how is this posible

[Keroberts1]

39.801T 55459 6030298 39.801
Sun 25-Apr-2004
frodo42


Shouldn't this have been found a long time ago?

I ran the siever on this range and found the factor very quickly

39801050200619 | 55459*2^6030298+1

either it was lost or Joe O who was supposed ot have originally sieved this range did not submitted the factor/never sieved the range.

Also there is the much more terrifying possibility that the older version of the siever that was used to sieve this range was missing some factors.

How did the factorer find this factor if it doesn't searc hthe presieved regions? Shouldn't this region of the sieve have been seperated from the region of possible factors searched in by the factorer. Many questions hopefully someone will have an answer Joe O do yo ustill have files that show the factors you found during that time period?

[hc_grove]

The factoring algorithm finds all smooth factors regardless of size, so if Joe O forgot to submit this factor (or much worse if the siever missed it), the factorer will discover it because it's smooth. The only thing depth parameter is used for in the factorer is determining the optimal bounds.

[MikeH]

There was a version quite some time ago that did miss about 1% of factors. That could have been when we were doing the 40T region. Thankfully said version was replaced quite quickly, so if this one does fall into this catagory, then there shouldn't be too many others like it.

[Keroberts1]

I remember that version but i don't htink it was during that region that it was released. Perhaps Mklasson would have details about when it was released or perhaps JoeO could let us know exactly waht version he used on this range. This should probbly be read into a bit more. If anybody still has some of the older versions maybe they should test to see if they all find this particular factor.

[Joe O]

Originally posted by Keroberts1


39801050200619 | 55459*2^6030298+1

either it was lost or Joe O <snip> never sieved the range.





Sieve 300K<n<3M Range size FactorsU FactorsD FactorsE Score
39700 - 39900 200 0 3 13 1.195

[Nuri]

Hi Joe,

I guess he's talking about:

Sieve 3M<n<20M Range size FactorsU FactorsD FactorsE Score
39700 - 39900 200 18 16 129 722.064


where, the expected number of unique factors is ~120 (+-20) vs. the actual figure of 18.

I'm sending you a PM for details.

Cheers,

Nuri

[Nuri]

I've made a quick analysis of the results file, and there seems to be there are 46 potential ranges with some holes (it's almost for sure that not all of those ranges contain real holes).



Some of these (like 3650-3700) have been recognized by us previously, and already taken care of (the reason it still shows up is the credit for the additional factors went to the patchers, thus the number of factors for the range on original user's record are still low).


Anyways, after a quick glimpse, it seems like there are two emergin patterns in holes.

1. There are many potential holes (12 of 46) in the 32T-43T area, from various users. I think this might be because of the faulty client version. (~300 potentially missing factors here)

2. For most of the potential holes (8 out of 11) above 78T, there is an enormous number of excluded factors submitted by the users. This reminds of me that, may be in some of those ranges, some of us mistakenly submitted the contents of factexcl.txt and/or factrange.txt instead of fact.txt, or simply forgot to submit fact.txt contents while planning to submit all three. (~230 potentially missing factors here)


Please note that, this is a qucik and dirty analysis. Also, even if all of the 46 suspected ranges (total size of 3.8T) turned out to be actual holes, the estimated number of facotrs we've missed is ~1,300.


I'll take a look at the most promising ones in detail and let you know if I find out anything interesting (PS: might take time).

[ceselb]

I know that MikeH has checked a few ranges for holes semi-secretly in the past. You might want to check with him on what he has done to avoid duplication of effort.

[Joe O]

Done as part of :


Sieve 3M<n<20M Range size FactorsU FactorsD FactorsE Score
39700 - 39900 200 18 16 129 722.064

Completed 7/21/03 10:35 am (EDT) with SobSieve 1.28 or 1.30 as one of the first "dual range" sieves.

[Keroberts1]

so if the cient that missed the factors was sobsieve then is it possible that alot of previously sieved ranges may be missing factors? 1300 factors is far to many to risk missing. Joe is your PC overclocked? Perhaps it was just a one tiome glitch that cause this one factor to be missed.

