20080412, 19:40  #23  
May 2007
Kansas; USA
2·5,689 Posts 
Quote:
KEP, Sorry. I had not actually tried a primality proof when doing base 3. I always just did the PRP test and later proved them. I was thinking by your prior statements that he did not want 2 output files, one for proven primes and one for PRP's and didn't think it would take so much longer. But I guess I'm confused. I don't see how Paul's recommendation is any different than what I recommended that you do originally. You're still going to get two output primes files, one for proven primes and one for PRP's and you'll still need to look in the pfgw.out file to determine what k's are remaining at the end. To me, that is still the most efficient way. I will say this...it can be extremely tricky starting a new base and I generally don't recommend it for new searchers. You've probably found out why. (lol) Paul, Thanks for stepping in. We don't really need a sieve for base 3 below n=~25000. Although it might be a little more CPUefficient to start a sieve for all k's remaining at n=~15000, it involves more manual work. But are you saying that PFGW can sieve on the fly for you? Isn't that what f100 is effectively doing...actually, prefactoring to 100% of what it 'should be' for each individual test...less efficient than sieving but is a good tradeoff to avoid a lot of manual intervention. Can you clarify the exact most efficient command line to use when searching upwards by kvalue? I thought I had it with the originally script and command line before suggesting the tp method, which obviously was a mistake. Gary Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 20080412 at 19:42 

20080412, 20:31  #24  
Quasi Admin Thing
May 2005
977 Posts 
Quote:
And again Paul, thanks for clearing out this option :) Expect to be at, at least 1M k tomorrow. So far I'm at 100k k's and no k's left to test. The last one failed at N=~5,300, so for now, no k's left to test below k=100,000 :) Thanks for all your support, and now I expect a huge progress to be coming. And again Gary it's hard for me to say weather or not there is much difference in what Paul or you told me (adviced me) to do. And I'm sorry if I've confused you and not fully answered your question. But hey I'm expecting to be going strong on this attack at the Base3 conjecture. And finally, no hard feelings from here ;)... since this is a great project, and one can work offline for weeks on this one. I will stribe to do a weekly or biweekly update of my google page, so you can follow the progress on the range, but expect really nothing to happen before wednesday :) Take care everyone! KEP! 

20080413, 02:23  #25  
Sep 2002
Database er0rr
7×613 Posts 
Quote:
With what is left from sieving, do PrP tests with PFGW. The full primality tests will take much longer to do than probable prime tests; this soon mounts up the time if you have many thousands to do  why take 5 weeks on a batch when you can do it in 1 week? The probable prime tests indicate that a number might be prime  all primes will be included in the PrP list, but there is a remote mathematical chance that a composite number will be in it too. So you need to prove them, which can be done with the N+1 classical test (tp) for Riesel type numbers that PFGW implements. Summing up: 1.) time PFGW at 80% of your range 2.) sieve with NewPGen until the removal rate equals 1.) 3.) PrP test what remains with PFGW 4.) prove any PrPs found, with PFGW's "tp" switch Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 20080413 at 02:42 

20080414, 05:27  #26  
May 2007
Kansas; USA
2×5,689 Posts 
Quote:
?? No...I think it's still not clear what I'm asking. I'm fully aware of virtually everything you've stated here. You can't use NewPGen to sieve multiple k's and n's! That's what we are asking about. We're using PFGW to test from k=1 to k=1M to n=25K while prefactoring with it on the fly using the f100 switch. NewPGen can only sieve one k at a time when sieving across multiple n. Is there something new that I'm unaware of in NewPGen? Technically NewPGen should NEVER be used except for twins and other special prime forms. 1 or 2 k's, use sr1sieve. More than 2 k's use sr2sieve. It would be highly inefficient to use NewPGen at any step in this. Even using speedy sr2sieve would be inefficient below n=5K on such a prime base. 9599% of all k's are eliminated below n=5K on this base by PFGW with no sieving done at all. There's no reason to sieve the entire nrange. Below is what Micha and I have been using that works very well for base 3. It is what I have used to test Sierp base 3 for k=1 to 10M!: File inputsierpbase3.txt script: ABC2 $b*3^$a+1 // {number_primes,$b,1} a: from 1 to 25000 b: from 2 to 1000000 step 2 Command line: inputsierpbase3.txt f100 l We then decided that we'll use sr2sieve to sieve all k's that don't have primes for n<=25K. PFGW can run the above in less than 2 CPU days and all you have to do is look at the pfgw.out file for k's remaining. The file can be 300400 MB but after waiting a minute for it to pull up, there's no problem. The primes are in pfgwprime.log and the PRP's are in pfgw.log so you then just run the t test on the PRP's, which only takes 13 hours. Alternatively, it might be more efficient to only go to n=10K instead of n=25K but this has been my choice to avoid having so many k's thrown into a big sieve later on. I simply don't understand what I am missing in all of this. KEP, is the above what you are doing or are you doing any sieving beforehand? If so, what is it that you are using to sieve? IMHO, no sieving is needed at all below n=10K. A case could be made for sieving above n=10K but I prefer to just let PFGW run to n=25K without sieving. Gary Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 20080414 at 05:29 

