mersenneforum.org  

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2003-09-05, 05:53   #1
Orgasmic Troll
Cranksta Rap Ayatollah
 
Orgasmic Troll's Avatar
 
Jul 2003

12018 Posts
Default Catalan sequence (is C5 prime?)

is anybody putting any work in on this? ran across it on the Prime Pages

sure, the exponent is 170141183460469231731687303715884105727, but it seems like if anybody was going to bang away at it, it would be someone in here.[/url]
Orgasmic Troll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2003-09-05, 15:29   #2
jocelynl
 
Sep 2002

2·131 Posts
Default

Hi Travist,

Look further on the prime page you'll see the link to http://www.ltkz.demon.co.uk/ar2/mm61.htm Tony Forbes search for factors

Joss[/url]
jocelynl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2003-09-05, 15:42   #3
nomadicus
 
nomadicus's Avatar
 
Jan 2003
North Carolina

24610 Posts
Default

This is M170141183460469231731687303715884105727.

*If* prime95 could handle a number that large (C5 is much, much larger then prime95's maximum (somewhere around M77000000)), I suspect with current technology it would take a century or two to compute (or is that a millenium or two?); that is, of course, if the current technology could even begin to handle a number this large.
nomadicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2003-09-05, 16:15   #4
Orgasmic Troll
Cranksta Rap Ayatollah
 
Orgasmic Troll's Avatar
 
Jul 2003

64110 Posts
Default

just for clarification, I didn't expect anyone to be trying to prove primality, just looking for factors. Thanks for the link, jocylenl
Orgasmic Troll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2003-10-01, 15:06   #5
Citrix
 
Citrix's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

63116 Posts
Default M?

What number will be MM127 expected to be for example the MP 40 is currently being searched.

Citrix

Citrix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2003-10-02, 17:32   #6
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22·3·641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by nomadicus
This is M170141183460469231731687303715884105727.

*If* prime95 could handle a number that large (C5 is much, much larger then prime95's maximum (somewhere around M77000000)), I suspect with current technology it would take a century or two to compute (or is that a millenium or two?);
Oh, much, much, much, much longer than a millenium!

The exponent is more than 2*10^30 times Prime95's current maximum exponent (79,300,000).

2*10^30 > 2^100.

Doubling the exponent multiplies the execution time by more than a factor of 2, so multiplying the exponent by 2^100 raises the time by more than 2^100. We're talking about longer than nonillions (1 nonillion = 1 trillion * 1 billion * 1 billion) of years.

Quote:
that is, of course, if the current technology could even begin to handle a number this large.
Order of 10^38 bits or so.

Giga- = 10^9
Tera- = 10^12
Peta- = 10^15
Exa- = 10^18
Zetta- = 10^21
Yotta- = 10^24

Need those petayottabyte memory sticks.

Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2003-10-02 at 17:35
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2003-10-02, 17:50   #7
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22×3×641 Posts
Default

(Curses on the %$$& 5-minute editing deadline!

Yeah, I know it's for the greater good.)

My nonillion-year estimate was based on just the ratio of times for single L-L iterations. There's an additional factor of 2*10^30 on the number of iterations required. So it's 2*10^30 nonillion years.

But ... if there's a "Moore's Law"yerish doubling of speeds every 18 months ...

Oh, someone _else_ figure that one!
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2003-10-02, 20:42   #8
Maybeso
 
Maybeso's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Portland, OR USA

2·137 Posts
Default

Well, my lunch napkin is too small for working that one out.

But we can say that Moore's "Law" implies it is a waste of time to start now, since using next years machine will save more than a year of time ...

That argument does make sense in this case, because passing this problem from today's machine to next years would be fairly difficult. Switching machines in the middle of an LL this big is impossible, for factoring it would be merely "challenging".
Maybeso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2003-10-02, 21:18   #9
ixfd64
Bemusing Prompter
 
ixfd64's Avatar
 
"Danny"
Dec 2002
California

32×269 Posts
Default

And by several decades, we'll probably have quantum computers that can factor MM127 in less than a second...
ixfd64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2003-10-03, 13:41   #10
Orgasmic Troll
Cranksta Rap Ayatollah
 
Orgasmic Troll's Avatar
 
Jul 2003

641 Posts
Default

My knowledge of quantum computers is pretty small, but does the computation time increase for factoring larger numbers?
Orgasmic Troll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2003-10-03, 15:45   #11
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"π’‰Ίπ’ŒŒπ’‡·π’†·π’€­"
May 2003
Down not across

24×13×53 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by TravisT
My knowledge of quantum computers is pretty small, but does the computation time increase for factoring larger numbers?
My knowledge is far from encyclopaedic, but I do know the time on a QC grows polynomially with the number of bits in the number to be factored. The best algorithms we know for factoring on conventional computers are superpolynomial, though subexponential.

I think it is likely to be a long time before we can factor general integers the size of C5. As far as I am aware, the record still stands at 15 for a factorization by a QC.

Paul
xilman is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A wrong track to demonstrate that the Catalan's conjecture is false garambois Aliquot Sequences 12 2015-10-21 10:24
Mersenne Prime Sequence Stan Miscellaneous Math 34 2013-08-25 17:35
A Prime Sequence davar55 Puzzles 16 2009-07-02 19:58
Prime creator through sequence roger Puzzles 25 2007-02-09 15:50
Prime free sequence. mfgoode Math 58 2005-07-04 21:48

All times are UTC. The time now is 21:56.


Mon Nov 29 21:56:23 UTC 2021 up 129 days, 16:25, 0 users, load averages: 1.97, 1.72, 1.60

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.