20070918, 21:19  #23  
May 2007
Kansas; USA
5×2,111 Posts 
Quote:
OK, great for k < 300 and n < 100K. I knew it had been doublechecked but didn't realize the extent to which it had been done. I've caught 12 errors of my own that had already been doublechecked by doing a 'triplecheck' so I figured it was worth a shot. I won't go any further with it. Would you like me to doublecheck some k's < 300 with unusually large prime gaps at some point? Ones specifically that I saw (besides the infamous k=289 that I already checked) are for k=261 from n=185283 to 618918 and k=297 from n=82782 to 225274. (I only looked at k > 250 for large prime gaps.) If we're unsure about any prior testing range on those, I'd be glad to add whatever ranges are in doubt to my doublechecking task list in this thread. One more thing...do the doublechecked ranges for the 6 k's that I did need to be reported to Prof. Keller? If he needs a results file, I can send it also. Gary 

20070918, 21:47  #24  
May 2007
Kansas; USA
5·2,111 Posts 
Quote:
I'm not ignoring your post here. There's a lot in it and I need to 'play around' on the internet to attempt to understand some things. I'm still a relative 'newbie' at this (4 months). I have only a cursory understanding of what LLRnet and BOINC are. They sound like good ideas for a doublecheck effort. As far as what ranges I could give you on a doublecheck effort, it would be for n=50K to 100K for as many k's as you could reasonably stand! Like I did for n <= 50K, I would be sieving the entire range of 300 < k <= 1001; 351 k's in all. It would be entirely up to the weight of the k's as to how long each k would take to LLR. So what I would probably do is give you an average testing time per candidate on a 3GH P4. Then you tell me about how many candidates that you would be willing to test. Then I'll give you an appropriate # of k's that have about that # of candidates. If you don't mind me asking...How come you only run your machine 89 hours/day? You should be able to do most things on it and run both cores at the same time. On my main machine that I have most of my personal stuff on, if I need to run another program or process that needs some serious CPU cycles, I'll temporarily stop one of the cores from LLRing and then restart it after I'm done. All of my machines run 24 hours nonstop on either LLRing or sieving unless they finish in the middle of the night or while I'm at work, which they seem fond of doing! (Which is why I now give them much larger chunks of work to do at once.) If it's a home machine and you're gone during the day, the main key is to keep your place < then about 80 degrees. Just a thought... I'll get back with you a little more on your thoughts on doublechecking later on. Gary 

20070918, 23:10  #25  
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT5)
14151_{8} Posts 
Note: I've split your post into multiple quote sections for easier reading.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last fiddled with by mdettweiler on 20070918 at 23:13 Reason: fixed some typos 

20070921, 00:08  #26 
May 2007
Kansas; USA
5·2,111 Posts 
6 k's done
Kosmaj,
The doublechecking of the 6 k's that you requested has now completed. The following final prime was confirmed: 203 248862 No missing or incorrect primes were found. Let me know if I need to report it anywhere. I attempted to attach a 2.44 MB results file, but even zipped, it was around 570 KB; too big for the size restriction here. Gary 
20070927, 08:48  #27 
Nov 2003
E26_{16} Posts 
Hi Gary,
Please mail the details including Ks, ranges you tested, and primes you confirmed to Wilfrid Keller. You can find his address on this page. You can also mention the range of k=289 you tested before. There is no need to send any results. He is interested only in k<300. And don't forget to sign your message with your real, full name. 
20070928, 06:23  #28  
May 2007
Kansas; USA
10100100111011_{2} Posts 
Note sent and upcoming sieving by Anon...
Quote:
I sent the note to Mr. Keller. A funny or annoying side note on this depending on how you look at it...After finding no prime for k=289 from my original range of n=260K520K (other than the 2 already found), I went back and doublechecked the range of n=90K260K. No luck...a remarkably large primeless range. But this turned out to be a good thing. In looking at Mr. Keller's site, I see that there were a few small gaps in checking of ranges for n=100K200K. So I went ahead and reported that I had doublechecked the entire range of n=90K520K. So now all of his gaps are filled up to n=520K. On another note...Anon has kindly agreed to do some sieving for the range of 300<k<=1001 for the range of n=50K100K for a doublecheck effort. Although sieving shouldn't take too long...I'm guessing 2 weeks or so on a 24hour highspeed machine, the LLR will be rather substantial. I was planning on holding off on this until next year but now may possibly attempt to get some of it done by the end of this year. I may enlist the help of a few others on it if anyone cares to assist. Gary 

20071003, 21:10  #29 
May 2007
Kansas; USA
5·2,111 Posts 
Any more doublechecking for k < 300 ?
Kosmaj,
It looks like Prof. Keller's ranges page for Riesels has been updated to include the ranges that I doublechecked. In looking at his page, I see that there are many ranges that have not been checked. Are there any that you're particularly concerned about? I know you said that there were many ranges that you and someone else had checked but had not sent to him. Let me know. Since I'll be working on k=5 from n=470K500K here shortly, I won't have the CPU resources to do much in the way of doublechecking until that is done. But at that point, I will probably plan on splitting 2 core's time between LLRing 300 < k <= 1001 from n=50K100K and anything you deem important for doublechecking for k < 300. Gary 
20071025, 15:39  #30 
May 2007
Kansas; USA
10555_{10} Posts 
Now checking k=3011001 for n=50K100K
After getting a sieve file from Anon (thanks Anon!), I have started doing some LLRing for a doublecheck of the range 300 < k <= 1001 for 50K < n <= 100K.
This is a large LLR effort and I will work on it onandoff for a while splitting time with k=5 and another sieving effort that I'm working on. I split it up in 100 k pieces. I'm currently working on k=300400 and k=400500, one 100 k piece on each core of a dualcore machine. After about 10 hours on both cores, k=301, 303, 401, and 403 are complete. There were a total of 6 primes in the range for those k's and no errors were found. So I don't inundate everyone with status reports, from this point forward, I'll plan on reporting statuses and any errors found after completion of each 100 k piece. Gary Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 20071025 at 16:35 
20071025, 17:09  #31  
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT5)
6249_{10} Posts 
Quote:


20071106, 17:57  #32  
May 2007
Kansas; USA
5·2,111 Posts 
Quote:
Per the above, did you have a chance to report your completed doublechecked ranges to Prof. Keller yet? If not, can you let me know what they are? If Prof. Keller would be OK with it and it would save you some time, I could report them for you if you let me know which ranges were searched by whom. I'll make sure that I specify that to him. Quote:
I'm nearly half done LLRing my doublecheck for 300 < k <= 1001 for 50K < n <= 100K. (Several missing primes as expected will be posted on Wednesday.) After completing it, I would like to get more of the ranges filled in on Prof. Keller's site for k < 300 but I don't want to doublecheck what you or Thomas have already done. I can start one core now on sieving some doublecheck ranges for k < 300 if you can let me know. Thanks, Gary 

20071108, 17:37  #33  
May 2007
Kansas; USA
5·2,111 Posts 
Quote:
Bump Bump 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Double checking of Results  pinhodecarlos  Prime Gap Searches  13  20171209 06:07 
What about doublechecking TF/P1?  137ben  PrimeNet  6  20120313 04:01 
Double checking  Unregistered  Information & Answers  19  20110729 09:57 
Doublechecking milestone?  jobhoti  Math  17  20040521 05:02 
Any glory in double checking?  Quacky  Lounge  5  20031203 02:20 