20080414, 07:40  #27  
May 2007
Kansas; USA
26162_{8} Posts 
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As I stated originally for KEP's Riesel testing and without getting into the technical details of this; if you wish to prove the following: Riesel numbers (1) tests; use the tp switch in PFGW Sierpinski numbers (+1) tests; use the t switch in PFGW For all other forms, a good starting point it to try tc, which effectively attempts to prove the number prime using both of the above but is very unlikely to do so if it is a random form. For numbers with random forms and (I think) < 10000 digits, Primo is the best way that I know how to prove them. Gary 

20080414, 08:44  #28  
Sep 2002
Database er0rr
7×613 Posts 
Quote:
Quote:


20080414, 09:00  #29  
May 2007
Kansas; USA
10110001110010_{2} Posts 
Quote:
Ah, OK. You're talking about running batch processes in loops on these whereas I was "pigeonholed" on manual running of PFGW and sieving. You're right, to run billions/trillions of k's, we will definitely have to set up some sort of looping batch process. I ran 5 million k's with 36 remaining at n=25K using the way I showed but it did require more manual intervention than I would have liked. I definitely wouldn't want to do it for billions of them. Those 36 k's remaining are listed on the Sierp base 3 reservations page. I think base 3 will be fun for all of the programmers to automate the finding of primes, prp's, k's remaining, etc. out there. I'll leave it up to the programming gurus here to determine the quickest way to set up a batch process or something like that, although I may take a hack at it myself in the future. Thanks for clarifying. Gary Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 20080414 at 09:01 

20080414, 09:17  #30 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr
7×613 Posts 
With a little searching on PrimeForm's messages, as far as I can tell, the PFGW loop Gary gives is "breaking". I apologize for the confusion.
Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 20080414 at 09:19 
20080505, 21:47  #31 
May 2007
Kansas; USA
11378_{10} Posts 
I'm unreserving k=30M100M for Sierp base 3. I'll start on k=10M30M today.
I bit off a little more than I cared to chew there. 
20080506, 00:47  #32 
May 2007
Kansas; USA
2×5,689 Posts 
Base 3 reservations/statuses
I've added this new thread for all correspondance related to base 3 including but not limited to reservations, statuses, primes, results files, and questions.
All prior correspondance has been moved here. Thanks, Gary 
20080506, 01:46  #33 
May 2007
Kansas; USA
11378_{10} Posts 
Sierp base 3 k=110M120M status
KEP reported completion of the k=110M120M range on Sierp base 3 in an Email on April 25th.
KEP, there are some changes in your k's remaining for k=110M120M on Sierp base 3. Many of the k's are divisible by powers of 3, which results in the following changes: Code:
The following k's were removed: k comments 115381692 k/3^3=4273396 already found remaining by k<10M testing 117904734 k/3^4=1455614 already found prime at n=33885 by k<10M testing k's divisible by 3^2 resulting in a k with no prime: k k changed to comments 113061654 12562406 k not divisible by 3^3 113975118 12663902 (same) 118690038 13187782 (same) 119820906 13313434 (same) k's divisible by 3^1 resulting in a k with no prime: k k changed to comments 111055104 37018368 k/3^2=12339456 has a prime at n=1 k/3^3=4113152 has a prime at n=2 111190494 37063498 k not divisible by 3^2 111474414 37158138 k/3^2=12386046 has a prime at n=1 k/3^3=4128682 has a prime at n=2 111480438 37160146 k not divisible by 3^2 112607754 37535918 (same) 114584604 38194868 (same) 115059138 38353046 (same) 116413062 38804354 (same) 116433444 38811148 (same) 116849496 38949832 (same) 117573882 39191294 (same) 117860586 39286862 (same) 117965964 39321988 (same) 118295616 39431872 (same) 119429652 39809884 (same) 119503128 39834376 (same) This leaves a total of 67 k's remaining for the range that you tested, although only 47 k's are technically remaining for n=110M120M. This was difficult to get exactly correct because we have the huge gap in krange testing. Once we get contiguous testing up to n=50M, these higher ranges should be far easier. It will be easy to determine which kvalues can be eliminated, either ahead of time, or before starting sieving and listing k's remaining. These changes are reflected on the Sierp base 3 reservations page. Anon, now, you can see why I didn't want to start any team sieve yet. This stuff is never as easy as it appears at a glance. Testing contiguous kranges is a must on large conjectures before beginning sieving. When we do start sieving, I will still recommend that we sieve only contiguous kranges, which when we hit 100 k's remaining, will likely be for k<30M. Another option is to sieve every krange of 50M, which will likely have us sieving about 200 k's remaining at once, which wouldn't be bad for this very prime base. That would make the kranges nice and round. Now: On to determining k's with algebraic factors on Siemelink's Riesel base 19. Whew, bases 3 and 19 are a lot of work to administer but FUN! :) Gary Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 20080506 at 01:53 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Bases 251500 reservations/statuses/primes  gd_barnes  Conjectures 'R Us  2474  20221001 10:05 
Bases 101250 reservations/statuses/primes  gd_barnes  Conjectures 'R Us  993  20220929 06:20 
Bases 33100 reservations/statuses/primes  Siemelink  Conjectures 'R Us  1732  20220917 15:32 
Riesel base 3 reservations/statuses/primes  KEP  Conjectures 'R Us  1134  20220624 20:28 
Bases 632 reservations/statuses/primes  gd_barnes  Conjectures 'R Us  1417  20220525 19:33 