Bitcoin Forum
May 23, 2019, 10:47:33 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 [176] 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 ... 303 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN][RIC] Riecoin: constellations POW *CPU* HARD FORK successful, world record  (Read 662628 times)
vidarn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 17
Merit: 0


View Profile
September 08, 2014, 04:50:45 PM
 #3501

I believe you guys are making your estimates based on an old world record.
The 1857 difficulty corresponds to a 559 digits 6-tuplet found in 2009. The present record, according to Tony Forbes, is 593 digits or a difficulty of about 1970. The record 6-tuplet is

219946485329 * 1399# / 2 + d, d = −8, −4, −2, 2, 4, 8, found by Serge Batalov in December 2013.

Tony Forbes' k-tuplet page may be found here:

http://anthony.d.forbes.googlepages.com/ktuplets.htm

But as (1973/1441)^9 = 16.9 using gatra's estimates, we should be able to beat the record with an extra digit within an hour or so. The Primecoin lot have broken quite a few world records, it would be nice if we could get some too.
1558651653
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558651653

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558651653
Reply with quote  #2

1558651653
Report to moderator
PLAY OVER 3000 GAMES
LIGHTNING FAST WITHDRAWALS
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1558651653
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558651653

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558651653
Reply with quote  #2

1558651653
Report to moderator
1558651653
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558651653

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558651653
Reply with quote  #2

1558651653
Report to moderator
1558651653
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558651653

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558651653
Reply with quote  #2

1558651653
Report to moderator
gatra
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 583
Merit: 504


CTO @ Flixxo, Riecoin dev


View Profile WWW
September 08, 2014, 05:18:51 PM
 #3502

I believe you guys are making your estimates based on an old world record.
The 1857 difficulty corresponds to a 559 digits 6-tuplet found in 2009. The present record, according to Tony Forbes, is 593 digits or a difficulty of about 1970. The record 6-tuplet is

219946485329 * 1399# / 2 + d, d = −8, −4, −2, 2, 4, 8, found by Serge Batalov in December 2013.

Tony Forbes' k-tuplet page may be found here:

http://anthony.d.forbes.googlepages.com/ktuplets.htm

But as (1973/1441)^9 = 16.9 using gatra's estimates, we should be able to beat the record with an extra digit within an hour or so. The Primecoin lot have broken quite a few world records, it would be nice if we could get some too.


F*ck! ^$&$^%$&%$&%$^@#$%^!  Angry
Smiley

thanks vidarn for noticing
so we would have 1 hour blocks once per week.... let's wipe that list!


           ▄▄▄██████████▄▄▄
       ▄▄██
██████████████████▄▄
     ▄█
█████▀████████████▀██████▄
   ▄█
█████████████████████████████▄
  ▄█
█████████▄█▀▀██████████████████▄
 ▄█
███████████▀██████▄▄█████▄███████▄
▄█
██████████▀██▄▄▄▄██▀▀▀▀▀███████████▄
█████████████▀▀██▀████████▀▀████████
█████████████▄█▀████████████████████
████████▀▀▀▀██▀▀▀▀██████████████████
▀█
██████▀▀▀▀██▀▀▀▀███████████████████▀
 ▀█
███████▄████▄▄███████████████████▀
  ▀█
███████████████████████████████▀
   ▀█
█████████████████████████████▀
     ▀█
█████▄████████████▄██████▀
       ▀▀██
██████████████████▀▀
           ▀▀▀██████████▀▀▀
riecoin       ▄▄█████████▄▄
    ▄██▀▀         ▀▀██▄
  ▄██▀              ▀██▄
 ▄██     ██▄▄          ██▄
▄██      █████▄▄        ██▄
██       ████████▄▄      ██
██       ███████████▄    ██
██       ██████████▀     ██
▀██      ███████▀       ██▀
 ▀██     ████▀         ██▀
  ▀██▄   █▀          ▄██▀
    ▀██▄▄         ▄▄██▀
       ▀▀█████████▀▀
.flixxo   
Ellieo
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 60
Merit: 10


View Profile
September 08, 2014, 06:54:44 PM
 #3503

I believe you guys are making your estimates based on an old world record.
The 1857 difficulty corresponds to a 559 digits 6-tuplet found in 2009. The present record, according to Tony Forbes, is 593 digits or a difficulty of about 1970. The record 6-tuplet is

219946485329 * 1399# / 2 + d, d = −8, −4, −2, 2, 4, 8, found by Serge Batalov in December 2013.

