20120110, 17:36  #67 
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the
19·347 Posts 

20120110, 17:57  #68 
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the
19×347 Posts 
Here is a better list (bug fixed) with differences listed:
Code:
8*86^n+1 1017 848 32*87^n+1 342 342 8*182^n+1 389 269 27*252^n+1 2164 1855 8*263^n+1 363 298 27*328^n+1 870 758 8*353^n+1 613 613 8*426^n+1 1288 802 8*428^n+1 655 397 8*497^n+1 943 738 8*758^n+1 549 501 8*785^n+1 588 410 8*828^n+1 1136 529 8*930^n+1 1645 1144 8*953^n+1 1155 795 4*72^n1 1211 838 8*321^n1 1017 817 8*328^n1 915 774 9*636^n1 2840 1758 8*665^n1 1582 972 9*688^n1 1252 641 32*702^n1 2339 2216 8*761^n1 1527 2285 8*867^n1 836 475 
20120111, 08:11  #69 
May 2007
Kansas; USA
29D9_{16} Posts 
We should never have a k remaining on the pages where algebraic factorization would bring the weight to 0. Those should always be shown as eliminated by "partial algebraic factorization". I see that is no longer the case with your corrected code so that is a good thing.
Still...please check your code again. You'll need to enlighten me on how any n's are removed due to algebraic factors on 8*761^n1. On a sieve with srsieve to P=511 for n=100001110000, there are 2285 n's remaining, none of which are divisible by 3. (Maybe I'm missing something.) That's one of only 3 that I spot checked. Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 20120111 at 08:15 
20120111, 13:55  #70  
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the
19×347 Posts 
Quote:
Fortunately I haven't been affected with the bases (but was close). I had sieved a couple of k that I had reserved, but hadn't loaded them into my server yet. I just need to resieve them, costing me about 1 week on a single core per k. 

20120112, 08:37  #71  
May 2007
Kansas; USA
29D9_{16} Posts 
Quote:
I'm out of town for about 910 more days. After inspecting these a little closer after I get back, I'll change the first post to account for the n's removed due to algebraic factors. 

20120112, 14:22  #72  
Just call me Henry
"David"
Sep 2007
Liverpool (GMT/BST)
2^{5}·11·17 Posts 
Quote:


20120126, 10:44  #73  
May 2007
Kansas; USA
3·3,571 Posts 
Quote:
Gary 

20120204, 02:49  #74 
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the
19×347 Posts 
With my latest changes to srsieve, some of these get to change once again. I don't think that any of the Sierpinski ones are affected, but some of the Riesel ones are, notably those where k=16 (2^4 and 4^2) and k=64 (2^6, 4^3, and 8^2). I computed these weights. Would someone care to see if I've made a mistake?
64*177^n1 1016 64*425^n1 948 16*333^n1 1389 64*741^n1 2016 
20120204, 03:34  #75 
May 2007
Kansas; USA
10100111011001_{2} Posts 
These look good but wouldn't the previous version of srsieve have picked up k=16 correctly since it is only a perfect square? (Or perhaps it was just overlooked in the scheme of things in these lists?) I can see why the previous version would have missed picking up some algebraic factors for k=64 since it is both a square and cube.
I have changed the first post. Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 20120204 at 03:34 
20120204, 04:59  #76  
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the
19×347 Posts 
Quote:
Last fiddled with by rogue on 20120204 at 05:00 

20120308, 04:31  #77 
May 2008
Wilmington, DE
2^{2}·23·31 Posts 
Added 24*123^n1 reserved in the PRPNet2 drive to n=250K
Weight is 2758 Last fiddled with by MyDogBuster on 20120308 at 04:55 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
P1 factoring attempts at smallestremaining Mersenne numbers with no known factors  UberNumberGeek  Factoring  51  20170213 20:30 
20 Easy Pieces  The Remaining 29bit Jobs  swellman  XYYXF Project  5  20160227 22:35 
Discussion about CPU time needed and k's remaining  Siemelink  Conjectures 'R Us  41  20080711 23:05 
Easiest Remaining Cunninghams  R.D. Silverman  Factoring  1  20080312 03:34 
distribution of remaining candidates  thommy  3*2^n1 Search  41  20040411 22:05 