mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Software

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2022-12-05, 10:56   #1
MischaR
 
Sep 2022
Netherlands

5 Posts
Default Different results in llr2 1.3.0

We were testing for PRPs in the form 6^$a+$a and found conflicting results between LLR2 1.3.0 and other versions.

In LLR2 1.1.0 the sum 6^85481+85481 is found to be PRP:
Code:
.\llr2_1.1.0_win64_201114.exe -d -q"6^85481+85481"
Starting probable prime test of 6^85481+85481
Using zero-padded FMA3 FFT length 24K, Pass1=384, Pass2=64, clm=2, a = 3
6^85481+85481 is base 3-Fermat PRP! (66518 decimal digits)  Time : 10.909 sec.
Starting Lucas sequence
Using zero-padded FMA3 FFT length 24K, Pass1=384, Pass2=64, clm=2, P = 5, Q = 3
6^85481+85481 is Fermat and Lucas PRP, Starting Frobenius test sequence
Using zero-padded FMA3 FFT length 24K, Pass1=384, Pass2=64, clm=2, Q = 3
6^85481+85481 is Fermat, Lucas and Frobenius PRP! (P = 5, Q = 3, D = 13)  Time : 56.028 sec.
The same happens with OpenPFGW 4.0.3:
Code:
pfgw_win_4.0.3\distribution> .\pfgw64.exe -q"6^85481+85481"
PFGW Version 4.0.3.64BIT.20220704.Win_Dev [GWNUM 29.8]

6^85481+85481 is 3-PRP! (11.1294s+0.0009s)
LLR2 1.3.0 however determines this is not prime:
Code:
llr2-1.3.0-win64> .\llr2.exe -d -q"6^85481+85481"
Starting probable prime test of 6^85481+85481
Using zero-padded FMA3 FFT length 24K, Pass1=384, Pass2=64, clm=2, a = 3
6^85481+85481 is not prime.  RES64: BA67AB5CB68EFF1B.  OLD64: 2F37021623ACFD4E  Time : 10.505 sec.
I'm told one of the differences is the version of gwnum, with the older apps using 29.8 and LLR2 1.3.0 using 30.9

Last fiddled with by MischaR on 2022-12-05 at 10:57
MischaR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-12-05, 11:00   #2
ikari
 
ikari's Avatar
 
Sep 2021
Canada

28 Posts
Default

Yeah, I can personally confirm this, being the one to initially get a conflicting result after I attempted to run a confirmatory test on the PRP 6^85,481 + 85,481. It confused me greatly.

Last fiddled with by ikari on 2022-12-05 at 11:14 Reason: Mistakenly identified MischaR as the finder of the PRP, when it was actually found in 2014
ikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-12-05, 12:33   #3
Jean Penné
 
Jean Penné's Avatar
 
May 2004
FRANCE

3·5·41 Posts
Default Correct results using LLR 4.0.3

Quote:
Originally Posted by MischaR View Post
We were testing for PRPs in the form 6^$a+$a and found conflicting results between LLR2 1.3.0 and other versions.

In LLR2 1.1.0 the sum 6^85481+85481 is found to be PRP:
Code:
.\llr2_1.1.0_win64_201114.exe -d -q"6^85481+85481"
Starting probable prime test of 6^85481+85481
Using zero-padded FMA3 FFT length 24K, Pass1=384, Pass2=64, clm=2, a = 3
6^85481+85481 is base 3-Fermat PRP! (66518 decimal digits)  Time : 10.909 sec.
Starting Lucas sequence
Using zero-padded FMA3 FFT length 24K, Pass1=384, Pass2=64, clm=2, P = 5, Q = 3
6^85481+85481 is Fermat and Lucas PRP, Starting Frobenius test sequence
Using zero-padded FMA3 FFT length 24K, Pass1=384, Pass2=64, clm=2, Q = 3
6^85481+85481 is Fermat, Lucas and Frobenius PRP! (P = 5, Q = 3, D = 13)  Time : 56.028 sec.
The same happens with OpenPFGW 4.0.3:
Code:
pfgw_win_4.0.3\distribution> .\pfgw64.exe -q"6^85481+85481"
PFGW Version 4.0.3.64BIT.20220704.Win_Dev [GWNUM 29.8]

