Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [PrimeNumbers] SoB finds 10th prime!

Expand Messages
  • Andrey Kulsha
    ... WOWWWWWWWWW!!! An overwhelmingly large one %) Greetings!.. Andrey [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Message 1 of 8 , May 5, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      > Congrats to Konstantin Agafonov and Seventeen or Bust for finding the
      > Sierpinski problem prime 19249*2^13018586+1 which has 3.9 million digits!
      >
      > http://www.seventeenorbust.com/
      > http://www.seventeenorbust.com/documents/press-050507.mhtml

      WOWWWWWWWWW!!!

      An overwhelmingly large one %)

      Greetings!..

      Andrey

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jack Brennen
      ... I can t seem to find any real numbers on how far the remaining 7 k values have been tested. The SoB pages seem to indicate that all of them have been
      Message 2 of 8 , May 5, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Phil Carmody wrote:
        > --- Paul Underwood <paulunderwood@...> wrote:
        >> Congrats to Konstantin Agafonov and Seventeen or Bust for finding the
        >> Sierpinski problem prime 19249*2^13018586+1 which has 3.9 million digits!
        >
        > Jack, or someone, any model for when the next one's due,
        > assuming a sperical homogeneous Poisson?
        >

        I can't seem to find any "real" numbers on how far the remaining 7
        k values have been tested. The SoB pages seem to indicate that all
        of them have been tested to n=10^7, but that can't be an accurate
        accounting.

        However, if we assume that n=10^7 is accurate for each of them,
        there would be about a 50% chance of finding a prime for one of
        the 7 candidate k values with n < 14675000.

        That's the good news.

        The bad news is that in order to have a 50% chance of resolving
        the Sierpinski conjecture, you'd need to search for all
        n < 2965000000000. (2.965*10^12)

        That's an improvement over the last numbers I remember putting
        together, which would have given somewhere around a 40% chance of
        resolving the Sierpinski conjecture by that limit...

        http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/primenumbers/message/10258

        Still, even a single test in the n > 10^12 range is beyond our
        reasonable capabilities today -- we're just not ready to do
        modular arithmetic on terabit numbers.


        Also, the chance to resolve the conjecture before n = 10^9 has
        risen to 3.98% from the previous 2.45%.


        I think a lot of this improvement in the outlook (modest as it
        is) is due to the fact that this latest k value (19249) was
        one of the three "toughest" k values to crack of the original
        seventeen (one of the three lowest Proth weights). Only the
        k values of 22699 and 67607 (both still uncracked) have lower
        Proth weights.


        Jack
      • Jean Penné
        Many congrats to the discoverer and all participants for this outstanding result!! However, I have two questions about it : 1) If I am not wrong, the record
        Message 3 of 8 , May 5, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Many congrats to the discoverer and all participants for this
          outstanding result!!

          However, I have two questions about it :

          1) If I am not wrong, the record has been posted to SoB on March 26 ;
          why is it not yet posted to the top 5000 database ?

          2) What is/are the proving program(s)?

          Woul you excuse my curiosity...

          Jean
        • Phil Carmody
          ... That s quite optmistic. Maybe the one just found was that one! ... Remind me to never ignorantly cross you, Jack ;-) ... We re most of the way there.
          Message 4 of 8 , May 6, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            --- Jack Brennen <jb@...> wrote:
            > Phil Carmody wrote:
            > > Jack, or someone, any model for when the next one's due,
            > > assuming a sperical homogeneous Poisson?
            >
            > I can't seem to find any "real" numbers on how far the remaining 7
            > k values have been tested. The SoB pages seem to indicate that all
            > of them have been tested to n=10^7, but that can't be an accurate
            > accounting.
            >
            > However, if we assume that n=10^7 is accurate for each of them,
            > there would be about a 50% chance of finding a prime for one of
            > the 7 candidate k values with n < 14675000.
            >
            > That's the good news.

            That's quite optmistic. Maybe the one just found was that one!

            > The bad news is that in order to have a 50% chance of resolving
            > the Sierpinski conjecture, you'd need to search for all
            > n < 2965000000000. (2.965*10^12)
            >
            > That's an improvement over the last numbers I remember putting
            > together, which would have given somewhere around a 40% chance of
            > resolving the Sierpinski conjecture by that limit...
            >
            > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/primenumbers/message/10258

            Remind me to never ignorantly cross you, Jack ;-)

            > Still, even a single test in the n > 10^12 range is beyond our
            > reasonable capabilities today -- we're just not ready to do
            > modular arithmetic on terabit numbers.