Tony Forbes' k-tuplet page may be found here:

http://anthony.d.forbes.googlepages.com/ktuplets.htm

But as (1973/1441)^9 = 16.9 using gatra's estimates, we should be able to beat the record with an extra digit within an hour or so. The Primecoin lot have broken quite a few world records, it would be nice if we could get some too.

Too bad the Tony Forbes' K-tuplet page didn't indicate the amount of time required for making the world record. Having a world record in record time is totally a different league.
bsunau7
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 114
Merit: 10


View Profile
September 09, 2014, 06:20:34 AM
 #3504


The Primecoin lot have broken quite a few world records, it would be nice if we could get some too.


The difficulty on the primecoin network has been stuck at 10.95-10.98 (give or take) for months.  It only seems to be increasing in response to miner efficiency.

I doubt they will be seeing any new records for a while.

Regards,

--
bsunau7
fairglu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1096
Merit: 1025


View Profile WWW
September 09, 2014, 06:40:23 AM
 #3505

If it's not poloniex nor mintpal my guess is that it's btc38, but how could we really know?

We probably need some chinese guy to confirm. The btc38 website is basically unresponsive and timing out from here, I couldn't even run automated translation on it because I could even see complete pages :/

Meanwhile, the cold wallet of btc38 riecoin is public as RUrTHyyKiPr1SkAraTHvSY9d3vsdQHBjca, which has 3487644.
Therefore, we know that more than 50% of Riecoins are sitting in btc38.

Great to know! do you have some official link/url about it?

RUrTHyyKiPr1SkAraTHvSY9d3vsdQHBjca has only 550k however, and so far isn't related by taint to the large exchange wallet (https://chainz.cryptoid.info/ric/wallet.dws?87250.htm), where does that 3487644 figure comes from?

vidarn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 17
Merit: 0


View Profile
September 09, 2014, 09:23:31 AM
 #3506


The difficulty on the primecoin network has been stuck at 10.95-10.98 (give or take) for months.  It only seems to be increasing in response to miner efficiency.

I doubt they will be seeing any new records for a while.


Unlike Riecoin, Primecoin makes it possible to submit POW well above the current difficulty. The present Primecoin record is a 2nd kind Cunningham chain of length 14 from May this year (when the difficulty was 10.96)

http://primecoin.io/index.php
http://primerecords.dk/Cunningham_Chain_records.htm
gatra
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 583
Merit: 504


CTO @ Flixxo, Riecoin dev


View Profile WWW
September 09, 2014, 01:38:58 PM
 #3507


The difficulty on the primecoin network has been stuck at 10.95-10.98 (give or take) for months.  It only seems to be increasing in response to miner efficiency.

I doubt they will be seeing any new records for a while.


Unlike Riecoin, Primecoin makes it possible to submit POW well above the current difficulty. The present Primecoin record is a 2nd kind Cunningham chain of length 14 from May this year (when the difficulty was 10.96)

http://primecoin.io/index.php
http://primerecords.dk/Cunningham_Chain_records.htm


That's true: there is the possibility that, by chance, a primecoin POW will be a chain of greater length than what's specified by the difficulty. However this happens "by luck", and since they are limited on the size of their primes, I agree with bsunau7 that they won't be seeing much new records for a while.

On the other hand, Riecoin cannot find sextuplets above difficulty (as you said)... BUT, analogous to what you decribed with primecoin, RIC can find sextuplets that are also part of septuplets or octuplets. The records for septuplets are much lower than those of sextuplets, so we may have broken some of those already! wow, I haven't realized this before... I'll have to make a script to test it, but with 120000 sextuplets there's a chance one of those is also a septuplet (and a world record breaking one)! the numbers are so large that the chance may be too small, but we have to test it...


