mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Prime Search Projects > Riesel Prime Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2021-01-26, 07:13   #232
bur
 
Aug 2020

1328 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by a1call View Post
Suppose you are testing 10000 candidates with 1M decimal digits each. And each PRP test takes 4 days and you have 10 threads available. Suppose you run PRP tests on 9 of them and trial factoring on the other. In the 1st 4 days anything divisible by small primes will be knocked out by TF. In the next 4 days candidates divisible by larger primes will be knocked out, next 4 days even larger.... Any candidates that are knocked out of the queue at anytime means you don't have to spend 4 days for a PRP test on them.
I only saw this now, sorry. Sounds convincing at first, but why not use 2 out of 10 threads, or 7 or all?

Fundamentally you have two methods to remove a candidate for good, TF or PRP. If one is faster on average, you have the highest average throughput when using that method exclusively. I don't see how it can be different.

Quote:
Congrats to Rudi Tapper and PrimeGrid for the prime 3* 2^16819291 - 1 with 5,063,112 decimal digits and top5000 entrance rank of 21.
After 5 days verifying it was finally added to the list.

Last fiddled with by bur on 2021-01-26 at 07:16
bur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-01-26, 08:21   #233
a1call
 
a1call's Avatar
 
"Rashid Naimi"
Oct 2015
Remote to Here/There

2·7·11·13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bur View Post

Fundamentally you have two methods to remove a candidate for good, TF or PRP. If one is faster on average, you have the highest average throughput when using that method exclusively. I don't see how it can be different.
By that logic there would be no justification to use more than one method, either TF or PRP-Testing on any given range. But that's not the case now, is it?
Both methods are used in practice to weed out candidates they are better at sieving. TF for candidates with smaller factors and PRP-Testing for the rest, even though one would have to be faster on acreage on the whole set than the other.
a1call is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-01-26, 15:24   #234
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

2×5×11×43 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by a1call View Post
By that logic there would be no justification to use more than one method, either TF or PRP-Testing on any given range. But that's not the case now, is it?
Both methods are used in practice to weed out candidates they are better at sieving. TF for candidates with smaller factors and PRP-Testing for the rest, even though one would have to be faster on acreage on the whole set than the other.
No, you are fully misunderstanding what he said.

If TF is faster, use it exclusively. At some point in your TF efforts, TF is no longer faster, and PRP becomes faster. At that crossover point, use PRP exclusively.

This is clearly the most efficient path, yet you wave your hands and use all sorts of words to make yourself feel better that it's not true.
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-01-27, 09:43   #235
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
Jun 2011
Thailand

5×1,871 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by a1call View Post
By that logic there would be no justification to use more than one method, either TF or PRP-Testing on any given range.
That's a fallacy. It would be true if the speed of each method would be constant as you go deeper, but it is not. The TF speed decreases exponentially, it halves with every bitlevel. The speed of PRP decreases slower with the size of the exponent (range, size of the FFT). In a certain point they will cross. As VBCurtis says.

By "speed of TF" we mean how fast you can eliminate an exponent, by finding a factor. TF programs seem "much faster", they do many tests in the wallclock time taken by a PRP test, but to find a factor, you need to do many assignments (roughly, equal to the bitlevel, i.e. if you look for 70 bits factors, you will need to test about 70 exponents, to find a factor). If your hardware can test 70 exponents to 70 bits faster than it takes for the same hardware to do a PRP for an exponent of the same size (plus or minus a little change, considering the certification process, error rates, vanity of having a factor as opposite of having a PRP residue, whatever rows your boat), then YOU SHOULD CERTAINLY DO ONLY TF to 70 bits.

This is how GIMPS works since its inception, if we make abstraction of the people who only run TF because they want more credit, or they like to have found factors, or (I would say "selfish") people who only run LL/PRP because they want the glory of finding a prime and take George's money. Most users here will try to help the project most, by optimizing their rate of getting rid of exponents, at front wave, either doing TF or PRP. Of course, the options will wary in time, according with the exponent size at the front level and the bitlevel that has to be trial-factored, you can do PRP today because the bitlevels are very deep here, and TF next month if your exponent gets higher and the bitlevel is lower or stays the same, but once the exponent and bitlevel is given, and assuming you know your hardware, you should optimally chose ONE of them, and DO THAT ONE ONLY.

Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2021-01-27 at 09:58
LaurV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-02-19, 08:30   #236
paulunderwood
 
paulunderwood's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr

3,617 Posts
Default

Congrats to Serge Batalov for the smallest known 1 million digit prime:

10^999999 + 308267*10^292000 + 1

Can this be limbo-ed?
paulunderwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-02-19, 08:48   #237
JeppeSN
 
JeppeSN's Avatar
 
"Jeppe"
Jan 2016
Denmark

101001102 Posts
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by paulunderwood View Post
Congrats to Serge Batalov for the smallest known 1 million digit prime:

10^999999 + 308267*10^292000 + 1

Can this be limbo-ed?
This beats an idea of simply doing 10^999999 + k*10^(333333-m) ± 1 with m very small. Such a prime would be simpler to test than Serge Batalov's, but not quite as close to 10^999999. /JeppeSN
JeppeSN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-02-19, 19:36   #238
sweety439
 
Nov 2016

1011000001002 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paulunderwood View Post
Congrats to Serge Batalov for the smallest known 1 million digit prime:

10^999999 + 308267*10^292000 + 1

Can this be limbo-ed?
The smallest known 1 million digit prime is 10^999999+593499
sweety439 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-02-19, 19:42   #239
paulunderwood
 
paulunderwood's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr

70418 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sweety439 View Post
The smallest known 1 million digit prime is 10^999999+593499
That may be the smallest PRP. No proof of primality, unless you have a new theorem
paulunderwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-03-02, 18:52   #240
paulunderwood
 
paulunderwood's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr

3,617 Posts
Smile DRUG is PRP top

We had a nice email from Jeff Gilchrist this morning saying one of his computers had reported:

Code:
2^13380298-27 is base 3-Fermat PRP! (4027872 decimal digits)  Time : 9677.550 sec.
2^13380298-27 is Fermat, Lucas and Frobenius PRP! (P = 5, Q = 5, D = 5)  Time : 75222.576 sec.
We would like to thank rouge for his sieve and Jean and George for their software.



It is official now

Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 2021-03-05 at 05:38
paulunderwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-03-11, 22:52   #241
Batalov
 
Batalov's Avatar
 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

100100101010012 Posts
Thumbs up

A new Generalized Cullen number - 4'143'644 decimal digits.
Batalov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-03-12, 21:01   #242
pepi37
 
pepi37's Avatar
 
Dec 2011
After milion nines:)

2·709 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Batalov View Post
A new Generalized Cullen number - 4'143'644 decimal digits.
pepi37 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mersenne Primes p which are in a set of twin primes is finite? carpetpool Miscellaneous Math 3 2017-08-10 13:47
Distribution of Mersenne primes before and after couples of primes found emily Math 34 2017-07-16 18:44
Conjecture about Mersenne primes and non-primes v2 Mickey1 Miscellaneous Math 1 2013-05-30 12:32
A conjecture about Mersenne primes and non-primes Unregistered Information & Answers 0 2011-01-31 15:41
possible primes (real primes & poss.prime products) troels munkner Miscellaneous Math 4 2006-06-02 08:35

All times are UTC. The time now is 11:14.

Sat Apr 10 11:14:53 UTC 2021 up 2 days, 5:55, 1 user, load averages: 1.04, 1.19, 1.26

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.