![]() |
![]() |
#1 |
Sep 2002
2×131 Posts |
![]()
Hi George,
When I use FactorOverride, even if a factor is found, prime95 keep on going up to the override. I don't know if it's a bug or if it was intentionnally added. I heard of someone reporting 2 factors on the same number. I'm using 23.4.1 Joss |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Jan 2003
far from M40
53 Posts |
![]()
Hi, Joss!
AFAIK, this is due to the fact that Prime95 doesn't go through the factor - candidates in their natural order. So, if a factor is found, Prime95 checks smaller left-overs to ensure that there aren't any factors below that. Nevertheless, finding a factor below e.g. 2^60 should ensure that Prime95 won't look for factors between 2^60 and 2^61. Benjamin |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA
22·3·641 Posts |
![]()
In the Prime95 module source code commonb.c, where it determines that trial factoring has found a factor is this comment:
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
"Mark"
Feb 2003
Sydney
3·191 Posts |
![]()
I'm not sure prime95 is working like that. For example, if I factor M29900009 from a very low limit to a FactorOverride of 60 or less, prime95 reports a 44-bit factor 8938129290407. But if FactorOverride is 61 or more, it reports a 33 bit factor 7415202233 as well, which is the one in nofactor.
I stumbled across this because I became interested in hunting for missed factors, like in this thread. I experimented with looking for gaps in the distribution of known factors. Unfortunately large sections have many exponents where a factor is known but a smaller factor has been missed, which distorts the distribution. So I wanted to see if it was feasible to fix that first, at least up to a low bit-level. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Sep 2003
2×179 Posts |
![]()
Yes, it appears to work exactly the opposite of what the comment says. If FactorOverride is 60 or less, it stops upon finding a factor, but if it is 61 or greater, it continues to check all lower possible factors in that bit range.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
2×4,127 Posts |
![]()
I'll fix it next release. Thanks
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
"Mark"
Feb 2003
Sydney
3×191 Posts |
![]()
Thanks, George!
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Factor found that should have been found by P-1 | tha | Data | 65 | 2020-08-05 21:11 |
F12 factor found? | johnadam74 | FermatSearch | 16 | 2016-11-03 12:10 |
Mfaktc keeps going after a factor is found | NBtarheel_33 | GPU Computing | 11 | 2012-04-07 21:12 |
found this factor | tha | Factoring | 4 | 2007-06-18 19:56 |
Odd Reporting of a Factor Found | Reboot It | Data | 3 | 2003-12-03 14:39 |