[Nuri]

I know that MikeH has checked a few ranges for holes semi-secretly in the past. You might want to check with him on what he has done to avoid duplication of effort.
Thanks for the reminder ceselb. I am also aware of that. In 3650-3700 fo example, we patched the holes together with him. When I wrote, "I'll take a look at the most promising ones in detail ", I meant the analysis (i.e. the possible reason of the hole signal - like faulty client or user error or anything else -, if they are already patched by someone etc.). So, I won't be starting to sieve any ranges right away. And when I start, I'll check not to duplicate work. Traces of pathes can be easily tracked through the results.txt file.



so if the cient that missed the factors was sobsieve then is it possible that alot of previously sieved ranges may be missing factors? 1300 factors is far to many to risk missing.
I think the 1300 figure covers more than 80% of the potential risk of missing factors. Most of the ranges (95% in terms of number of reservations, and 98% in terms of the total range sieved) seem to appear just fine. I agree 1300 is out of a 3.8T range is like a treasure (though I'm pretty sure significant number of the signals were wrong and we'll end up with much less recovered factors). Still, I'll definitely look into it as I have time.



Completed 7/21/03 10:35 am (EDT) with SobSieve 1.28 or 1.30 as one of the first "dual range" sieves.
Joe, I've checked your sobstatus file against the results.txt file. All of the 179 factors were submitted. However, almost all of them turned out to be excluded or duplicate factors. See attached file for details. The factors on the left are from your sobstatus file, and the ones on the right are from the results.txt file. The only difference is 39801050200619 55459 6030298 584 61, which started this tread.

If this is the case for other ranges with many excluded factors, then some of us might have had a faulty client problem for a certain period of time.

[Keroberts1]

well being as I'd love to find a region of the sieve that low that still has factors as soon as a list is made public of which regions has this suspicious look to them I'm be happy to devote a portion of my resources to double checking them. I can't guarentee I'll finish the mhowever if i don't find anything after 100 or so G. At this range I would expect the density ot be around one factor every few G at least. Am i correct?

[Nuri]

Yes, that's valid for most of the ranges. Most of the suspected ranges should normally have densities of 0.5 F/G to 1.5 F/G.

However, all of the ranges already have some factors. Total number of normally expected factors less the total of already submitted ones is 1300. That suggests a density of one missing unique factor per 3G on the average. But, of course this should not be taken for granted.


On the double check sieve issue, I do not want any of our resources to be wasted on false alarms. Therefore, please wait for a few days for a more detailed analysis. I hope to find enough time for it during weekend. And of course, in case there really happens to be some ranges that need to be resieved, I'd be more than happy to share the information and the ranges with you all.

[Joe O]

Originally posted by Keroberts1
Joe is your PC overclocked?
No, it was an AMD K6-III/400 that was running at stock. It ran hot from day one, even with an extra case fan. I had to turn it off on hot summer afternoons, or the thermal warning would throttle it down anyway. It has been retired.
By the way, it passed all stress tests and memtest86+ even till the end.

[Joe O]

Originally posted by Keroberts1
a list is made public of which regions has this suspicious look to them I'm be happy to devote a portion of my resources to double checking them.

I'll rerun my own ranges when we get to the bottom of this. And I won't stop after a 100G!

[Nuri]

@ Joe: Your ranges that I PMed to you seems to be by far the most promising ones among all. Especially the smallest two of your ranges would yield a good density of missing factors. I guess it would be a wise move to check them. Still, it might be a good idea to hear Mike's opinion on those six ranges as well, before starting a rerun.


On the other potential ranges:

I just found some time today to analyse the ranges a bit further, and noticed that Mike has resieved a particular user's ranges that we have previously suspected, which brought us some of the missing factors.

Taking out that user's ranges, Joe's ranges (which will be sieved by himself), and a few more ranges (due to various reasons, i.e. is not worth resieving due to low potential outcome per G, etc.) we're left with:

- # ranges with possible holes: 26 (dropped from 46)
- total size: 1.3T (dropped from 3.8T)
- maximum* suspected missing factors: 520 (dropped from 1300)
* it's highly likely that the actual figure will be much less.

I'll post more info as I look into other ranges.

[MikeH]

Appologies, I haven't been following this thread.

For the record, I a fairly sure that I haven't resieved any of Joe's ranges, so any problems that exist won't have been addressed by me.

You may already know, but one good place to look for a complete record of the factors found is the "all users page" (http://www.aooq73.dsl.pipex.com/ui/9999.htm). If you take a look at the ranges complete towards the bottom, you see number of factors found by the person that the reserved the range, and in (), the number of factors found by others.

If you're already using this info, sorry for duplication.

Cheers,
Mike.

[Frodo42]

Hey it's me who found that factor :blush:
I've been reading this thread a few times, but it was first now when I started wondering why 39801050200619 | 55459*2^6030298+1 scored so low that it came to my attention that this tread is about that factor (among other things ...)
Just for information it was found using a factor value of 1.5 and 2^47 as what I thought meant lower value ...

[Nuri]

Originally posted by MikeH
If you're already using this info, sorry for duplication.
I was assuming it was the way you explained here, but was not 100% sure. So, thanks for the clarification.


Anyways, I've eliminated a few more ranges, thus expected number of missing factors and the size of suspicious ranges dropped a bit more.

After that, I started resieving a little portion of each to be sure there exists at least some missing factors.

Here are the results so far:

Original range: 9990 - 9999
User: alexr
Expected: 18 factors
Actual: 12 factors
I checked the whole range, and found four new factors (9998153020439 | 24737*2^11804071+1, 9998204220791 | 24737*2^13269751+1, 9998353852393 | 10223*2^9640217+1, and 9998894415151 | 22699*2^3891430+1).
PS: I dunno why, but they did not show up in Mike's stats (may be they were duplicates??).


Original range: 13200 - 13220
User: ceselb
Expected: 30 factors
Actual: 22 factors
I checked 13210-13220, and found one new factor (13210014234479 | 33661*2^2080032+1).
13200-13210 is available for resieve if anyone is interested. Just drop a note below. EDIT: Taken by Keroberts1



Original range: 22640 - 22700
User: netbrian
Expected: 50 factors
Actual: 31 factors
I checked 22640-22650, and found one new factor (22644560072831 | 10223*2^16939481+1).
22650-22700 is available for resieve if anyone is interested. Just drop a note below.
PS: I dunno why, but it did not show up in Mike's stats (may be it was a duplicate??).



Original range: 26750 - 26800
User: netbrian
Expected: 35 factors
Actual: 15 factors
I checked 26750-26770, and found two new factors (26760255161203 | 10223*2^15506729+1 and 26763155273761 | 10223*2^13811357+1).
26770-26800 is available for resieve if anyone is interested. Just drop a note below.



Original range: 27000 - 27050
User: netbrian
Expected: 35 factors
Actual: 12 factors
I checked 27000-27010, and found one new factor (27001164464707 | 10223*2^3406205+1).
27010-27050 is available for resieve if anyone is interested. Just drop a note below.

I'll post more later.

I also want to note that it's not for sure that you'll find factors. Please use your own discretion.

[Nuri]

Original range: 215000 - 215050
User: BigMajaX
Expected: 5 factors
Actual: 0 unique, 1 duplicate and 60 excluded factors


I did not check this range, and I do not encourage anyone to do so. But, BigMajaX, if you're reading this, could you please check again if you've sent in the contets of the fact.txt file for this range?

[Keroberts1]

13200-13210 I'll check this one and seeif any thing shows

[MJX]

Original range: 215000 - 215050
User: BigMajaX
Expected: 5 factors
Actual: 0 unique, 1 duplicate and 60 excluded factors

yes, i have submitted all the factors found (and a 50G gap with a celeron 400 is quite unforgettable!)

that's why I submitted the excluded too, to "proove" that the range has been sieved... (but I usually do it aniway :p )

but feel free to resieve the range...

Bye.

[Nuri]

Originally posted by MJX
yes, i have submitted all the factors found (and a 50G gap with a celeron 400 is quite unforgettable!)

That was a real bad luck for you. Thanks for the quick reply.

[priwo]

27010-27050 i will do the check priwo

[Keroberts1]

13200-13210 nothing there

maybe this one has more promise I'll let ya know how it does

26770-26800 Keroberts1

[ceselb]

Originally posted by Nuri

Original range: 13200 - 13220
User: ceselb
Expected: 30 factors
Actual: 22 factors
I checked 13210-13220, and found one new factor (13210014234479 | 33661*2^2080032+1).


From the DC sieve archive thread (http://www.free-dc.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5040)

12700 14000 Joe_O [complete]

Well spotted, but wrong user. :D :cheers:

[Nuri]

Originally posted by ceselb
Well spotted, but wrong user. :D :cheers:

I based them on 3M<n<20M ranges reserved here (http://www.free-dc.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2698) and here (http://www.aooq73.dsl.pipex.com/ui/9999.htm). :D

It's no big deal anyway. I think we've done a pretty neat job in sieving. There were a few (around 5) ranges which were exceptionally problematic in the very early phases of the sieve, which were already spotted and taken care of. Almost all of the ranges we're discussing here still have significantly less factors than expected, but as I said, it's no big deal.

Still, for the sake of completion, I'll post more ranges if I encounter one (or more) new factors in 10G-20G checks.

[royanee]

I'll check 22650-22700

[Nuri]

To make sure there is no misunderstanding, these are all regular sieve ranges (i.e. analysis is based on 3m<n<20m range results), not DC sieve ranges.

On a second note: In my opinion, there is no need to go back to the old 3m<n<20m dat file. It would be just fine to use the 11k dat file (1m<n<20m) for resieve.

[Keroberts1]

I found 3 new factors in my range adn i believe all of the ranges that were ot be rechecked have been finished. Are there more suspects?

[priwo]

27010-27050 priwo [complete]

27033331433257 | 10223*2^16790057+1
27040054113179 | 4847*2^6040791+1
27049393456193 | 10223*2^17251337+1

all of them were new !

[Nuri]

Originally posted by Keroberts1
I found 3 new factors in my range adn i believe all of the ranges that were ot be rechecked have been finished. Are there more suspects?

Yes, there are. But I'm late for work. ;) Will post them when I come back.

[Nuri]

Here are some more ranges.


Original range: 16250 - 16270
User: ceselb
Expected: 24 factors
Actual: 17 factors
I checked 16260-16270, and found two new factors (16262672861041 | 4847*2^11161167+1, and 16264171281383 | 4847*2^8343327+1).
16250-16260 is available for resieve if anyone is interested. Just drop a note below.




Original range: 17150 - 17250
User: ceselb
Expected: 110 factors
Actual: 69 factors
I checked 17240-17250, and found one new factor (17243318223409 | 4847*2^2100807+1).
17150-17240 is available for resieve if anyone is interested. Just drop a note below.



Original range: 17250 - 17260
User: priwo
Expected: 11 factors
Actual: 7 factors
I checked 17250-17260, and found two new factors (17252317641127 | 4847*2^16845231+1, and 17256592523101 | 10223*2^7531517+1).
There's nothing left here.



Original range: 21520 - 21605
User: louie
Expected: 75 factors
Actual: 46 factors
I checked 21575-21585, and found two new factors (21576157491797 | 10223*2^10729481+1, and 21578615512453 | 10223*2^15173801+1).
21520-21575 and 21585-21605 are available for resieve if anyone is interested. Just drop a note below.



There are a few more ranges left. And as before, I'll post them if I find something interesting.

[royanee]

22650-22700 completed with 7 new factors.

[Death]

16250-16260 Death [reserved]

16250959881113 | 10223*2^2105129+1
16253133403439 | 10223*2^7522361+1

both not new. 10h left.

[priwo]

reserving
17150-17240 priwo

[royanee]

21585-21605 royanee

[Death]

did you mean low n sieving or 3 < n < 20?

I use this file - SobDat_n1M-20M.zip for checking this range? should I download another file for this?

[Nuri]

Originally posted by Death
did you mean low n sieving or 3 < n < 20?

I use this file - SobDat_n1M-20M.zip for checking this range? should I download another file for this?


Use the 1m-20m file. It is the correct one to use.




So far, I've resieved 5G, 10G or 20G portions of a total of 22 ranges, a total of 215G.

6 ranges out of these 22 portions did not yield any new factor.

16 ranges out of these 22 portions have yielded at least one new factor.

I have already announced 9 of the 16. An additional 3 of the 16 were Joe's ranges. And the remaining 4 of the 16 are those I have not yet announced (I am waiting for 21520-21575 to be taken by someone before announcing them. If you feel 21520-21575 is too long for you, simply grab a portion of it and please also write the remaining portion as "available for resieve" to avoid confusion).


Please note: The fact that I am finding at least one new factor in all of the ranges I am posting is a strong evidence that there was a problem (either client or user related) which resulted in at least one missing factor. However, this should not be taken as a 100% guarantee that there will be more factors in the remaining portion of the range.