           ▄▄▄██████████▄▄▄
       ▄▄██
██████████████████▄▄
     ▄█
█████▀████████████▀██████▄
   ▄█
█████████████████████████████▄
  ▄█
█████████▄█▀▀██████████████████▄
 ▄█
███████████▀██████▄▄█████▄███████▄
▄█
██████████▀██▄▄▄▄██▀▀▀▀▀███████████▄
█████████████▀▀██▀████████▀▀████████
█████████████▄█▀████████████████████
████████▀▀▀▀██▀▀▀▀██████████████████
▀█
██████▀▀▀▀██▀▀▀▀███████████████████▀
 ▀█
███████▄████▄▄███████████████████▀
  ▀█
███████████████████████████████▀
   ▀█
█████████████████████████████▀
     ▀█
█████▄████████████▄██████▀
       ▀▀██
██████████████████▀▀
           ▀▀▀██████████▀▀▀
riecoin       ▄▄█████████▄▄
    ▄██▀▀         ▀▀██▄
  ▄██▀              ▀██▄
 ▄██     ██▄▄          ██▄
▄██      █████▄▄        ██▄
██       ████████▄▄      ██
██       ███████████▄    ██
██       ██████████▀     ██
▀██      ███████▀       ██▀
 ▀██     ████▀         ██▀
  ▀██▄   █▀          ▄██▀
    ▀██▄▄         ▄▄██▀
       ▀▀█████████▀▀
.flixxo   
dga
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 737
Merit: 511


View Profile WWW
September 10, 2014, 08:28:13 PM
 #3508


The difficulty on the primecoin network has been stuck at 10.95-10.98 (give or take) for months.  It only seems to be increasing in response to miner efficiency.

I doubt they will be seeing any new records for a while.


Unlike Riecoin, Primecoin makes it possible to submit POW well above the current difficulty. The present Primecoin record is a 2nd kind Cunningham chain of length 14 from May this year (when the difficulty was 10.96)

http://primecoin.io/index.php
http://primerecords.dk/Cunningham_Chain_records.htm


That's true: there is the possibility that, by chance, a primecoin POW will be a chain of greater length than what's specified by the difficulty. However this happens "by luck", and since they are limited on the size of their primes, I agree with bsunau7 that they won't be seeing much new records for a while.

On the other hand, Riecoin cannot find sextuplets above difficulty (as you said)... BUT, analogous to what you decribed with primecoin, RIC can find sextuplets that are also part of septuplets or octuplets. The records for septuplets are much lower than those of sextuplets, so we may have broken some of those already! wow, I haven't realized this before... I'll have to make a script to test it, but with 120000 sextuplets there's a chance one of those is also a septuplet (and a world record breaking one)! the numbers are so large that the chance may be too small, but we have to test it...

Am I crazy, or should we not expect to have a few tens of septuplets already?  Perhaps I'm mis-thinking the math -- 1/ln(2^1700) ~= 1/1200 chance of a sextuplet being a septuplet?

gatra
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 583
Merit: 504


CTO @ Flixxo, Riecoin dev


View Profile WWW
September 11, 2014, 04:06:47 AM
 #3509

Am I crazy, or should we not expect to have a few tens of septuplets already?  Perhaps I'm mis-thinking the math -- 1/ln(2^1700) ~= 1/1200 chance of a sextuplet being a septuplet?

You're right, but looking at the admissible patterns for sextuplets vs septuplets:
0  4  6  10  12  16
vs
0  2  6  8  12  18  20
0  2  8  12  14  18  20

it doesn't fit...looks like we're screwed... we won't have septuplets with minimal distance (p ... p+20)
I didn't verify this, but the source is Anthony Forbes

same thing with octuplets:
0  2  6  8  12  18  20  26
0  2  6  12  14  20  24  26
0  6  8  14  18  20  24  26


           ▄▄▄██████████▄▄▄
       ▄▄██
██████████████████▄▄
     ▄█
█████▀████████████▀██████▄
   ▄█
█████████████████████████████▄
  ▄█
█████████▄█▀▀██████████████████▄
 ▄█
███████████▀██████▄▄█████▄███████▄
▄█
██████████▀██▄▄▄▄██▀▀▀▀▀███████████▄
█████████████▀▀██▀████████▀▀████████
█████████████▄█▀████████████████████
████████▀▀▀▀██▀▀▀▀██████████████████
▀█
██████▀▀▀▀██▀▀▀▀███████████████████▀
 ▀█
███████▄████▄▄███████████████████▀
  ▀█
███████████████████████████████▀
   ▀█
█████████████████████████████▀
     ▀█
█████▄████████████▄██████▀
       ▀▀██
██████████████████▀▀
           ▀▀▀██████████▀▀▀
riecoin       ▄▄█████████▄▄
    ▄██▀▀         ▀▀██▄
  ▄██▀              ▀██▄
 ▄██     ██▄▄          ██▄
▄██      █████▄▄        ██▄
██       ████████▄▄      ██
██       ███████████▄    ██
██       ██████████▀     ██
▀██      ███████▀       ██▀
 ▀██     ████▀         ██▀
  ▀██▄   █▀          ▄██▀
    ▀██▄▄         ▄▄██▀
       ▀▀█████████▀▀
.flixxo   
bsunau7
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 114
Merit: 10


View Profile
September 11, 2014, 04:46:54 AM
Last edit: September 11, 2014, 05:37:48 AM by bsunau7
 #3510

Am I crazy, or should we not expect to have a few tens of septuplets already?  Perhaps I'm mis-thinking the math -- 1/ln(2^1700) ~= 1/1200 chance of a sextuplet being a septuplet?

You're right, but looking at the admissible patterns for sextuplets vs septuplets:
0  4  6  10  12  16
vs
0  2  6  8  12  18  20
0  2  8  12  14  18  20

it doesn't fit...looks like we're screwed... we won't have septuplets with minimal distance (p ... p+20)
I didn't verify this, but the source is Anthony Forbes

same thing with octuplets:
0  2  6  8  12  18  20  26
0  2  6  12  14  20  24  26
0  6  8  14  18  20  24  26


I spotted that as well, but it might not be as bad as you think (but not as easy as testing one extra prime).

If you take the first p7 variant and subtract 2 you get the pattern:

Code:
-2 0 4 6 10 16 18

Aside from "12" is a very good match for the 6-tuplet pattern (for the second p7 variant you ignore the "4").  In both cases you just need to test p-2 and p+18 for a valid p7 chain.  In effect a valid 6-tuplet means you know you have 5 out of 7 valid primes for the 7-tuplet.

A quick look at the others shows similar tricks to "re-use" valid 6-tuplets probably also exist.

Once again check my assumptions....

EDIT:  For the 7-tuplet, you can also subtract 4 and get another pretty good subset to use as the basis of a test.  Should also increase chance of finding a valid chain.

Regards,

--
bsunau7
aamarket
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 259
Merit: 250


View Profile WWW
September 11, 2014, 05:55:25 AM
 #3511


This is much nicer think to do - than the hard fork.
I had that idea before when checking Riecoin, here are the k-tuples

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_k-tuple

but did not have the time ...

if anybody has tips, how to parse ric blockchain for 6tuplets, it's ease to do.

Anybody ?

IMPORTANT:https://bitcointalk.to/index.php?topic=177133.0,Tips welcome BTC:1AAMARKETmJvfjDwEFmhyYYwfre7ZFVseP  RIC:RGnX6LcJrsVEuYeySDDxkmH7AjRqoprcKt
zeus101
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1
Merit: 0


View Profile
September 11, 2014, 06:00:01 AM
 #3512

Am I crazy, or should we not expect to have a few tens of septuplets already?  Perhaps I'm mis-thinking the math -- 1/ln(2^1700) ~= 1/1200 chance of a sextuplet being a septuplet?

You're right, but looking at the admissible patterns for sextuplets vs septuplets:
0  4  6  10  12  16
vs
0  2  6  8  12  18  20
0  2  8  12  14  18  20

it doesn't fit...looks like we're screwed... we won't have septuplets with minimal distance (p ... p+20)
I didn't verify this, but the source is Anthony Forbes

same thing with octuplets:
0  2  6  8  12  18  20  26
0  2  6  12  14  20  24  26
0  6  8  14  18  20  24  26

am in search of a hacker who can help me with malawares and viruses, willing to pay for the services rendered..thank you
my email is [email protected]

I spotted that as well, but it might not be as bad as you think (but not as easy as testing one extra prime).

If you take the first p7 variant and subtract 2 you get the pattern:

Code:
-2 0 4 6 10 16 18

Aside from "12" is a very good match for the 6-tuplet pattern (for the second p7 variant you ignore the "4").  In both cases you just need to test p-2 and p+18 for a valid p7 chain.  In effect a valid 6-tuplet means you know you have 5 out of 7 valid primes for the 7-tuplet.

A quick look at the others shows similar tricks to "re-use" valid 6-tuplets probably also exist.

Once again check my assumptions....

EDIT:  For the 7-tuplet, you can also subtract 4 and get another pretty good subset to use as the basis of a test.  Should also increase chance of finding a valid chain.

Regards,

--
bsunau7
bsunau7
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 114
Merit: 10


View Profile
September 11, 2014, 06:19:10 AM
 #3513


This is much nicer think to do - than the hard fork.
I had that idea before when checking Riecoin, here are the k-tuples

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_k-tuple

but did not have the time ...

if anybody has tips, how to parse ric blockchain for 6tuplets, it's ease to do.

Anybody ?


Quickest way is https://chainz.cryptoid.info/ric/ has the first 60k blocks p0 in a zip file.  fairglu might be willing to run this script to get a complete set...

Other wise it looks like and extract the transaction id (looks like custom code to process the block chain) and run "riecoind getprimes <txid>".  A perl DBM based script should also be able to do it, but I've not the time :-/

And yes, no hard fork would be nicer.

Regards,

--
bsunau7

fairglu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1096
Merit: 1025


View Profile WWW
September 11, 2014, 06:38:32 AM
Last edit: September 11, 2014, 06:57:31 AM by fairglu
 #3514

Quickest way is https://chainz.cryptoid.info/ric/ has the first 60k blocks p0 in a zip file.  fairglu might be willing to run this script to get a complete set...

No problem, I'll run the update and generate a complete zip (had not bothered since diff went down).

edit: updated the zip with the first 120k primes (p0), get it from https://chainz.cryptoid.info/ric/

bsunau7
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 114
Merit: 10


View Profile
September 11, 2014, 12:09:52 PM
 #3515

No problem, I'll run the update and generate a complete zip (had not bothered since diff went down).

edit: updated the zip with the first 120k primes (p0), get it from https://chainz.cryptoid.info/ric/

Quick and dirty test didn't find any p0-2 primes, tested code by running the same test with p0-0 (i.e. p0) which 'found' most of them aside from some in the 60k block range...  There is an anomaly at block hight 61000-62000 where the limb size doubles, I suspect it might be the source file/gmp parsing but I've not investigated.

Code used (so people and extend/validate):

Code:
//bsunau7

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include "gmp.h"

int     count,m2 = 0;
mpz_t   tmp,p0;

int test_minus2(mpz_t p) {
        mpz_sub_ui(tmp,p,2);

        if(mpz_millerrabin(tmp, 12)) {
                m2++;
                gmp_printf("p0 %#Zd\n",p);
        }
}

int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
        FILE    *f;

        mpz_init(p0); mpz_init(tmp);

        f = fopen("Riecoin_Primes.txt","r");

        //while(EOF != gmp_fscanf(f,"%Zd\n",p0)) {
        while(mpz_inp_str(p0,f,10)) {
                test_minus2(p0);
                count++;

                if(count%1000 == 0) {
                        printf("count = %u minus-2's = %u limbs = %u\n",count,m2,p0->_mp_size);
                }
        }

        fclose(f);

        printf("count = %u minus-2's = %u\n",count,m2);
}

To compile & run:

Code:
pukcab% gcc -L /usr/local/lib -I /usr/local/include -O3 -o p7 p7.c -lgmp
pukcab% ./p7

No error checking (but a progress counter!!!!) just make sure that the file "Riecoin_Primes.txt" is in the same directory as you run it from.

Regards,

--
bsunau7
bsunau7
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 114
Merit: 10


View Profile
September 11, 2014, 12:35:46 PM
 #3516

There is an anomaly at block hight 61000-62000 where the limb size doubles, I suspect it might be the source file/gmp parsing but I've not investigated.

fairglu, can you check the file?  The problem primes are twice as long as they should:

Code:
pukcab% head -60010 Riecoin_Primes.txt| tail -10 | wc
      10      10   10060
pukcab% head -70010 Riecoin_Primes.txt| tail -10 | wc
      10      10    4820
pukcab% head -50010 Riecoin_Primes.txt| tail -10 | wc
      10      10    5180
pukcab%

The difficulty and the size of the prime for block 60010 don't match (https://chainz.cryptoid.info/ric/block.dws?60010.htm).  Also the p0 for block height 60010 does not match what the block chain says:

Code:
$ riecoind getprimes c128a2f6a3ebb5afa55cd3896959697059b8bd36a16b1e50e56b5fb1349230f7
{
    "p0" : "6583993995561192360346046251200206127224654587084325937668318951846051159452993920231623250817659319742419550076619488702317466896549240871168724940491399822598666002168585392207972987955918925506288180520886691254442379378219899029781268734901605154351243323483934758451516491217058653000969212415484447222824114991142710278105797334598372470805981538498172580073950216353959647551925237059810296823999141391673270944333694570238718103456560515918954735187487480245413428471638426754875981718775052397",

Regards,

--
bsunau7
fairglu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1096
Merit: 1025


View Profile WWW
September 11, 2014, 01:45:47 PM
Last edit: September 11, 2014, 02:07:31 PM by fairglu
 #3517

Quick and dirty test didn't find any p0-2 primes, tested code by running the same test with p0-0 (i.e. p0) which 'found' most of them aside from some in the 60k block range...  There is an anomaly at block hight 61000-62000 where the limb size doubles, I suspect it might be the source file/gmp parsing but I've not investigated.

It's probably a bug on my side, I changed the storage format around that, a range might have gotten corrupted. Let me check.

edit: yes, encoding bug, the values in that range are actually the hexadecimal ASCII values, f.i. 60001 says "36353836..." is actually "6586..."

edit2: fixed & updated zip, now with 122000 primes.

gatra
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 583
Merit: 504


CTO @ Flixxo, Riecoin dev


View Profile WWW
September 11, 2014, 02:00:13 PM
Last edit: September 11, 2014, 02:16:16 PM by gatra
 #3518

If you take the first p7 variant and subtract 2 you get the pattern:

Code:
-2 0 4 6 10 16 18

Aside from "12" is a very good match for the 6-tuplet pattern (for the second p7 variant you ignore the "4").  In both cases you just need to test p-2 and p+18 for a valid p7 chain.  In effect a valid 6-tuplet means you know you have 5 out of 7 valid primes for the 7-tuplet.

A quick look at the others shows similar tricks to "re-use" valid 6-tuplets probably also exist.

Once again check my assumptions....

I'm afraid that doesn't work. Imagine that you did find p-2 and p+18 prime. So you have a septuplet. But, you started from a sextuple so p+12 is also prime. This means that your septuple is also an octuple: it has 8 primes in the range p-2 to p+18. A difference of 20. But Athony Forbes tells us that the minimum distance possible for 8-tuples is 26, so the 8-tuple with distance 20 cannot exist. But we said it did... this absurd comes from assuming you could find p-2 and p+18 both prime.

The thing is that ignoring the 12 is cheating, you won't have this:
Code:
-2 0 4 6 10 16 18
but actually this:
Code:
-2 0 4 6 10 12 16 18

and that is not possible because there is a prime q, with q<20 where any of the p(i) will be a multiple of q.
edit: let me see which one it is.....
ok, it's 5. Let's add 2 again for simplicity, so we have:
Code:
0 2 6 8 12 14 18 20
now:
if p+0 has the form 5x then it's not prime
if p+0 has the form 5x+1 then p+14 is actually 5x+1+14 = 5x+15 = 5(x+3) then it's not prime
if p+0 has the form 5x+2 then p+8 is actually 5x+2+8= 5x+10 = 5(x+2) then it's not prime
if p+0 has the form 5x+3 then p+2 is actually 5x+5 = 5(x+1) then it's not prime
if p+0 has the form 5x+4 then p+6 is actually 5x+10 = 5(x+2) then it's not prime

so it's not possible to find primes with that pattern...


           ▄▄▄██████████▄▄▄
       ▄▄██
██████████████████▄▄
     ▄█
█████▀████████████▀██████▄
   ▄█
█████████████████████████████▄
  ▄█
█████████▄█▀▀██████████████████▄
 ▄█
███████████▀██████▄▄█████▄███████▄
▄█
██████████▀██▄▄▄▄██▀▀▀▀▀███████████▄
█████████████▀▀██▀████████▀▀████████
█████████████▄█▀████████████████████
████████▀▀▀▀██▀▀▀▀██████████████████
▀█
██████▀▀▀▀██▀▀▀▀███████████████████▀
 ▀█
███████▄████▄▄███████████████████▀
  ▀█
███████████████████████████████▀
   ▀█
█████████████████████████████▀
     ▀█
█████▄████████████▄██████▀
       ▀▀██
██████████████████▀▀
           ▀▀▀██████████▀▀▀
riecoin       ▄▄█████████▄▄
    ▄██▀▀         ▀▀██▄
  ▄██▀              ▀██▄
 ▄██     ██▄▄          ██▄
▄██      █████▄▄        ██▄
██       ████████▄▄      ██
██       ███████████▄    ██
██       ██████████▀     ██
▀██      ███████▀       ██▀
 ▀██     ████▀         ██▀
  ▀██▄   █▀          ▄██▀
    ▀██▄▄         ▄▄██▀
       ▀▀█████████▀▀
.flixxo   
gatra
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 583
Merit: 504


CTO @ Flixxo, Riecoin dev


View Profile WWW
September 11, 2014, 02:17:43 PM
 #3519

edit: yes, encoding bug, the values in that range are actually the hexadecimal ASCII values, f.i. 60001 says "36353836..." is actually "6586..."

edit2: fixed & updated zip, now with 122000 primes.

cool, thanks for the updated list!


           ▄▄▄██████████▄▄▄
       ▄▄██
██████████████████▄▄
     ▄█
█████▀████████████▀██████▄
   ▄█
█████████████████████████████▄
  ▄█
█████████▄█▀▀██████████████████▄
 ▄█
███████████▀██████▄▄█████▄███████▄
▄█
██████████▀██▄▄▄▄██▀▀▀▀▀███████████▄
█████████████▀▀██▀████████▀▀████████
█████████████▄█▀████████████████████
████████▀▀▀▀██▀▀▀▀██████████████████
▀█
██████▀▀▀▀██▀▀▀▀███████████████████▀
 ▀█
███████▄████▄▄███████████████████▀
  ▀█
███████████████████████████████▀
   ▀█
█████████████████████████████▀
     ▀█
█████▄████████████▄██████▀
       ▀▀██
██████████████████▀▀
           ▀▀▀██████████▀▀▀
riecoin       ▄▄█████████▄▄
    ▄██▀▀         ▀▀██▄
  ▄██▀              ▀██▄
 ▄██     ██▄▄          ██▄
▄██      █████▄▄        ██▄
██       ████████▄▄      ██
██       ███████████▄    ██
██       ██████████▀     ██
▀██      ███████▀       ██▀
 ▀██     ████▀         ██▀
  ▀██▄   █▀          ▄██▀
    ▀██▄▄         ▄▄██▀
       ▀▀█████████▀▀
.flixxo   
fairglu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1096
Merit: 1025


View Profile WWW
September 11, 2014, 02:21:39 PM
 #3520

The thing is that ignoring the 12 is cheating, you won't have this:
Code:
-2 0 4 6 10 16 18
but actually this:
Code:
-2 0 4 6 10 12 16 18

Drats!

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_k-tuple the septuplet constellations

0, 2, 6, 8, 12, 18, 20

might sometimes be octuplet and nonuplets.

Would it be worth changing the PoW from sextuplets to "septuplets with a chance of meatballs octuplets and nonuplets" ?
Would the current computing power in Riecoin mining be enough for world records then ?



Pages: « 1 ... 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 [176] 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 ... 303 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!