mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Fun Stuff > Puzzles

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2016-06-03, 13:53   #166
ATH
Einyen
 
ATH's Avatar
 
Dec 2003
Denmark

61458 Posts
Default

31415926535897932384...89830932080370010789 is Lucas PRP! (70233.3140s+30.6992s)
(613373 digits)
ATH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-06-03, 15:22   #167
CRGreathouse
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Aug 2006

10111010110112 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATH View Post
31415926535897932384...89830932080370010789 is Lucas PRP! (70233.3140s+30.6992s)
(613373 digits)
Nice find! Have all the smaller ones been cleared?
CRGreathouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-06-03, 17:39   #168
ATH
Einyen
 
ATH's Avatar
 
Dec 2003
Denmark

19×167 Posts
Default

It is not my find, I was just adding a Lucas test on it. See post #143-#146.

Though I have been working on PiPrimes. I got up to around 350k digits, but I guess I was too late
ATH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-06-03, 20:53   #169
rogue
 
rogue's Avatar
 
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the

191B16 Posts
Default

I have posted pixsieve 2.1 here.

It will now output files in the DECIMAL format which is supported by pfgw 3.8.1. That makes for much smaller files and a lot less I/O. The ability to continue from a previously sieved file now works, so you can start a sieve with pixsieve -P1e8 -l20000 -L30000 -C20000 -oterms.out -spi.txt -t4 -S15 then continue with pixsieve -P1e9 -iterms.out -oterms.pfgw -t4. The last prime in the range is written to the terms file so restarting will not require you to specify -p. Also the -F option has changed. Like the terms file (-o) this will expect a file name. That file will also be written in the DECIMAL format so that pfgw can verify factors. The only caveat with -F is that it will always overwrite any pre-existing file, so be careful with that if you want to verify factors.
rogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-06-04, 20:59   #170
J F
 
J F's Avatar
 
Sep 2013

23×7 Posts
Default

Doing some tests, looks fine so far.
Cosmetics: v2.1 calls itself 2.0
Has 2.1 an option so switch between old format and new DECIMAL output?
Is 2.0=2.1 except the output format and resume? (than that would be the 'switch')

Edit: didn't need resume for now, jobs small enough or ProcessExplorers suspend/resume,
but I just noticed it seems to use wall clock, not compute time, and S/R or SuspendToDisk
totally garbles secs/factor. Hm...

Edit2: continuing with -i form previous file garbles too
Sieve started: (input file) 66068881 <= p < 100000000 with 913 terms
...12 factors found at 122089583 secs/factor...
It does get back on track to some degree, but it seems at 'deeper' runs with new factors
trickling in only very slowly, not so much.

Last fiddled with by J F on 2016-06-04 at 21:36
J F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-06-05, 00:25   #171
rogue
 
rogue's Avatar
 
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the

6,427 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J F View Post
Doing some tests, looks fine so far.
Cosmetics: v2.1 calls itself 2.0
Has 2.1 an option so switch between old format and new DECIMAL output?
Is 2.0=2.1 except the output format and resume? (than that would be the 'switch')

Edit: didn't need resume for now, jobs small enough or ProcessExplorers suspend/resume,
but I just noticed it seems to use wall clock, not compute time, and S/R or SuspendToDisk
totally garbles secs/factor. Hm...

Edit2: continuing with -i form previous file garbles too
Sieve started: (input file) 66068881 <= p < 100000000 with 913 terms
...12 factors found at 122089583 secs/factor...
It does get back on track to some degree, but it seems at 'deeper' runs with new factors
trickling in only very slowly, not so much.
The main difference is the format, but I mentioned all of the other changes in the release. There is no way to switch formats. If would be very easy for someone to write a script that does the conversion so I will leave that to someone who might be desperate for it.

Yes, factor removal rate is based upon wall clock. I will not change that. All other sieves that I have used or coded (and that is a lot of different programs) are based upon the wall clock. Even PRP testing programs tend to use the wall clock.

