20211225, 17:01  #12  
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
2^{2}×11×239 Posts 
Quote:
The general public is not well fascinated with ever bigger primes. But one that is derived from pi would get more play than the norm. Also, if it was prime, that would make waves enough in the maths community. So, it would behoove the OP to test that one to their satisfaction first. Has anyone tabulated a score for the OP yet? 

20211225, 17:13  #13  
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
24424_{8} Posts 
Quote:
In order to get Prime95 to run the P1 test first do the following: Stop Prime95 and exit the program. Edit the worktodo file to put the appropriate P1 line ahead of the PRP line (adding N/A, aright after the =). Save the file. Restart Prime95. 

20211225, 17:19  #14  
Feb 2017
Nowhere
5770_{10} Posts 
Quote:
Quote:


20211225, 17:33  #15 
Apr 2020
2·349 Posts 
If this number was prime, the mathematical community would immediately understand that this was a complete coincidence and totally unrelated to the fact that the exponent looks like the base10 expansion of pi. It would be no more interesting than meaningless coincidences such as ln(pi^4+pi^5) = 5.999999956... and the like.

20211225, 19:27  #16 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest
3×5×431 Posts 
GIMPS101: Never post a live AID to the forum. (png3, PRP line)
Stuff like this is why I say read the reference info especially the beginneroriented material. Last fiddled with by kriesel on 20211225 at 19:29 
20220124, 14:55  #17  
"Indrajith Gamage"
Dec 2021
Sri Lanka
3^{2} Posts 
Quote:
Hi Kriesel, I'm back with a very strong rapport now aren't I? https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...ll=1&ecmhist=1 I see that you have completed the P1 factoring of this specific exponent to a large extent (130M in fact) and found that it returns no factors. Are you willing to give it a try with the full PRP now? (or perhaps you are still not convinced) I'm running it but seems like it's taking more than a year and a half (524 days) to complete with my PC. (still at 0.2%) Last fiddled with by IndrajithGamage on 20220124 at 15:00 

20220124, 15:55  #18 
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
10516_{10} Posts 
You obviously don't understand how P1 is different than TF. Kriesel's factoring had a 3.88% chance of finding a factor. Using a B2 pf 130M is not the same as TF up to 130M. That took about 252 GHzdays of effort. Doing the PRP test takes about 7,010 GHz days of effort. If you want to do that, fine.
And you obviously don't know that Kriesel does work on virtually all silly claims like this. He want to find factors to prove the claims false. Many other less earnest and lower claims he has done PRP on too (if no factor was found). He wants there to be no outstanding claims of Mersenne Primes that have not been proven either prime or composite. Your claim is nothing special to him. Since you are doing the PRP test, please make sure that you are using Prime95 v 30.7 (unless you have a powerful GPU that you are running the test on.) It will help to ensure that the test is error free and allow someone else to quickly verify your result. 
20220124, 16:03  #19  
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest
3×5×431 Posts 
Really? I don't know why you would claim that.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If it was left at default settings, it would be faster overall (test and verify) to set it properly soon, and at least stop and restart, or perhaps start over. Quote:
By summer 2023, I may have reduced my queued work enough to run a Cert or DC of your ~999,999,8xx ppb likely composite result on your chosen exponent ~385M. My vote is for letting this thread run a while. It occurs to me as still mildly amusing. Last fiddled with by kriesel on 20220124 at 17:00 

20220124, 16:21  #20 
Mar 2019
3^{2}·29 Posts 
Why are we still entertaining this troll / charlatan?
Maybe a mod should lock the thread. 
20220124, 16:45  #21 
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
2^{2}×11×239 Posts 
Because the best way to deal with people that think that they know the next prime is to show them that their "special" number isn't special. That may take a few minutes, days, or never. Those that never accept it eventually leave the forum, or do something that gets them banned. Those that eventually understand that their wild guess is as good as picking lottery numbers either leave, wander off, or become more educated about things. If we can convert them, to educated, so much the better. You are free to ignore them (there is a tool for that) or this thread.
BTW, carping about each troll (repeatedly) is not an endearing trait. Last fiddled with by Uncwilly on 20220124 at 16:46 
20220124, 17:29  #22  
Feb 2017
Nowhere
2·5·577 Posts 
Quote:
In this post, you claimed that M_{314159257} was prime. In this post he pointed out that he had already run a PRP test that proved the number composite six months previous: Code:
[Fri Jun 11 12:40:01 2021] {"status":"C", "exponent":314159257, "worktype":"PRP3", "res64":"3A7F291B4DA3A___", "residuetype":1, "res2048":"8D5A...", "fftlength":17694720, "shiftcount":232515581, "errorcode":"00000000", "securitycode":"________", "program":{"name":"Prime95", "version":"30.6", "build":4, "port":4}, "timestamp":"20210611 17:40:01", "errors":{"gerbicz":0}, "proof":{"version":2, "power":9, "hashsize":64, "md5":"2675..."}, "user":"Kriesel", "computer":"moa"} Quote:
I find it interesting that you're apparently not willing just to let your own test run to completion. 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Test a Specific Exponent in Prime95. When it is 100% done, does it mean I find a new prime number?  king  Information & Answers  5  20180221 18:15 
Test a specific exponent with Prime95  Karl M Johnson  Software  12  20151012 15:56 
Trial factoring a specific number  Qubit  Software  4  20140115 05:04 
Picking a specific exponent to TF?  137ben  Software  9  20120526 19:16 
Request specific exponent from primenet question  Unregistered  Information & Answers  19  20080530 08:34 