Mersenne Digest Tuesday, October 26 1999 Volume 01 : Number 652 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 13:25:00 +0200 From: "Floris Looyesteyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Alot of small exponents for double checking will be reassigned tonight and the following days > If you want small exponents you better try to get them tonight and the > following days cause a lot of them are going be released again tonight... I > skimmed through the assigned exponents list and counted about 20 > exponents that are (almost) overdue... So be there when you want them... I thought about this but with the thousands of clients, wouldn't the chance of getting one of these be 0? Can anyone tell how many exponents are handed out each minute/second? Floris Looyesteyn __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 15:55:25 +0200 From: "Robert van der Peijl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: Lucas number Hi everyone. I often encounter the same problem over and over again when demonstrating the prime program. People regularly ask me: what is this program doing? After I've explained to them what the LL-test does (and if they're still with me after that :) they ask me why it's not showing the Lucas-number at each step? (Actually they simply call it "the Number".) I then reply: well, the number is rather big. It wouldn't even fit onto the screen. (To give you a better idea, the complete number would fill, what, 400 screens or something?) The program _can_ show the last couple of digits, but for some reason it doesn't want to do that at each iteration, it only does so when it's finished. So they ask: why not? That way we could see what it's doing. Or is it a secret? I tell them no, but some seem to be unconvinced. Maybe they reckon: If it wasn't a secret, the program would show it, right? The program output during a Lucas-Lehmer test currently gives no mathematical insight whatsoever into what the computer is doing. A lot of schools use the program to explain about divisibility and prime numbers. It would help if it would show us the LL-test. They could actually see, that when they enter a small prime, say 7, the program would show the Lucas sequence for M(7) (=2^7-1=127): 4 14 67 42 111 0 They could then (or before) do the same test by hand: Iteration 1: 4 (starting value of LL-test) Iteration 2: (4^2-2) mod 127 = 14 mod 127 = 14 Iteration 3: (14^2-2) mod 127 = 194 mod 127 = 67 Iteration 4: (67^2-2) mod 127 = 42 Iteration 5: (42^2-2) mod 127 = 111 Iteration 6: (111^2-2) mod 127 = 0 So the last number in the Lucas sequence of M(7) is zero. Therefore, the LL-test says that 127 is a prime number. And as we all know, that is correct. Conversely, a non-zero end result would tell us that the Mersenne number is composite. That's enough elementary school for now. Here's another reason: the big number freaks could show off this "proggie" to their geek friends, letting the big numbers go flashing by on their 21" screens. <Yeah, them numbers is actual data, the whole thing's a whopping 10Megadigits. Cool, huh?> ;-) But seriously folks, the program need no longer be a black box where a number goes in, you get to wait x months, and a number comes out. Instead, it can show that it is really calculating! OK, so what's the user interface: ---------------------------------------- Show Number Show me the last few digits of the current Lucas number at each iteration. Number of digits to display (1-100): 16 Representation (What kind of digits do you want to see) * hexadecimal (h) decimal (d) binary (b) [OK] [Cancel] ---------------------------------------- When you click on 'OK', the program sets a check mark in front of the Options menu item 'Show Number'. In default display mode, you'll see lines like: Iteration: 33219300/33219379 [99.99%]. Per iteration time: ....(etc) You may have seen lines beginning with 'Iteration:' before. :) In 'Lucas' display mode, the program would instead show the last part of the Lucas number at every iteration. For calculating the decimal expansion, I would suggest the following coding compromise in order to minimize CPU overhead: Let the program read only the last 50 bytes of the Lucas number L[k], expand it to decimal form, and display the last n decimal digits thereof. So b = L[k] mod 2^n, h = L[k] mod (2^( 4*n)) and d = (L[k] mod (2^(50*8))) mod 10^n. where n is the number of digits to be displayed. The readme.txt should of course contain a note about the program reading only the last 50 bytes of the L-number. Now notice that when a LL-test begins, you'll see (in decimal mode): 4 14 194 37634 1416317954 etc. That is, the Lucas sequence! If you have the program set on (at least) 16 hex digits when you get to the last few iterations, you'll see that the residue is the same! During the LL test, you might even spot any periodicity occurring ;-) Any comments on this proposal? Robert van der Peijl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 09:15:26 -0700 From: Bob Margulies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: More Schlag In reading the numerous postings about Liouville numbers and patterned transcendentals, I notice that there has been a careful avoidance of the definition of the term 'pattern.' If the Liouville Transcendental Number is expressed in a base other than 10, I would guess that there's still a pattern, but I don't know how to see it. Perhaps a pattern is something that sets the 'I see a pattern' bit in my head. _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 14:50:20 +0200 From: "Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: Re: mprime startup at boot-time On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 03:38:59AM +0200, Lars Lindley wrote: >One more question. Can I by simple means redirect tty8 to an >xterm-session?? Try using a FIFO: mknod /tmp/mprime-fifo p ./mprime -d > /tmp/mprime-fifo (in xterm) tail -f /tmp/mprime-fifo This won't help you redirect tty8 into an xterm session, though. Not sure if that is possible at all. (Try `screen'.) /* Steinar */ - -- Homepage: http://members.xoom.com/sneeze/ _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 22:03:45 +0100 From: "Brian J. Beesley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Lucas number On 24 Oct 99, at 15:55, Robert van der Peijl wrote: > [ ... snip ... ] > Show Number > Show me the last few digits of the > current Lucas number