mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Math Stuff > Computer Science & Computational Number Theory

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2023-02-21, 22:45   #78
paulunderwood
 
paulunderwood's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr

4,549 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frmky View Post
I am aware this will soon be exceeded, but 104824^5+5^104824, at 73,269 digits, is prime. Stage 1 took 32 days on 20 24-core computers using GWNUM. Stage 2 took 27 days on 8 20-core computers. A few steps with large prime factors of h took most of the time in stage 2. I will explore the effects of further limiting the largest prime factor of h. Thanks again to Andreas for creating CM and Paul for adding support for GWNUM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xilman View Post
Nice work!

Any estimate when the first 100K digit prime will be proven?
Congrats Greg!

R109297 should be doable with 4x the resources Greg used

Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 2023-02-21 at 22:56
paulunderwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2023-02-24, 22:57   #79
rudy235
 
rudy235's Avatar
 
Jun 2015
Vallejo, CA/.

2×577 Posts
Default

So now we have a 73,269 digit proven via ECPP. this is a Leyland Prime. One that cannot be proven by specifically tailored methods.

The prime in question is 5104824 + 1048245 73269 digits.

A couple of things are worth noting:

The โ€œgapโ€ in digits to the next ECPP primes is notable. Over 23000 digits more than the one just discovered only 2 months ago. The largest 8 ECPP primes have been discovered in the past 52 weeks.

We can only assume that R86453 will be proven prime in the fairly near future as it is only twice as hard as this one just discovered.

Huge congratulation to Greg Childers.

Last fiddled with by rudy235 on 2023-02-24 at 22:58 Reason: typo
rudy235 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2023-02-25, 17:12   #80
kruoli
 
kruoli's Avatar
 
"Oliver"
Sep 2017
Porta Westfalica, DE

25·32·5 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xilman View Post
Any estimate when the first 100K digit prime will be proven?
Do you mean the smallest number with 100,000 decimal digits that is prime or with at least 100,000 decimal digits? In the latter case, it is February 17, 1992, when M756,839 was discovered.

In the former, that should be 1099,999+309,403, if my quick calculations are correct.

Last fiddled with by kruoli on 2023-02-25 at 17:38 Reason: Corrected as pointed out by xilman.
kruoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2023-02-25, 17:35   #81
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"๐’‰บ๐’ŒŒ๐’‡ท๐’†ท๐’€ญ"
May 2003
Down not across

1171910 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kruoli View Post
Do you mean the smallest number with 100,000 decimal digits that is prime or with at least 100,000 decimal digits? In the latter case, it is February 17, 1992, when M756,839 was discovered.

In the former, thed should be 1099,999+10^99999+309403, if my quick calculations are correct.
Fixing a minor tyypo: I believe you mean


In the former, that should be 1099,999+309403, if my quick calculations are correct.
xilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2023-02-25, 17:37   #82
kruoli
 
kruoli's Avatar
 
"Oliver"
Sep 2017
Porta Westfalica, DE

5A016 Posts
Default

Wow, I have no clue how that happened. :D

1068
kruoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2023-02-25, 20:09   #83
paulunderwood
 
paulunderwood's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr

4,549 Posts
Default

Comparing total CPU hours for Greg's recent proof with Andreas's expected proof of R86453, the minimal 100k digit number and R109297:

Code:
? (86453/73269.)^4
1.9383813225131506029336873744208292121                          
? (100000/73269.)^4
3.4699158544965667114008777645966191866                          
? (109297/73269.)^4
4.9516724586074826088662323174646459749
But I wonder if Andreas uses GWNUM, which will skew the stats.

Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 2023-02-25 at 20:52
paulunderwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2023-03-04, 13:45   #84
JeppeSN
 
JeppeSN's Avatar
 
"Jeppe"
Jan 2016
Denmark

22·47 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kruoli View Post
Do you mean the smallest number with 100,000 decimal digits that is prime or with at least 100,000 decimal digits? In the latter case, it is February 17, 1992, when M756,839 was discovered.

