mersenneforum.org Why Base 5 and Weights
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2005-01-02, 07:54 #1 Citrix     Jun 2003 32·52·7 Posts Why Base 5 and Weights Just curious, why base 5 and not 3 or 7? Also, could you provide the weights for the remaining k's? Use : -b5 for http://pages.prodigy.net/chris_nash/psieve.html Citrix Last fiddled with by Citrix on 2005-01-02 at 08:05
2005-01-03, 02:54   #2
geoff

Mar 2003
New Zealand

13×89 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Citrix Use : -b5 for http://pages.prodigy.net/chris_nash/psieve.html
I tried this program but I don't know how to interpret the output. This is an example for k=10918:

Code:
\$ ./psieve3.exe 10918 -b5

*****************************************
* PSIEVE 3.21  Chris Nash, Paul Jobling *
* Thanks to Joe McLean for suggestions! *
*****************************************

10918
n=1 mod 2 - factor 3
Best % - 50.00 for modulus 2
n=1 mod 3 - factor 31
n=4 mod 5 - factor 11
n=2 mod 6 - factor 7
Best % - 83.33 for modulus 6
n=3 mod 9 - factor 19
n=12 mod 16 - factor 17
n=14 mod 17 - factor 409
Best % - 88.89 for modulus 18
n=6 mod 19 - factor 191
n=0 mod 30 - factor 61
Best % - 90.00 for modulus 30
n=36 mod 42 - factor 127
n=18 mod 42 - factor 43
n=45 mod 69 - factor 139
n=62 mod 82 - factor 83
n=0 mod 89 - factor 179
Best % - 93.33 for modulus 90
n=60 mod 94 - factor 2069
n=20 mod 152 - factor 457
n=91 mod 155 - factor 311
n=120 mod 173 - factor 3461
n=10 mod 188 - factor 12409
n=168 mod 196 - factor 197
n=5 mod 209 - factor 419
n=185 mod 215 - factor 431
n=172 mod 226 - factor 227
n=176 mod 232 - factor 33409
n=138 mod 232 - factor 233
n=33 mod 239 - factor 479
n=17 mod 245 - factor 491
n=176 mod 254 - factor 509
255:254
Is 255:254 the weight? I have just been using NewPGen to sieve until now.

 2005-01-03, 14:23 #3 Citrix     Jun 2003 32·52·7 Posts You also need to use the -e option. it will in the end say that this many candidates are left, which will be the weight. Citrix Last fiddled with by Citrix on 2005-01-03 at 14:23
 2005-01-06, 19:53 #4 robert44444uk     Jun 2003 Oxford, UK 2·953 Posts Why base 5? In answer to Citrix's point, I had been looking at Sierpinski/Riesels of the form k.(2^x+1))^n+/-1, where x=1,2,3.... because these are the only base forms which give non trivial solutions for k. See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/primeform/message/4773 and David Broadhurst's elegant reply. x=0 is the classic series, subject to extensive literature and the the SoB search x=1 is already being extensively researched and looks horribly difficult because the lowest mooted k is in the 10 million range both Sierpinski and Riesel the next x=2 is the focus of this search and gives a sensible number of candidates up to the lowest proven values of k both Sierpinski and Riesel, and the Sierpinski is easier because there are less candidates Hope this answers your point. Regards Robert Smith
 2005-01-18, 22:40 #5 Citrix     Jun 2003 30478 Posts could you also provide the average and total weight for the remaining k's.
2005-01-18, 23:14   #6
Citrix

Jun 2003

32·52·7 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by robert44444uk In answer to Citrix's point, I had been looking at Sierpinski/Riesels of the form k.(2^x+1))^n+/-1, where x=1,2,3.... because these are the only base forms which give non trivial solutions for k. See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/primeform/message/4773 and David Broadhurst's elegant reply. x=0 is the classic series, subject to extensive literature and the the SoB search x=1 is already being extensively researched and looks horribly difficult because the lowest mooted k is in the 10 million range both Sierpinski and Riesel the next x=2 is the focus of this search and gives a sensible number of candidates up to the lowest proven values of k both Sierpinski and Riesel, and the Sierpinski is easier because there are less candidates Hope this answers your point. Regards Robert Smith
could you provide me a link to where the base 3 search is being done?

Citrix

2005-01-19, 14:51   #7
geoff

Mar 2003
New Zealand

13·89 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Citrix could you also provide the average and total weight for the remaining k's.
Can you tell me how to calculate them? Under the weight column I have just put the number reported by 'psieve.exe <k> -b5 -e'. http://www.geocities.com/g_w_reynold...ki5/status.txt

 2005-01-19, 15:46 #8 Citrix     Jun 2003 32×52×7 Posts just do w1+w2+w3+...Wn to get total then for average w1+w2+w3+....Wn/n for n k's left. I hope this post is more clear. Citrix
 2005-01-19, 16:04 #9 geoff     Mar 2003 New Zealand 13×89 Posts OK, I see what you mean now.
2005-01-19, 16:24   #10
robert44444uk

Jun 2003
Oxford, UK

111011100102 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Citrix could you provide me a link to where the base 3 search is being done? Citrix
Citrix

See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/primeform/message/4388 and resulting long string of replies

Regards

Robert Smith

2005-01-20, 17:50   #11
Citrix

Jun 2003

110001001112 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by robert44444uk Citrix See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/primeform/message/4388 and resulting long string of replies Regards Robert Smith

Robert,

It would be intresting to see if k's that are multiple of 3 or 5 or both can ever generate a sierpinski or riesel number for base 2? I will try to work on this later this week or as soon as I get some time and see what I can come up with. Base 5 takes too long as most of the optimizations for base 2 that make them super fast don't work for base 5. (I'm not sure if base 4 counts, but the smallest sierpinski number is k=5 for that base and I can prove that )

Citrix

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Mini-Geek Conjectures 'R Us 1 2010-12-06 17:23 Mini-Geek Conjectures 'R Us 4 2010-04-17 09:57 paulunderwood Riesel Prime Search 2 2006-09-11 06:46 mfgoode Puzzles 12 2006-02-03 06:22 drakkar67 Prime Sierpinski Project 1 2006-01-03 00:01

All times are UTC. The time now is 04:56.

Sun Nov 29 04:56:44 UTC 2020 up 80 days, 2:07, 3 users, load averages: 1.34, 1.36, 1.38