20110216, 22:57  #56 
"Phil"
Sep 2002
Tracktown, U.S.A.
19·59 Posts 
Your estimate of 10000 is right. I'll be interested to hear what you find.

20110218, 01:03  #57 
Account Deleted
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA
11×389 Posts 
First report:
I have searched 10000<=n<=10100. 27373 candidates after sieving to 1001M, expected primes 145.03, observed primes 168. This is 1.91 standard deviations above the expected amount (the std dev of a Poisson distribution is the square root of the expected, in this case 12.04). The chances of truly Poissondistributed events falling within 1 standard deviation is 68.27%, within 2: 95.45%, within 3: 99.73%. The expected primes for 10K20K is 10020.86, making the standard deviation 100.10. I'd think there's something worth investigating if it's over +1.645 std devs at that point after taking away the 25 'extra' primes already observed, (sure, we observed 'extra' so far, but the expected primes remaining to be found is still about 10020.86145.03=9875.83) which should only have a 10% chance of happening. To me, that would strongly suggest there's more here than random luck. 
20110218, 12:15  #58 
"Phil"
Sep 2002
Tracktown, U.S.A.
19×59 Posts 
I just redid the calculations from the INTEGERS paper on the probability of successfully solving this problem, and using the weights I used then, I get that we had only a 0.55% chance of solving this problem by n=9092392. I later used some of our sieving data to revise our Proth weight data, but this would have only made our chances smaller! To solve a problem that we had only a 1 chance in 180 (or worse) of solving is truly remarkable. Maybe Tim's data can shed some light on the problem, but I suspect that we were also lucky. Maybe it is time to buy a lottery ticket!?

20110218, 12:32  #59 
Account Deleted
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA
11×389 Posts 
Second milestone:
10K11K done, expected 1380.39 primes, found 1401, +0.55 std devs. Counting only from 10.1K11K, it's actually a bit lower than expected: 0.06 std devs. At this point, I'd guess that there's nothing making it higher than it should be, and that this project was just extremely lucky. 
20110218, 17:39  #60 
"Phil"
Sep 2002
Tracktown, U.S.A.
461_{16} Posts 
Taking strong prp bases 47, 53, 59, and 61. (Only 67 and 71 are still available.)

20110221, 11:26  #61  
Jun 2003
Ottawa, Canada
1173_{10} Posts 
Quote:
Code:
11 SSE2 Proth FFT: size=(1048576,17.342) Probable_prime_residueis_plus1 13 SSE2 Proth FFT: size=(1048576,17.342) Probable_prime_residueis_minus1 17 SSE2 Proth FFT: size=(1048576,17.342) Probable_prime_residueis_plus1 19 SSE2 Proth FFT: size=(1048576,17.342) Probable_prime_residueis_minus1 31 SSE2 Proth FFT: size=(1048576,17.342) Probable_prime_residueis_plus1 37 SSE2 Proth FFT: size=(1048576,17.342) Probable_prime_residueis_plus1 41 SSE2 Proth FFT: size=(1048576,17.342) Probable_prime_residueis_plus1 43 SSE2 Proth FFT: size=(1048576,17.342) Probable_prime_residueis_minus1 Jeff. Last fiddled with by Jeff Gilchrist on 20110221 at 11:26 

20110221, 19:48  #62 
"Phil"
Sep 2002
Tracktown, U.S.A.
19×59 Posts 
I have also confirmed bases 5 and 7, both with residues 1, and am now working on 47 and 53. We are 12 for 12, I don't think there is much doubt how the other eight tests will work out! Any progress, Justin, on your tests? Jeff and I have been corresponding about pfgw, we are running an old version which seems to be faster than the newer version, surprisingly. The new version appears to be using the GMP library rather than GWNUM, but even a 6yearold GWNUM algorithm seems to beat GMP. That could explain your slow progress, Justin; if you decide to kill it, I don't blame you. At any rate, Jeff and I have generated some good suggestions for the next version of pfgw, including an option to do strong prp tests.

20110221, 20:09  #63  
Feb 2009
3·13 Posts 
Progress is slow but steady. I guess because it's only running on 1 core and unlike using your script on different bases, I don't know how I would split it across cores. It says it's using GWNUM 26.4.
This is all that is in my log file: Quote:


20110221, 21:01  #64  
Dec 2008
you know...around...
887 Posts 
Quote:
Anyway, congrats on this remarkable find. 

20110221, 23:10  #65 
Jun 2003
Ottawa, Canada
10010010101_{2} Posts 
Two more finished.
Code:
23 SSE2 Proth FFT: size=(1048576,17.342) Probable_prime_residueis_plus1 29 SSE2 Proth FFT: size=(1048576,17.342) Probable_prime_residueis_plus1 
20110223, 12:44  #66 
Account Deleted
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA
11·389 Posts 
I finished my search, and found 9977 primes. With 10020.86 expected, this is 0.44 std devs from the expected. In my opinion, the results couldn't be clearer: on average, dual Sierpinski numbers are no more likely to be prime than they "should" be. Now, this doesn't entirely remove the possibility that (very)lowweight k's produce more primes than they should or that the 5 k's this project search produce more primes than they should (the latter would be quite hard to prove with any certainty). I've attached the primes. If someone calculates the weight of each k I searched and groups low weight k's together, they might be able to see if they produce as much as expected, or more or less. But take note that low weight k's tend to scatter from their expected far more than high weight k's, (if you make a scatter plot of the weight of each k vs its ratio of expected to observed primes, you'll see a funnellike shape with the low weight k's being the large, i.e. more scattered, end of it) so a few examples in one extreme or the other mean nothing.
I still have the sieved file if someone wants it for these weight calculations. I can upload it on request. (4.70 MB zipped) If nobody else seems interested, I might do it some time. Last fiddled with by TimSorbet on 20110223 at 12:54 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
probable largest prime.  sudaprime  Miscellaneous Math  11  20180205 08:10 
Hi, how can I test my probable prime number?  mohdosa  Information & Answers  22  20141010 11:34 
Megadigit probable prime found, our third!  philmoore  Five or Bust  The Dual Sierpinski Problem  25  20090909 06:48 
Another record probable prime found!  philmoore  Five or Bust  The Dual Sierpinski Problem  15  20090208 19:43 
Record probable prime found!  philmoore  Five or Bust  The Dual Sierpinski Problem  18  20090128 19:47 