mersenneforum.org New Wagstaff PRP exponents
 User Name Remember Me? Password
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

2013-09-19, 23:57   #23
paulunderwood

Sep 2002
Database er0rr

32·443 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by ATH I lost the other test on (2^13347311+1)/3 on the way, 10 days is a long time without any intermediate savefiles. Several other people seems to have these test running on faster computers than mine though, so I didn't restart it.
I've got 'em covered. One more day to go on a 4770k at 4GHz.

Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 2013-09-20 at 00:08

 2013-09-20, 22:10 #24 paulunderwood     Sep 2002 Database er0rr F9316 Posts Code: Running N+1 test using discriminant 2, base 1+sqrt(2) (2^13347311+1)/3 is Lucas PRP! (442900.4907s+0.0204s) and confirming ATH's result: Code: Running N+1 test using discriminant 2, base 1+sqrt(2) (2^13372531+1)/3 is Lucas PRP! (443577.1559s+0.0284s) The tests for (L+2)^(n+1)==5 (mod n, L^2+1) will take another 3 to 4 weeks Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 2013-09-20 at 22:14
2013-10-17, 21:27   #25
paulunderwood

Sep 2002
Database er0rr

32·443 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by paulunderwood The tests for (L+2)^(n+1)==5 (mod n, L^2+1) will take another 3 to 4 weeks
The tests passed for both PRPs.

I have emailed Henri Lifchitz requesting that the annotations for the PRPs in his database lists all our PRP tests.

Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 2013-10-17 at 21:37

2013-10-18, 00:58   #26
ATH
Einyen

Dec 2003
Denmark

3,257 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by paulunderwood The tests for (L+2)^(n+1)==5 (mod n, L^2+1) will take another 3 to 4 weeks
Sorry for my ignorance but n is the Wagstaff PRP right, but what is L ? and what is meant by "n, L^2 +1" in the modular expression? My guess is that (L+2)^(n+1)==5 for both (mod n) and (mod L^2+1) ?

(and yes I did spend a bit of time looking for an answer myself, before I get told to study myself :) But not too much since it is not that important)

Last fiddled with by ATH on 2013-10-18 at 01:02

 2013-10-18, 01:33 #27 paulunderwood     Sep 2002 Database er0rr 76238 Posts The modular reduction is done over "n" and "L^2+1". Here is a worked example for n=11 where L^2==-1 (mod 11, L^2+1) Code: (L+2)^2==L^2+4*L+4==4*L+3 (L+2)^3==(4*L+3)*(L+2)==4*L^2+11*L+6==0*L+6-4==2 (L+2)^6==2^2==4 (L+2)^12==4^2==16==5 This will work for all prime n==3 (mod 4), but is not proven that all composites will fail. Wagstaff are 3 (mod 4) To cover all n, I take minimal x>=0 such that jacobiSymbol(x^2-4,n)==-1, and check: Code: (L+2)^(n+1)==5+2*x (mod n, L^2-x*L+1) This is the basis of my JavaScript program, which has the running time of 2 Miller-Rabin rounds. It is explained in my pre-print "Quadratic Composite Tests" where I used $\lambda$ instead of "L". The general "minimal x" method is good for n < 10^13 -- I am currently testing n < 7*10^13. Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 2013-10-18 at 01:47

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post T.Rex Wagstaff PRP Search 191 2021-06-30 17:22 Batalov GMP-ECM 9 2012-08-24 10:26 davieddy Miscellaneous Math 209 2011-01-23 23:50 diep GMP-ECM 10 2010-07-26 21:33 T.Rex Math 0 2007-09-04 07:10

All times are UTC. The time now is 11:46.

Thu Jan 27 11:46:44 UTC 2022 up 188 days, 6:15, 1 user, load averages: 1.02, 1.18, 1.31

Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