6^85481+85481 is 3-PRP! (11.1294s+0.0009s)
LLR2 1.3.0 however determines this is not prime:
Code:
llr2-1.3.0-win64> .\llr2.exe -d -q"6^85481+85481"
Starting probable prime test of 6^85481+85481
Using zero-padded FMA3 FFT length 24K, Pass1=384, Pass2=64, clm=2, a = 3
6^85481+85481 is not prime.  RES64: BA67AB5CB68EFF1B.  OLD64: 2F37021623ACFD4E  Time : 10.505 sec.
I'm told one of the differences is the version of gwnum, with the older apps using 29.8 and LLR2 1.3.0 using 30.9
LLR Version 4.0.3 gives also correct results :

jpenne@crazycomp:~/Chance$ llr64 -d -q"6^85481+85481"
Starting probable prime test of 6^85481+85481
Using zero-padded FMA3 FFT length 24K, Pass1=384, Pass2=64, clm=2, a = 3
6^85481+85481 is base 3-Fermat PRP! (66518 decimal digits) Time : 23.654 sec.
Starting Lucas sequence
Using zero-padded FMA3 FFT length 25K, Pass1=320, Pass2=80, clm=2, P = 5, Q = 3
6^85481+85481 is Fermat and Lucas PRP, Starting Frobenius test sequence
Using zero-padded FMA3 FFT length 25K, Pass1=320, Pass2=80, clm=2, Q = 3
6^85481+85481 is Fermat, Lucas and Frobenius PRP! (P = 5, Q = 3, D = 13) Time : 110.724 sec.
jpenne@crazycomp:~/Chance$ llr64 -oBPSW=1 -d -q"6^85481+85481"
Starting probable prime test of 6^85481+85481
Using zero-padded FMA3 FFT length 24K, Pass1=384, Pass2=64, clm=2, a = 2
6^85481+85481 is base 2-Fermat PRP! (66518 decimal digits) Time : 25.134 sec.
Starting Lucas sequence
Using zero-padded FMA3 FFT length 25K, Pass1=320, Pass2=80, clm=2, P = 1, Q = 2
6^85481+85481 is Fermat and BPSW PRP, Starting Frobenius test sequence
Using zero-padded FMA3 FFT length 25K, Pass1=320, Pass2=80, clm=2, Q = 2
6^85481+85481 is Fermat, BPSW and Frobenius PRP! (P = 1, Q = 2, D = -7) Time : 108.835 sec.

Regards,
Jean
Jean Penné is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-12-05, 13:05   #4
JeppeSN
 
JeppeSN's Avatar
 
"Jeppe"
Jan 2016
Denmark

23·23 Posts
Default

For what it is worth, PARI/GP's function ispseudoprime(6^85481+85481) returns 1 (i.e. this is a probable prime). I believe its implementation is independent of gwnum? It does a test that is more thorough than just a 3-PRP test.

Also, this PRP was reported in 2014 by Henri Lifchitz: 6^85481+85481

/JeppeSN
JeppeSN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-12-05, 18:41   #5
ATH
Einyen
 
ATH's Avatar
 
Dec 2003
Denmark

2·32·191 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MischaR View Post
We were testing for PRPs in the form 6^$a+$a and found conflicting results between LLR2 1.3.0 and other versions.
If you meant this post as a warning not to use LLR2 1.3.0 that is great.

But if you meant it as a "bug report", I think you posted it in the wrong place. There are no LLR2 development threads/forums here it seems, LLR2 seems to come from here:
https://github.com/patnashev/llr2
ATH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-12-05, 19:27   #6
rogue
 
rogue's Avatar
 
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the

5×7×199 Posts
Default

AFAIK, llr2 does not do a PRP test. llr2 cannot do a primality test on this number. So it might be PRP, but llr2 can't tell you because it didn't do a PRP test.

