20190711, 20:56  #177 
Jul 2003
1146_{8} Posts 
hi,
i did this range with llr v3.8.21/3.8.23 and i do not have a json file i read here in the forum that the programmer of llr will integrate gerbicz error checking but it will need some time 
20190711, 21:07  #178 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr
1000000100100_{2} Posts 
You can use Prime95/mprime to crunch these numbers and get the desirable output.

20190712, 00:27  #179 
Sep 2003
5×11×47 Posts 
I don't think there's any advantage to using LLR. It uses the same underlying gwnum library as mprime. Maybe it can test some extra forms, but for plain old k*b^n+c PRP3 I don't think there's any reason not to use mprime (the latest version, namely 29.8 b5).
LLR added the capability to do "VrbaReix" residues, but those are unproven. I don't know if there was speed advantage to using them, compared to PRP3 ? The LLR output in your file shows 64bit "RES64" and "OLD64" values, I'm not sure how these differ, or if the first one is indeed a PRP3 residue. The range is 20.19M to 20.20M ... did you do 20.0M to 20.19M ? I think I saw only a bunch of trialfactoring results from you in the 20M ranges. 
20190712, 01:48  #180 
Jul 2003
2×307 Posts 
hi,
here are the results for W2147483647 no factor for W2147483647 from 2^84 to 2^85 [mfaktc 0.21 barrett87_mul32_gs] no factor for W2147483647 from 2^85 to 2^86 [mfaktc 0.21 barrett87_mul32_gs] W2147483647 released 
20190712, 20:24  #181  
Jul 2003
2·307 Posts 
Quote:
i do use sometimes a prpnet server that cannot use prime95/mprime 

20190713, 15:17  #182  
Sep 2003
5·11·47 Posts 
Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps one of them is a type1 PRP3 residue, I'm not sure. Gerbicz testing for Wagstaff numbers only works with type5 residues, not type1. Can you do a quick check with your LLR executable of a small exponent like 999983 ? Then we could compare the results with mprime and see if the residues really are type1 PRP3. So anyways I think we can conclude that the 20.19M subrange almost certainly doesn't contain a Wagstaff prime. But the numerical residue values can't be added directly to my little database because that stores 2048bit type5 residues. 

20190713, 16:20  #183  
Jul 2003
2·307 Posts 
Quote:
with llr v3.8.23 (2^999983+1)/3 is not prime. RES64: 4C43A8FD104EC89D. OLD64: 607828060DA47DC2 Time : 303.538 sec. 

20190713, 18:20  #184 
Sep 2003
5·11·47 Posts 

20200223, 11:19  #185 
Jul 2003
2×307 Posts 
hi,
here are the results for wagstaff numbers n=11980k to 12000k 
20200223, 13:48  #186 
Sep 2006
The Netherlands
1100001110_{2} Posts 

20200223, 13:52  #187 
Sep 2006
The Netherlands
1100001110_{2} Posts 
Thanks for your fanatism Lalera  but why do you already checked range by Propper? You want to double check?
Why not factor exponent+1 and then the factorisation exponent+1 giving for example the strongest primes and having a Mersenne or Wagstaff known prime exponent als one of its factors  try search those exponents at say range 19M59M and hope you are so lucky? 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
New Wagstaff PRP exponents  ryanp  Wagstaff PRP Search  26  20131018 01:33 
Hot tuna!  a p75 and a p79 by Sam Wagstaff!  Batalov  GMPECM  9  20120824 10:26 
Wagstaff Conjecture  davieddy  Miscellaneous Math  209  20110123 23:50 
Best settings to factor Wagstaff p = (2^n +1) / 1  diep  GMPECM  10  20100726 21:33 
30th Wagstaff prime  T.Rex  Math  0  20070904 07:10 