 
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the
5×1,307 Posts 
Gary, you should consider transferring the work for S7/S15/S280 etc to someone else. As you stated management of those bases waste a lot of your time.

20170404, 15:57  #17  
Quasi Admin Thing
May 2005
2^{2}·3^{5} Posts 
Quote:
It would be manageable, to remove the k's but it would mean about 700000+ spreadsheet tables would have to be created and that would require about 2100000+ minutes of work. So it could be managed, but it would make the stats much harder to do 

20170404, 16:57  #18  
"Nuri, the dragon :P"
Jul 2016
Good old Germany
7·11^{2} Posts 
Quote:
That´s an good idea. I´m willing to take care about S3/S7/S15, if you let me know what must be done. Managing 1042 (x2) Bases is way to much for 1 person (even for two). 

20170404, 17:33  #19 
Just call me Henry
"David"
Sep 2007
Liverpool (GMT/BST)
1011101000011_{2} Posts 
The correct method would be to give a database the job. It would need some initial programming but would be more efficient long term. It would also allow for through checking of bases by storing all primes n>=1(This would require a lot of disk space for bases like R3 but disk space is cheep.)

20170405, 06:05  #20 
Romulan Interpreter
"name field"
Jun 2011
Thailand
71×139 Posts 
This was posted on April 1st...

20170405, 16:54  #21  
"99(4^34019)99 palind"
Nov 2016
(P^81993)SZ base 36
C88_{16} Posts 
Quote:
How do you count with k's? Do you include trivial k's (i.e. gcd(k+1,b1) is not 1)? I am doubted since some bases (like SR71 and SR280) have very large CK. Besides, do you include the k's with full/partial algebraic factors? And do you include the k's which are rational powers of b? Last fiddled with by sweety439 on 20170405 at 16:55 

20170405, 16:59  #22 
"99(4^34019)99 palind"
Nov 2016
(P^81993)SZ base 36
C88_{16} Posts 
The count of the remain k's is not the same as the count of the remain k's in http://www.noprimeleftbehind.net/crus/tab/CRUS_tab.htm.

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Progress  bsquared  YAFU  20  20140522 16:52 
Progress  R.D. Silverman  Factoring  0  20120522 14:03 
Special project #3b  Project 400  schickel  Aliquot Sequences  307  20111028 01:29 
Special project #3a  Project 300  schickel  Aliquot Sequences  29  20110812 17:45 
In Progress?  R.D. Silverman  Cunningham Tables  33  20100507 14:02 