If I am wrong about llr2 regarding its ability to do a PRP test, then please let us know.
rogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-12-05, 19:38   #7
rebirther
 
rebirther's Avatar
 
Sep 2011
Germany

1101010111002 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue View Post
AFAIK, llr2 does not do a PRP test. llr2 cannot do a primality test on this number. So it might be PRP, but llr2 can't tell you because it didn't do a PRP test.

If I am wrong about llr2 regarding its ability to do a PRP test, then please let us know.
An older version of llr2 with gwnum 29.8 is correct, there is a bug in the gwnum 30.9 in the latest llr2 app and was reported today from the primegrid dev, k*b^n+/-1 should not be affected.
rebirther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-12-06, 17:36   #8
rebirther
 
rebirther's Avatar
 
Sep 2011
Germany

65348 Posts
Default

Another sample for Riesel / Sieve:

input
175000000000:P:1:51:257
607920 35218

llr2.exe gwnum 30.9
11920*51^35219+1 is not prime. RES64: 5326FBF23EE99827 Time : 12.728 sec.

llr3.8.21
607920*51^35218+1 is not prime. RES64: 5326FBF23EE99827. OLD64: 8C5E80CE11E6EA41 Time : 26.106 sec.

llr2 gwnum 30.4
11920*51^35219+1 is not prime. RES64: 5326FBF23EE99827 Time : 38.737 sec.

llr2 gwnum 29.8
607920*51^35218+1 is not prime. RES64: 5326FBF23EE99827 Time : 51.552 sec.

The app converts the number 607920 / 51 = 11920

@George: only gwnum 30.x is affected
rebirther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-12-07, 09:38   #9
JeppeSN
 
JeppeSN's Avatar
 
"Jeppe"
Jan 2016
Denmark

23×23 Posts
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue View Post
[...]
If I am wrong about llr2 regarding its ability to do a PRP test, then please let us know.
As far as I understand Pavel Atnashev who made LLR2, it can do a test of such numbers (c ≠ ±1), even with Gerbicz hardware error check and Pietrzak fast verification. But see subsequent info from rebirther above. /JeppeSN
JeppeSN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-12-07, 14:00   #10
rebirther
 
rebirther's Avatar
 
Sep 2011
Germany

22×32×5×19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeppeSN View Post
As far as I understand Pavel Atnashev who made LLR2, it can do a test of such numbers (c ≠ ±1), even with Gerbicz hardware error check and Pietrzak fast verification. But see subsequent info from rebirther above. /JeppeSN
It looks like its correct, the residue is the same as in other versions but we need pay attention on these cases.
rebirther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-12-07, 19:04   #11
Happy5214
 
Happy5214's Avatar
 
"Alexander"
Nov 2008
The Alamo City

3·307 Posts
Default

This isn't an issue with the latest version of "regular" LLR (4.0.3), with gwnum 30.6:

Code:
607920*51^35218+1 is not prime.  RES64: 5326FBF23EE99827.  OLD64: 8C5E80CE11E6EA41  Time : 21.168 sec.

Last fiddled with by Happy5214 on 2022-12-07 at 19:05
Happy5214 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Difference in residue LLR4.0 vs LLR2 1.1.1 diep Software 7 2021-10-22 22:46
inconsistencies between results.txt and results.json.txt ixfd64 Software 3 2021-07-17 08:32
Statistical properties of categories of GIMPS results and interim results kriesel Probability & Probabilistic Number Theory 1 2019-05-22 22:59
Where have all the TF results gone?... lycorn PrimeNet 22 2017-10-02 02:40
0x results... Mike PrimeNet 11 2004-05-23 12:55

All times are UTC. The time now is 19:34.


Fri Feb 3 19:34:42 UTC 2023 up 169 days, 17:03, 1 user, load averages: 1.52, 1.09, 1.04

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, 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 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