size of next prime found

[jjjjL]

in hopes of giving people another "here's what to expect" kind of stat, the stats page now lists the minimum size of the next prime found.

http://www.seventeenorbust.com/stats/

currently, it is at 636840 digits. those who are math savvy will notice that it is unlikely that the prime found will be that small. this lower bound case is only possible if the test pending with the lowest n at any given time is found to be prime.

however, it's still neat to look at and it should be nice to watch it climb as the lower-bounds of the individual k values raise over time. I like it.

-Louie

EDIT: The prime savvy may also notice that we are already above the size of the 5th largest prime known, meaning #5 would be SB's spot unless another discovery changes that.

[MAD-ness]

This is very neat.

Would it be much extra effort to do the same thing but with a "leading edge" proth test, i.e. something that might have been assigned in the last day or two?

Obviously with tests from multiple k-values being assigned, this wouldn't be an exact science, but something that indicates a sort of mean, or average proth test size.

Anyways, cool stat.

I think someone just took the #4 or #5 spot from GIMPS with a General Fermat prime, didn't they? I thought I heard that somewhere......

[Nuri]

Originally posted by jjjjL
in hopes of giving people another "here's what to expect" kind of stat, the stats page now lists the minimum size of the next prime found.

That's a cool stat Louie, good thinking. BTW, MAD-ness has a good point. It would be very nice to see the "maximum size for currently pending tests" as well (which is calculated from the largest of the pending tests). I guess that will give a better indication of "here's what to expect", with both min and max as of current data.

Originally posted by MAD-ness
I think someone just took the #4 or #5 spot from GIMPS with a General Fermat prime, didn't they? I thought I heard that somewhere......

Yes, thats right. And our lowest possible prime as of now is roughly 8,000 digits larger. I mentioned the related links in this thread.


And a last note, I just thought that may be dividing the "proth tests completed" into two i.e. tests <3000000 and >3000000 when the server begins assigning 3m n's might be nice too. This way, it would be very easy to track tests removed through sieving vs prp testing for n above 3m.

An interesting competition within the project (sievers vs all remaining seventeenorbusters).

[Lagardo]

Originally posted by Nuri
Yes, thats right. And our lowest possible prime as of now is roughly 8,000 digits larger.

I may be reading this here all wrong, but the former Gimps #5 is now on #7 and 636840 digits is currently only worth a 6th rank...

[philmoore]

You read correctly, this new largest known Proth prime, 3*2^2,145,353 + 1, at 648,817 decimal digits was discovered on February 21st and has pushed M34 down to 7th place. The new discovery is a factor of the Fermat number 2^(2^2145351)+1. But SoB is next!

[jwolfe]

Amazing what a difference five days makes, isn't it? In another five days, it may well be true again that SB's smallest number is bigger than #5 on the list.

At the other end of the range, it looks like SB's largest number would fall at #4. In a short time, the largest number will be bigger than the current #3. Of course, by then it might not be ranked #3 any more....

It looks like there are no fewer than four projects currently capable of putting a prime number into the top ten. Or even the top five. It's astounding.

[shauge]

I think Nuri has good suggestion. The smallest possible prime number is very static.

[shauge]

I just made an excel sheet with web queries that check these things out. If my calculations are correct: A prime found for k=21181 will now be the 6th largest prime, for all others it will be the 5th largest.
The values for n to break the other limits are for k=4847: 4th largest prime n=2976210, 3rd largest prime n=3021368, 1M digits n=3321916, 2nd largest prime n=6972582, and the largest prime n=13466905. The n values for k=67607 are just 3-4 less.