            We're most of the way there. Compared with those flipping iron rings at least.
            Doing it 10^12 times I think will be a harder target.

            > Also, the chance to resolve the conjecture before n = 10^9 has
            > risen to 3.98% from the previous 2.45%.

            Impressive.

            > I think a lot of this improvement in the outlook (modest as it
            > is) is due to the fact that this latest k value (19249) was
            > one of the three "toughest" k values to crack of the original
            > seventeen (one of the three lowest Proth weights). Only the
            > k values of 22699 and 67607 (both still uncracked) have lower
            > Proth weights.

            Ah probably the single most pervasive snippet of utter wrongness
            I've seen various people throw around on their project fora is
            that getting rid of the dense ones is best. Of course, that's
            the worse possible situation, you want to get rid of the most
            difficult numbers sooner rather than later. I've tried telling
            them that, but most just didn't seem to grok the concept.

            Thanks for the quick numerics, as always, Jack.

            Phil

            () ASCII ribbon campaign () Hopeless ribbon campaign
            /\ against HTML mail /\ against gratuitous bloodshed

            [stolen with permission from Daniel B. Cristofani]

            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
            http://mail.yahoo.com
          • Jack Brennen
            ... First, I realize reading this that I m being way too precise. With the unknown depth of search, and the inaccuracy of the Proth weight values, I should
            Message 5 of 8 , May 6, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Phil Carmody wrote:
              >>
              >> However, if we assume that n=10^7 is accurate for each of them,
              >> there would be about a 50% chance of finding a prime for one of
              >> the 7 candidate k values with n < 14675000.
              >>
              >> That's the good news.
              >
              > That's quite optmistic. Maybe the one just found was that one!

              First, I realize reading this that I'm being way too precise. With
              the unknown depth of search, and the inaccuracy of the Proth weight
              values, I should probably have just said n < 15_000_000.

              In any case, with the remaining 7 k values, if they've been
              completely searched up to n < A, we're about 50% to find another
              prime with n < 1.5*A. A very quick justification which is very
              close to being mathematically "correct":

              The remaining 7 k values should produce an aggregate total of about
              1.25 primes per "octave" (A < n < 2*A), and the distribution should
              be very Poisson-like.

              To get a 50% chance of a hit in a Poisson distribution, we need an
              expectation of log(2) primes. That requires 0.55 octaves, or
              A < n < 1.47*A.

              >
              > Remind me to never ignorantly cross you, Jack ;-)

              If you read the forum link where Louie originally trashed my math,
              he admitted very quickly afterward that he did make a mistake and
              that I was probably "in the ballpark"...

              >
              >> Still, even a single test in the n > 10^12 range is beyond our
              >> reasonable capabilities today -- we're just not ready to do
              >> modular arithmetic on terabit numbers.
              >
              > We're most of the way there. Compared with those flipping iron rings at least.
              > Doing it 10^12 times I think will be a harder target.

              Keeping even a single terabit number in high-speed RAM is far out of
              the capability of the vast majority of computers in existence -- that's
              my point. Clearly we have the capability to build such hardware, but
              the whole point of SoB and other cooperative computing projects is to
              use inexpensive commonly available PC-like devices, and they're still
              many years away from being able to hold even a single terabit number
              in RAM.

              >
              > Ah probably the single most pervasive snippet of utter wrongness
              > I've seen various people throw around on their project fora is
              > that getting rid of the dense ones is best. Of course, that's
              > the worse possible situation, you want to get rid of the most
              > difficult numbers sooner rather than later. I've tried telling
              > them that, but most just didn't seem to grok the concept.
              >

              To put things in perspective, the toughest two k values have an
              aggregate expectation of 0.15 primes per octave. In very rough
              numbers, that means an expectation to find 1 prime between these
              two k values as we push n from 10^7 to 10^9 (about 6.6 octaves).
              And note of course that 1 prime between those two k values won't
              resolve the conjecture.
            • Jean Penné
              Now I see the responses to my two questions! Hurrah for Seveteen or Bust!! Jean
              Message 6 of 8 , May 8, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Now I see the responses to my two questions!

                Hurrah for Seveteen or Bust!!

                Jean

                --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, Jean Penné <jpenne@...> wrote:
                >
                > Many congrats to the discoverer and all participants for this
                > outstanding result!!
                >
                > However, I have two questions about it :
                >
                > 1) If I am not wrong, the record has been posted to SoB on March 26 ;
                > why is it not yet posted to the top 5000 database ?
                >
                > 2) What is/are the proving program(s)?
                >
                > Woul you excuse my curiosity...
                >
                > Jean
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.