[royanee]

21585-21605 completed with 2 new factors

21520-21550 royanee

This means that 21550-21570 is available for resieve

[Death]

16250-16260 Death [complete] no new factors

21550-21570 Death reserved

[Nuri]

I'll take care of 21570-21575.

Will post more ranges soon.

[Nuri]

Here are the new ranges:

Please note that some of the ranges are a bit larger this time. Please feel free to grab only a portion the larger ranges if you wish to do so.


Original range: 22200-22260
User: louie
Expected: 54 factors
Actual: 33 factors
I checked 22200-22210, and found three new factors (22201416757283 | 4847*2^7759791+1, 22205950519559 | 4847*2^6479727+1, and 22209953234849 | 4847*2^10016031+1).
22210-22260 is available for resieve if anyone is interested. Just drop a note below.



Original range: 22710-22800
User: cmprince
Expected: 79 factors
Actual: 41 factors
I checked 22710-22720, and found one new factor (22715994543887 | 4847*2^12717591+1).
22720-22800 is available for resieve if anyone is interested. Just drop a note below.



Original range: 27315-27500
User: ceselb
Expected: 135 factors
Actual: 100 factors
I checked 27315-27325, and found two new factors (27317815344109 | 19249*2^18965822+1, and 27322606154009 | 19249*2^18862142+1).
27325-27500 is available for resieve if anyone is interested. Just drop a note below.



Original range: 39400-39450
User: mklasson
Expected: 25 factors
Actual: 14 factors
I checked 39400-39410, and found one new factor (39407497507957 | 10223*2^6688229+1).
39410-39450 is available for resieve if anyone is interested. Just drop a note below.



Original range: 42650-42700
User: mklasson
Expected: 23 factors
Actual: 14 factors
I checked 42650-42660, and found one new factor (42659666582497 | 10223*2^10445801+1).
42660-42700 is available for resieve if anyone is interested. Just drop a note below.



Original range: 42900-42950
User: netbrian
Expected: 23 factors
Actual: 13 factors
I checked 42940-42950, and found one new factor (42942861181373 | 10223*2^5759801+1).
42900-42940 is available for resieve if anyone is interested. Just drop a note below. EDIT: Taken by Keroberts1.



As always: Although it's highly likely that there will be some new factors, there is no 100% guarantee that there will be more missing factors in any of the ranges.



PS: With this batch, there is only one batch left, with three ranges. After those three are finished, only other ranges left will be that of Joe's.

[royanee]

21520-21550 completed with 6 new factors

I'll whack these two before I head home.
22210-22260 royanee
22720-22800 royanee

[Keroberts1]

I'll take 42900-42940 Keroberts1 [complete] 5 found

42660-42700 now for this one

[priwo]

17150-17240 priwo [complete]

15 new

[Death]

Statistics:
pmin : 16258261219860
pmax : 16260000000000
# Tested p : 57160596
# Tested k : 628766556
# Whacked k : 511332429
# Whacked p : 17468673
Total time: 13697898 ms.
126kp/s.

Statistics:
pmin : 21550000000000
pmax : 21570000000000
# Tested p : 651430312
# Tested k : 7165733432
# Whacked k : 5828673007
# Whacked p : 199267873
Total time: 119002646 ms.
168kp/s.

[Keroberts1]

42660-42700 complete 4 factors found

has anyone determined which siever it was taht was missing some of the factors or what caused this to happen? If it was sobsieve then does this mean there is a good chance that there are many more missed factors?

[royanee]

22210-22260 royanee [complete] 4 new factors
22720-22800 royanee [complete] 12 new factors

This means that the following ranges:
27325-27500
39410-39450
are available for resieve if anyone is interested. Just drop a note below.

[Nuri]

Originally posted by Keroberts1
has anyone determined which siever it was taht was missing some of the factors or what caused this to happen? If it was sobsieve then does this mean there is a good chance that there are many more missed factors?

I guess it was one of the proth sieve versions that we noticed the problem soon and mikael released a new one. Probably some of the users continued using it for a while.


As far as any more missed factors, there really is not much left. The very early ranges (~up to 10T) were controlled very carefully by both Mike and me, and the ones in this thread are almost all of the ones above 10T.


I'm planning to post a graph to help visualize, when we're finished with these ranges.

[Keroberts1]

Joe O said he used sobsieve 1.28 on noe of his ranges didn't he? Has anyone wiht the older versions tried seeing if these factors are missed by certain versions?

