mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Prime Search Projects > Wagstaff PRP Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2019-04-07, 20:19   #155
lalera
 
lalera's Avatar
 
Jul 2003

2·307 Posts
Default

hi,
i think that prime95 v29.7b1 is buggy and there is also a problem with llr v3.8.22
so i will wait for better code ... and do more tf with mfaktc v0.21
lalera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-04-07, 22:59   #156
GP2
 
GP2's Avatar
 
Sep 2003

5×11×47 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lalera View Post
hi,
i think that prime95 v29.7b1 is buggy and there is also a problem with llr v3.8.22
so i will wait for better code ... and do more tf with mfaktc v0.21
There are bugs for one specific type of work, but for Wagstaff PRP testing there is no problem. The Gerbicz error checking gives extra confidence.
GP2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-04-08, 07:51   #157
pinhodecarlos
 
pinhodecarlos's Avatar
 
"Carlos Pinho"
Oct 2011
Milton Keynes, UK

115758 Posts
Default

Grand Prix 2,

How much sieve was done on this? At my pace my range will be completed within 450 days!
pinhodecarlos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-04-08, 08:41   #158
GP2
 
GP2's Avatar
 
Sep 2003

5×11×47 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pinhodecarlos View Post
Grand Prix 2,

How much sieve was done on this? At my pace my range will be completed within 450 days!
In the 10M range, for the remaining unfactored exponents, TF was done to 66 bits by axn, and P−1 was done by me to B1=p/200, B2=p/10.

It's certainly not as deep as for Mersenne, where large numbers of people have contributed to factoring. For Mersenne, the levels in the 10M range are typically TF=69 and P−1 to about B1=p/40, B2=p/2.

However, even if we did have TF and P−1 up to Mersenne levels, it would only eliminate a few percent of the remaining exponents, surely less than 10%. Finding factors gets exponentially harder at larger sizes, and most factors will simply remain out of reach.

So one way or another, there's no way to avoid doing most of those PRP tests. Progress on Mersenne is faster only because the work is split up among a much larger number of contributors.


However, with 2048-bit residues, if you do a PRP test and then a factor is found later, you can do a very quick Gerbicz cofactor-compositeness test on the new cofactor. So the PRP test is not wasted because at least there is a small chance of discovering a new very large PRP.

I find that with even a simple implementation using GMP, a Gerbicz cofactor-compositeness test is about 50 times faster than a PRP cofactor test using the latest mprime AVX-512 implementation. However, note that the Gerbicz test only removes the need to keep redoing PRP tests of new cofactors every time a new factor is discovered; you still have to do one initial PRP test and record the 2048-bit residue, because the Gerbicz test needs that 2048-bit residue as input.

Last fiddled with by GP2 on 2019-04-08 at 09:04
GP2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-04-08, 14:58   #159
GP2
 
GP2's Avatar
 
Sep 2003

5·11·47 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GP2 View Post
In the 10M range, for the remaining unfactored exponents, TF was done to 66 bits by axn, and P−1 was done by me to B1=p/200, B2=p/10.
I should say, TF was done from 64 to 66 by axn, and below that by ATH and others. And below 64 bits, the factoring for each exponent stopped whenever a first factor was found, so there are small secondary factors remaining to be found.


If we look at the Mersenne work distribution map, as of today the line for the 10M range shows:

Code:
10000000 61938    | 40593 21345
So for Mersenne, there are 21,345 unfactored exponents in the 10M range.

For Wagstaff, there are currently 22,248 unfactored exponents in the 10M range. And the 10.2M subset contains 2206 of them, very close to 10%.

So based on that, if we did factor Wagstaff exponents as thoroughly as Mersenne, we'd only find factors for about 4% of the currently unfactored Wagstaff exponents in the 10M range.


As you know, factoring gets exponentially harder as you increase bit-length (for TF) or non-smoothness (for P−1). For any exponential curve, there is only a very narrow transition zone where you go from "incredibly tiny" to "impossibly large".

The overwhelming majority of exponents are either trivial to factor or impossible to factor. All the years of efforts of Primenet and all the GHz-days thrown at TF and P−1 actually only made a difference for a very small subset of exponents. But of course, it's impossible to know in advance which exponents those are.