In the former, that should be 1099,999+309,403, if my quick calculations are correct.
The smallest PRP with 100'000 digits is registered but not proven prime (I think). The first prime with exactly 100'000 digits that was proven (but not with ECPP) could be 593573509*2^332162+1 from 16 August 2000.

However, given the context of the thread, it is virtually certain xilman meant the first prime with at least 100'000 digits proven prime with the ECPP method.

/JeppeSN
JeppeSN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2023-03-04, 18:46   #85
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"๐’‰บ๐’ŒŒ๐’‡ท๐’†ท๐’€ญ"
May 2003
Down not across

11,719 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeppeSN View Post
However, given the context of the thread, it is virtually certain xilman meant the first prime with at least 100'000 digits proven prime with the ECPP method.
Correct.
xilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ECPP-DJ danaj Computer Science & Computational Number Theory 59 2020-10-10 04:57
Comparison to ECPP? carpetpool PARI/GP 2 2020-03-11 01:07
Can I just leave this here? (ECPP) trhabib Miscellaneous Math 6 2011-08-19 16:34
Looking for ECPP software nuggetprime Software 14 2010-03-07 17:09
new ECPP article R. Gerbicz GMP-ECM 2 2006-09-13 16:24

All times are UTC. The time now is 23:18.


Tue Mar 21 23:18:49 UTC 2023 up 215 days, 20:47, 0 users, load averages: 0.67, 0.77, 0.79

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.

โ‰  ยฑ โˆ“ รท ร— ยท โˆ’ โˆš โ€ฐ โŠ— โŠ• โŠ– โŠ˜ โŠ™ โ‰ค โ‰ฅ โ‰ฆ โ‰ง โ‰จ โ‰ฉ โ‰บ โ‰ป โ‰ผ โ‰ฝ โŠ โŠ โŠ‘ โŠ’ ยฒ ยณ ยฐ
โˆ  โˆŸ ยฐ โ‰… ~ โ€– โŸ‚ โซ›
โ‰ก โ‰œ โ‰ˆ โˆ โˆž โ‰ช โ‰ซ โŒŠโŒ‹ โŒˆโŒ‰ โˆ˜ โˆ โˆ โˆ‘ โˆง โˆจ โˆฉ โˆช โจ€ โŠ• โŠ— ๐–• ๐–– ๐–— โŠฒ โŠณ
โˆ… โˆ– โˆ โ†ฆ โ†ฃ โˆฉ โˆช โŠ† โŠ‚ โŠ„ โŠŠ โŠ‡ โŠƒ โŠ… โŠ‹ โŠ– โˆˆ โˆ‰ โˆ‹ โˆŒ โ„• โ„ค โ„š โ„ โ„‚ โ„ต โ„ถ โ„ท โ„ธ ๐“Ÿ
ยฌ โˆจ โˆง โŠ• โ†’ โ† โ‡’ โ‡ โ‡” โˆ€ โˆƒ โˆ„ โˆด โˆต โŠค โŠฅ โŠข โŠจ โซค โŠฃ โ€ฆ โ‹ฏ โ‹ฎ โ‹ฐ โ‹ฑ
โˆซ โˆฌ โˆญ โˆฎ โˆฏ โˆฐ โˆ‡ โˆ† ฮด โˆ‚ โ„ฑ โ„’ โ„“
๐›ข๐›ผ ๐›ฃ๐›ฝ ๐›ค๐›พ ๐›ฅ๐›ฟ ๐›ฆ๐œ€๐œ– ๐›ง๐œ ๐›จ๐œ‚ ๐›ฉ๐œƒ๐œ— ๐›ช๐œ„ ๐›ซ๐œ… ๐›ฌ๐œ† ๐›ญ๐œ‡ ๐›ฎ๐œˆ ๐›ฏ๐œ‰ ๐›ฐ๐œŠ ๐›ฑ๐œ‹ ๐›ฒ๐œŒ ๐›ด๐œŽ๐œ ๐›ต๐œ ๐›ถ๐œ ๐›ท๐œ™๐œ‘ ๐›ธ๐œ’ ๐›น๐œ“ ๐›บ๐œ”