As for continuing, the code must not be initializing something correctly or the calculation is flat out wrong.
rogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-06-05, 08:59   #172
J F
 
J F's Avatar
 
Sep 2013

5610 Posts
Default

Hmmm, couldn't you store the old runtime, secs/factor and %done in the
DECIMAL file too, like the '// Sieved to...', and init a resume from that?
(Under the assumtion that PFGW ignores the //-part and wouldn't need
additional changes too.)

Edit: scratch %done - not good since one can resume with a different -pmax

Last fiddled with by J F on 2016-06-05 at 09:06
J F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-06-11, 12:46   #173
J F
 
J F's Avatar
 
Sep 2013

3816 Posts
Default

(Minor?) Bug with new PFGW 3.8.1, DECIMAL format. Resuming an
interupted run (file from a 10K sieved range with a bit less than 300
numbers, 280-290K digits) outputs:
Invalid format on line 1
and then some 100 lines with
Code:
Length is beyond length of decimal on line 1Length is beyond lengt
h of decimal on line 1Length is beyond length of decimal on line 1Length is beyond length
of decimal on line 1Length is beyond length of decimal on line 1Length is beyond length of
Aside from that spam, it picks up at the correct point and seems to continue
without further problems.

Edit: No, it doesn't always continue, sometimes it just stops with 'Invalid format on line 1'
When I have time, I will test some more.

Last fiddled with by J F on 2016-06-11 at 13:02
J F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-06-11, 13:58   #174
rogue
 
rogue's Avatar
 
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the

6,427 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J F View Post
(Minor?) Bug with new PFGW 3.8.1, DECIMAL format. Resuming an
interupted run (file from a 10K sieved range with a bit less than 300
numbers, 280-290K digits) outputs:
Invalid format on line 1
and then some 100 lines with
Code:
Length is beyond length of decimal on line 1Length is beyond lengt
h of decimal on line 1Length is beyond length of decimal on line 1Length is beyond length
of decimal on line 1Length is beyond length of decimal on line 1Length is beyond length of
Aside from that spam, it picks up at the correct point and seems to continue
without further problems.

Edit: No, it doesn't always continue, sometimes it just stops with 'Invalid format on line 1'
When I have time, I will test some more.
I'll take a look when I have some time.
rogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-06-13, 16:20   #175
rogue
 
rogue's Avatar
 
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the

11001000110112 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue View Post
The main difference is the format, but I mentioned all of the other changes in the release. There is no way to switch formats. If would be very easy for someone to write a script that does the conversion so I will leave that to someone who might be desperate for it.

Yes, factor removal rate is based upon wall clock. I will not change that. All other sieves that I have used or coded (and that is a lot of different programs) are based upon the wall clock. Even PRP testing programs tend to use the wall clock.

As for continuing, the code must not be initializing something correctly or the calculation is flat out wrong.
I updated to 2.2. This fixes the factor rate showing wildly inaccurate numbers.
rogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-07-06, 16:01   #176
rogue
 
rogue's Avatar
 
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the

11001000110112 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue View Post
I'll take a look when I have some time.
I have a fix for this that I am still testing. The problem is caused by the underlying restart logic in pfgw which, to put it mildly, is a piece of crap. It was designed to figure out which line of the input file to restart from, but is really fairly specific to ABCD formats. It does a lot of weird stuff to try to find the correct line. It obviously works for most file types, but that is only because the code is a complete hack.
rogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mersenne Primes p which are in a set of twin primes is finite? carpetpool Miscellaneous Math 3 2017-08-10 13:47
Distribution of Mersenne primes before and after couples of primes found emily Math 34 2017-07-16 18:44
Conjecture about Mersenne primes and non-primes v2 Mickey1 Miscellaneous Math 1 2013-05-30 12:32
A conjecture about Mersenne primes and non-primes Unregistered Information & Answers 0 2011-01-31 15:41
possible primes (real primes & poss.prime products) troels munkner Miscellaneous Math 4 2006-06-02 08:35

All times are UTC. The time now is 07:55.


Sun Oct 17 07:55:56 UTC 2021 up 86 days, 2:24, 0 users, load averages: 1.56, 1.60, 1.43

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.