![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
67·109 Posts |
![]()
Sorry for not bringing this up earlier: PRP iteration timings are about 2.5% faster if you select an exponent that is a multiple of the FFT length.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Jun 2009
677 Posts |
![]()
I think I remember something about sieving being fatser when the binary representation of n contains mostly "0" bits. Are there any numbers which meet both criteria?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | |
Jan 2005
Caught in a sieve
5×79 Posts |
![]()
Now you can thank PG for Sieving and for finding a twin prime!
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
Account Deleted
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA
17×251 Posts |
![]()
Congrats to all involved for the new twin primes!
![]() What are the primes? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
Apprentice Crank
Mar 2006
2×227 Posts |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
I quite division it
"Chris"
Feb 2005
England
31·67 Posts |
![]()
You could be giving away more than you think.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
Feb 2007
211 Posts |
![]()
Congrats to everyone who participated/helped out with the Twin project. Thanks PG & TP project. The question is Now what?
Now what do we do Mooomooo ? Give us some direction. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
Apprentice Crank
Mar 2006
2×227 Posts |
![]()
I've looked over a previous poll: http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=6974 and some ideas on this thread. Based on that, I've made a preliminary decision to sieve the range 1<k<10M for 480000<n<500000. The chance of finding a twin in that range is slightly over 90%, and any non-twin primes found in that range will make it to the top 5000 list (their rank will be 3600th largest as of today).
Does anyone have any suggestions or comments? If there aren't any major objections, we'll start the sieve early next week. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 | |
Apprentice Crank
Mar 2006
2·227 Posts |
![]() Quote:
Code:
1000000000:T:0:2:3 18459 480001 59925 480001 94509 480001 9225 480002 36513 480002 14319 480003 16761 480003 67749 480003 98331 480003 but tpfactors only has: 1164933401 | 94509*2^480001+1 1231256737 | 18459*2^480001+1 1482274247 | 59925*2^480001-1 None of the n=480002 or n=480003 factors show up (1521564647 | 9225*2^480002+1, 1243389379 | 67749*2^480003-1, and some others were missing). Does anyone know what happened, and how to fix it? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#21 |
Feb 2007
3238 Posts |
![]()
Mooomooo i like your idea. I am onboard. Also referring to geoff previous post. We would have to do individual n's using newpgen and then combine them see if that fixes the problem? and then we can continue with tpsieve.
thanks cipher |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)
3·2,083 Posts |
![]()
That would essentially mimic the result of what MooMoo just did manually above. AFAIR, you have to either sieve each n separately using tpsieve or NewPGen (for tpsieve you can use a batch file, and for NewPGen you can use the increment counter), or the whole batch together with sr2sieve.
Last fiddled with by mdettweiler on 2009-08-08 at 02:55 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sieving and LLR-in in same time | pepi37 | Software | 1 | 2017-05-15 17:17 |
Sieving both sides vs one side at a time | paul0 | Factoring | 5 | 2015-11-18 13:58 |
PRP:- Pick A Range | Citrix | Prime Sierpinski Project | 2 | 2014-02-16 18:47 |
Optimal Sieving Time | jasong | Sierpinski/Riesel Base 5 | 10 | 2009-01-25 15:56 |
prime density vs. sieving vs. prp time | jasong | Math | 18 | 2006-03-31 03:14 |