PFGW 4.0.4 (with gwnum v30.10) Released

[Happy5214]

Originally Posted by japelprime

Well. LLR is not working with me at the moment. The program is not taking any of the input files. Saying incorrect ABC format (not remembering correct phrase). I am not sure what I am doing wrong because I have used LLR years back without problems. PFGW is working for me but not painless. Maybe this is "welcome to the Ubuntu world".
Regarding last line of the content in the PFGW input file. It is the same problem I ran in to both for Ubuntu and Windowst. I at least need to be aware of missing out last residue. Maybe some end-mark of a line missing that I am not aware of for the input file. I have to re-run 27 candidate that where the last one in each input file. They where not executed first time in PFGW and windows 10.

I don't believe LLR even supports ABCD. You'd have to use a program like srfile to convert it into another format.

[rogue]

Originally Posted by Happy5214

I don't believe LLR even supports ABCD. You'd have to use a program like srfile to convert it into another format.

LLR does not support all ABC or ABCD formats. Someone can either ask Jean to add a specific format or they can write the code for llr and share with Jean.

[japelprime]

Originally Posted by rogue

Is there a carriage return or line feed on line 2 of that input file? If not, how was the file created? All of my sieving programs add a \n to the end of all output lines.

Sorry. I do not have any output files for this anymore. The \n was missing in the end of my txt files. Now pfgw stops in the end of the files as one's mind and start next without complaining. I am manual feeding pfgw from sr1sieve and was missing this end command.
Thanks for solving my problem here.

[rebirther]

Feature request:


- resizing windows in height


- If Iam running 15-16 pfgw instances then I will have space issues on the desktop (super quiet option)

[rogue]

Originally Posted by rebirther

Feature request:

- resizing windows in height

- If Iam running 15-16 pfgw instances then I will have space issues on the desktop (super quiet option)

Have you considered using a tool like ConsoleZ and running command-line pfgw64? You can have one tab per instance and you can set up a workspace to open a tab to each instance.

I'm asking because I do not know what is involved with changing the GUI. It is rather ancient and unchanged since I took ownership of pfgw. I am not a Windows GUI expert so I don't know what would be involved to do what you ask.

[rebirther]

Originally Posted by rogue

Have you considered using a tool like ConsoleZ and running command-line pfgw64? You can have one tab per instance and you can set up a workspace to open a tab to each instance.

I'm asking because I do not know what is involved with changing the GUI. It is rather ancient and unchanged since I took ownership of pfgw. I am not a Windows GUI expert so I don't know what would be involved to do what you ask.

Yes its for the GUI, must be have something to do with the properties of the form. There is a fixed size at the moment.

[japelprime]

Small thoughts: I forgot to make the -b2 command in linux terminal (or in pfgw.ini) when starting newly downloaded pfwg 4.0.1. I am wondering what base are the program executing when no command is given? Does the program understand the first line in the txt file for the candidates regarding base? In my case ABCD 83*2^$a-1. The program does not give me any info what base it is executing. Not when I start/stopped the program. At least I can not see it. Maybe it is only my math skills here the real problems

[paulunderwood]

Originally Posted by japelprime

Small thoughts: I forgott to make the -b2 command in linux terminal (or in pfgw.ini) when starting newly downloaded pfwg 4.0.1. I am wondering what base are the program executing when no command is given? Does the program understand the first line in the txt file for the candidates regarding base? In my case ABCD 83*2^$a-1. The program does not give me any info what base it is executing. Not when I start/stopped the program. At least I can not see it. Maybe it is only my math skills here the real problems

The default is base 3.

What it will be testing is 3^(N-1) == 1 mod N. A necessary condition of being prime, but not sufficient. For example 3^90 == 1 mod 91 but 91 == 7*13.

[japelprime]

Originally Posted by paulunderwood

The default is base 3.

What it will be testing is 3^(N-1) == 1 mod N. A necessary condition of being prime, but not sufficient. For example 3^90 == 1 mod 91 but 91 == 7*13.

Maybe this is getting off topic but eager to learn. First thougths when I saw your answere was the base is not so importand for PRP test. 3^(N-1) == 1 mod N or 2^(N-1) == 1 mod N. Next thougths was I have to test this. I took known Riesel Prime number newly found I think; 135*2^2180256-1 and made two executions with commands -b2 for one and -b3 for the other. This is the results:
135*2^2180256-1 is 2-PRP!
135*2^2180256-1 is 3-PRP!
So I do not need to worry about running base 2 or base 3 tests for this base 2 number ? Somehow I do not really feel I know what I am doing.

[paulunderwood]

Originally Posted by japelprime

Maybe this is getting off topic but eager to learn. First thougths when I saw your answere was the base is not so importand for PRP test. 3^(N-1) == 1 mod N or 2^(N-1) == 1 mod N. Next thougths was I have to test this. I took known Riesel Prime number newly found I think; 135*2^2180256-1 and made two executions with commands -b2 for one and -b3 for the other. This is the results:
135*2^2180256-1 is 2-PRP!
135*2^2180256-1 is 3-PRP!
So I do not need to worry about running base 2 or base 3 tests for this base 2 number ? Somehow I do not really feel I know what I am doing.

You are confusing yourself. The "base" of this Riesel number is not the same thing as the "base" used in the Fermat's little theorem probable prime (PRP) test. Yes, the word "base" is used for both but they are different. One is the Resel base and the other is the PRP base. People say such and such a number is 3-PRP or PRP-3 meaning the number has passed the Fermat's little theorem test to base 3.

We need different bases for PRP. For instance, when testing Mersenne primes it is utterly useless to run a 2-PRP test. And in the example I gave before 91 is 3-PRP but not 2-PRP. To complicate things further, there are some numbers, called Carmichael Numbers that are PRP to *every* coprime base, for example 561; For these we need to do other sorts of tests like "strong PRP" and Lucas tests. But we do not know in advance what kind of tests to run. The computational arithmetic of a small base PRP test makes it the fastest indicator that a number might be prime,

[storm5510]

Originally Posted by rogue

...When pfgw is restarted it restarts at the top of the file instead of the last line it was working on...

This is my major peeve with PFGW, and one of the reasons I do not use it. The other, members working the Riesel prime search strongly urged using LLR. PRP vs LL. I understand their reasons.