Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 44 of 44

Thread: NEW PRIME DISCOVERY!!!!

  1. #41
    Former QueueMaster Ken_g6[TA]'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    184

    Re: Re: Re: Congratulations!

    Originally posted by Death
    OMG! You can do this?

    I'm behind our corporate firewall. And no connections through the 80 or 23 ports =(.
    I believe he's behind an HTTP proxy, not just a normal firewall.

    Edit: MystWalker has a suggestion for HTTP proxies here.
    Last edited by Ken_g6[TA]; 12-19-2003 at 01:14 PM.
    Proud member of the friendliest team around, Team Anandtech!
    The Queue is dead! (Or not needed.) Long Live George Woltman!

  2. #42
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Lucerne, Switzerland
    Posts
    30
    By the way

    The server won't actively try to kill pending tests for k=5359. No new ones have been assigned in over a week so there aren't that many. If you have one, feel free to drop it. The server is already configured to not reassign it.
    Are the numbers with k=5359 and an exponent smaller than the new prime going to be tested?
    I think it makes sense in order to prove that the new prime is the smallest one with k=5359. That could be useful for statistical purposes.

  3. #43
    Originally posted by biwema
    Are the numbers with k=5359 and an exponent smaller than the new prime going to be tested?
    I think it makes sense in order to prove that the new prime is the smallest one with k=5359. That could be useful for statistical purposes.
    But to really be sure, we would have to double check every exponent below the new prime, just like GIMPS must double check each exponent to be sure they haven't missed any primes. The smallest primes are called Keller Primes, so I suppose that finding them would be the Keller Problem. It would be about twice as much work to solve the Keller Problem - I don't think we can spare the resouces.
    Poohbah of the search for Odd Perfect Numbers
    http://OddPerfect.org

  4. #44
    Originally posted by wblipp
    But to really be sure, we would have to double check every exponent below the new prime, just like GIMPS must double check each exponent to be sure they haven't missed any primes. The smallest primes are called Keller Primes, so I suppose that finding them would be the Keller Problem. It would be about twice as much work to solve the Keller Problem - I don't think we can spare the resouces.
    I agree. Although this new prime is in all likelihood a Keller prime for the series 5359*2^n+1, it is not in our interest to make sure that it is.

    I think double checking resources should first be put to work checking numbers for which no prime is known.

    Louie

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •