View Single Post
Old 2020-02-12, 14:02   #11
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

33·5·71 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JuanTutors View Post
First, really posting to find out if the error I got above is a bug in Prime95, since it worked fine on a smaller exponent. .
You posted that in a different thread.

But, what people are trying to tell you is that some work is really of zero value. Doing ECM factoring on a number that is years ahead of the first time wave front is nonsensical. ECM is best used for low numbers that have had a good amount of TF and P-1 done.

If you want to make maximum use of your machine for the GIMPS project overall, I would suggest that you set it to do PRP (or PRP-DC) on Mersenne number cofactors.
The reasons are:
It is not a huge amount of work in terms of GHz days per assignment.
You will not be holding up any milestones.
Your assignment will not likely expire after a couple of months of slow progress.
It will help the project along, by revealing an important bit of data.
If your test does not match, a TC can determine if your machine is still sane.

Just because you are obsessed with a different number, doing any testing you can on it does not make sense. The only reason to do extra TF or P-1 on a number that is undergoing PRP or LL testing, is to try to "break" an number that is claimed to be prime, while the DC is being done. Doing ECM on such a number is fool-hearty. It is like trying to empty a supertanker with a bucket.
Uncwilly is online now   Reply With Quote