Last fiddled with by GP2 on 2019-04-08 at 15:06
GP2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-04-08, 16:28   #160
pinhodecarlos
 
pinhodecarlos's Avatar
 
"Carlos Pinho"
Oct 2011
Milton Keynes, UK

10011011111012 Posts
Default

Apologies but releasing my range. No way I’ll commit my laptop for more than one year on this.
pinhodecarlos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-04-08, 16:43   #161
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

3·19·89 Posts
Default

I, too, bit off a little more than I expected; in my case, it'll take me a month to free up a few cores, and then ~3 months to do the work. I'll get mprime going on one core in a few days, and then 3-5 more in May (sadly, not all on one machine). Carlos, why don't we share one 100k range for 3 months or so, e.g. you do 10k and I do 90k?

Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 2019-04-08 at 16:44
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-04-08, 17:53   #162
GP2
 
GP2's Avatar
 
Sep 2003

1010000110012 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pinhodecarlos View Post
Apologies but releasing my range. No way I’ll commit my laptop for more than one year on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
I, too, bit off a little more than I expected; in my case, it'll take me a month to free up a few cores, and then ~3 months to do the work.
Not a problem. Two thousand exponents is a very large number, even for relatively low exponent ranges.

Currently I don't have any setup for automated assignment of individual exponents. Maybe there's some way to adapt it as a BOINC project, but I have no idea how to go about doing that.

At some point, maybe a few months from now, I will resume my own testing using cloud resources.
GP2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-04-08, 17:54   #163
pinhodecarlos
 
pinhodecarlos's Avatar
 
"Carlos Pinho"
Oct 2011
Milton Keynes, UK

3·1,663 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GP2 View Post
Not a problem. Two thousand exponents is a very large number, even for relatively low exponent ranges.

Currently I don't have any setup for automated assignment of individual exponents. Maybe there's some way to adapt it as a BOINC project, but I have no idea how to go about doing that.

At some point, maybe a few months from now, I will resume my own testing using cloud resources.

Would you like to try https://boinc.tacc.utexas.edu/ ?


Attached my tested numbers.
Attached Files
File Type: txt results.json.txt (9.0 KB, 120 views)

Last fiddled with by pinhodecarlos on 2019-04-08 at 17:56
pinhodecarlos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-04-09, 07:24   #164
DukeBG
 
Mar 2018

100000012 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GP2 View Post
Maybe there's some way to adapt it as a BOINC project, but I have no idea how to go about doing that.
You would need to set up a boinc server with an address to give to users (this part is easy/straightforward) and then write a wrapper application because I don't think mprime has boinc capabilities in it. It's basically a very simple program that translates boinc calls to run a task into actual setup needed to launch the test and then collect its result. Here's an example of the llr wrapper used in PrimeGrid. Then setting up that application in your server is a matter of editing xmls.

Then you need to write a validator that checks the results. Decide if you maybe want to have double checking and to have validator compare residues from two tests. Oh, and write work generation scripts or software. A lot of fun if you're a programmer! It's very preferable to be familiar with php and mysql because you'll likely have to deal with them for various tasks.
DukeBG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-04-09, 13:07   #165
lalera
 
lalera's Avatar
 
Jul 2003

2·307 Posts
Default

hi,
a boinc project would be very nice!
this is not an easy thing
you could look at
http://srbase.my-firewall.org/sr5/
http://srbase.my-firewall.org/sr5/do...base-guide.pdf
they use llr with a wrapper that comes with the boinc server software (not sure about this)
but if it is so you do not have to develop your own wrapper or a native-boinc-integrated program
lalera is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Wagstaff PRP exponents ryanp Wagstaff PRP Search 26 2013-10-18 01:33
Hot tuna! -- a p75 and a p79 by Sam Wagstaff! Batalov GMP-ECM 9 2012-08-24 10:26
Wagstaff Conjecture davieddy Miscellaneous Math 209 2011-01-23 23:50
Best settings to factor Wagstaff p = (2^n +1) / 1 diep GMP-ECM 10 2010-07-26 21:33
30th Wagstaff prime T.Rex Math 0 2007-09-04 07:10

All times are UTC. The time now is 21:27.


Mon Dec 6 21:27:03 UTC 2021 up 136 days, 15:56, 0 users, load averages: 3.48, 2.19, 2.26

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.