[Nuri]

Joe O said he used sobsieve 1.28 on noe of his ranges didn't he? Has anyone wiht the older versions tried seeing if these factors are missed by certain versions?

I guess his problem might also be the faulty PC.

From his post:


No, it was an AMD K6-III/400 that was running at stock. It ran hot from day one, even with an extra case fan. I had to turn it off on hot summer afternoons, or the thermal warning would throttle it down anyway. It has been retired.

[Joe O]

39410-39450 Joe_O

[Death]

27325-27500 Death

[Nuri]

It seems everything is reserved now.

IIRC, there were three more ranges left. I'll check into them in the following days and let you know if there's anything worth resieve.

[Nuri]

Here's how the factor densities looked like for 1,500G to 100,000G as of 27 April 2004.

[Nuri]

And here's how it looks like for 1,000G to 100,000G as of today.

PS: There's been no change in 1,000G to 1,500G. The first graph lacks that poart simply because I did not keep the data for it.

[Death]

27325-27500 Death complete

27.484T 10223 1346249 27.484 Mon 31-May-2004
27.478T 10223 2108729 27.478 Mon 31-May-2004
27.477T 4847 2841087 27.477 Mon 31-May-2004
27.473T 10223 16589081 27.473 Mon 31-May-2004
27.473T 19249 12829406 27.473 Mon 31-May-2004
27.471T 19249 10407218 27.471 Mon 31-May-2004
27.466T 4847 9930831 27.466 Fri 28-May-2004
27.464T 4847 14831991 27.464 Thu 27-May-2004
27.463T 10223 19333001 27.463 Thu 27-May-2004
27.456T 10223 7122665 27.456 Tue 25-May-2004
27.455T 4847 19045527 27.455 Tue 25-May-2004
27.454T 10223 17018285 27.454 Tue 25-May-2004
27.448T 4847 1031847 27.448 Sun 30-May-2004
27.428T 4847 10092591 27.428 Fri 28-May-2004
27.426T 4847 7299087 27.426 Fri 28-May-2004
27.414T 10223 37229 27.414 Fri 28-May-2004
27.410T 10223 16394345 27.410 Thu 27-May-2004
27.409T 10223 8501705 27.409 Thu 27-May-2004
27.402T 21181 104780 27.402 Thu 27-May-2004
27.393T 10223 12479309 27.393 Wed 26-May-2004
27.380T 4847 18884607 27.380 Tue 25-May-2004
27.373T 24737 181783 27.373 Tue 25-May-2004
27.347T 19249 8603042 27.347 Sat 22-May-2004
27.340T 10223 5358665 27.340 Sat 22-May-2004
27.336T 10223 19504505 27.336 Fri 21-May-2004

[Joe O]

SobSieve 1.35 was released on 6/25/2003. It was also released as 1.34 on 6/23/2003. Both of these executables are flawed. Actually they are the same code, the only difference is that one reports itself as version 1.34 and the other as 1.35, so I will refer to them both as version 1.35.

The true version 1.34 was released on 5/24/2003. This one works correctly as far as I can tell.


This is the results from my test of 1.35:

Found Missed Total
K=4847 16949 28989 45938
K=10223 10499 41920 52419
K=19249 1809 16971 18780
K=21181 45476 0 45476
K=22699 25466 189 25655
K=24737 47700 0 47700
K=27653 26882 0 26882
K=28433 25645 0 25645
K=33661 45138 0 45138
K=55459 69603 161 69764
K=67607 16028 0 16028
Overall 331195 88230 419425


I would suggest that anyone running 1.35 change to the 1.34 version dated 5/24/2003 or to Proth sieve.

If anyone is running older versions of SoBSieve, I can test them on the same data. But I will do this only if you really, really, are running that version and cannot change.

As far as resieving ranges run with the flawed versions, Nuri's analyses posted earlier in this thread caught the ranges done before mid May. If anyone used version 1.35 after mid May, please post and let us know the range and if you intend to resieve it yourself or wish someone else to do it.

[Keroberts1]

Since the siever only missed factors from thesre K values we should eliminate the rest from the double checking phase. 4847 10223 19249 22699 55459. perhaps only the first 3 should be resieved for the ranges in question since most of the missing factors were for those ones. This way we could finish them rather quickly and still have almost the same amount of factors per time dedicated.