at each iteration. This is distinctly non-trivial. The residue doesn't exist in a nice form in work vectors in the program's memory, it has to be specially constructed when it needs to be output. This construction of the binary residue takes CPU power. > Number of digits to display (1-100): 16 > > Representation > (What kind of digits do you want to see) > * hexadecimal (h) > decimal (d) > binary (b) Have you any idea of the amount of CPU time needed to convert a 10 million bit binary number to a 3 million digit decimal number? You'd certainly do quite a lot more iterations in that time! And I don't think you can print the last few digits of a decimal expansion without converting the whole number. >From a teaching point of view it might be better to start with a (much slower) program like Richard Crandall's lucdwt program. This is "simple" enough that it's easy to see what's going on, and, being entirely written in a fairly portable version of C, it is relatively easy to add code to output residuals at intervals of your choice. I used this technique to generate intermediate residuals for exponents up to 79 million which were used for cross-checking the operation of the new code in Prime95 v19. Once we're into serious numbercrunching, only three things matter: accuracy, speed and nothing else. > During the LL test, you might even spot any periodicity occurring ;-) I very much doubt it, for reasons which have been explored exhaustively on this list before. Regards Brian Beesley _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 23:27:07 +0200 From: "Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: Re: prime 95 version 19 On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 11:19:41PM -0400, Lucas Wiman wrote: >Though, pi is more useful than most rational numbers (with the >possible exceptions of 0,1/2,1,2). I'd say 22/7 is about as useful as pi :-) /* Steinar */ - -- Homepage: http://members.xoom.com/sneeze/ _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 23:25:06 +0200 From: "Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: Re: mprime startup at boot-time On Sat, Oct 23, 1999 at 06:15:06PM +0200, Lars Lindley wrote: >I found no performance difference _at all_ between using the one >minute delay and using a direct start. .266/iter on both. When I tried the init way a couple of months ago (see the mailing list traffic from then), I found it to be slower, but only in the range of a couple 1/1000 seconds. ReCache didn't help much, either. >On the other hand after starting X and gimp and then exiting and >killing the mprime process letting it respawn got it down to .260... Noticing exactly the same. Even worse on Windows -- the P60 (before getting its power supply burned out) could drop from .864 to .822 just by opening and closing Word 6.0 (40 MB of RAM). /* Steinar */ - -- Homepage: http://members.xoom.com/sneeze/ _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 23:22:41 +0200 From: "Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: Re: Lucas number On Sun, Oct 24, 1999 at 10:03:45PM +0100, Brian J. Beesley wrote: >Have you any idea of the amount of CPU time needed to convert a 10 >million bit binary number to a 3 million digit decimal number? Yes, but you don't need the entire number, do you? Collecting the low 64 bits doesn't take _that_ much time. The entire number, though, would just be weird. Try looking at a million-digit number, getting something useful out of it in the split second the iteration takes :-) /* Steinar */ - -- Homepage: http://members.xoom.com/sneeze/ _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 18:23:44 -0400 From: Bruce A Metcalf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: ReCache for Windoze (was: mprime startup at boot-time) At 08:06 AM 10/23/99 +0100, Brian J. Beesley wrote: >Conversely (or perhaps perversely), Windows >needs ReCache, _especially_ just after a fresh boot, to make Prime95 >run at its best speed. Hello, I must have missed the discussion of ReCache the last time around. Would someone be willing to explain where this can be obtained, how to install, and the likely benefits to Prime95? I'd also be particularly interested in an automatic routine, as my Windoze box crashes 3 or 4 times a day. (Yes, I know -- but I've only read through chapter 3 in "Linus for Dummies" so far.) Bruce A. Metcalf mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.magicnet.net/~bmetcalf/ _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 01:35:48 +0200 From: Lars Lindley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: ReCache for Windoze (was: mprime startup at boot-time) Bruce A Metcalf wrote: > Windoze > box crashes 3 or 4 times a day. (Yes, I know -- but I've only read through > chapter 3 in "Linus for Dummies" so far.) > I suggest you go for Mandrake Linux. You don't have to know much at all to run that. Three chapters should be enough.. ;) It is _very_ windoze-like. :) As for ReCache, I can't really recollect where I got it from. It was someone on the list so I reckon he'll speak up. I had very varied results with ReCache. My best tip is to fire up Unreal (if you have it) and close it, wait a few seconds and then start prime95. Works every time. :) Regards, Lars _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 01:55:39 +0200 From: "Robert van der Peijl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Lucas number On 24 Oct 1999, at 23:03, Brian Beesley replied: > On 24 Oct 99, at 15:55, Robert van der Peijl wrote: > > > [ ... snip ... ] > > Show Number > > Show me the last few digits of the > > current Lucas number at each iteration. > > This is distinctly non-trivial. The residue doesn't exist in a nice > form in work vectors in the program's memory, it has to be specially > constructed when it needs to be output. > > This construction of the binary residue takes CPU power. Thank you for pointing this out. I'd rather use the CPU power on LL tests. > > Number of digits to display (1-100): 16 > > > > Representation > > (What kind of digits do you want to see) > > * hexadecimal (h) > > decimal (d) > > binary (b) > > Have you any idea of the amount of CPU time needed to convert a 10 > million bit binary number to a 3 million digit decimal number? You'd > certainly do quite a lot more iterations in that time! Actually, yes. (That's why I proposed the coding compromise for the decimal display). Maybe the binary and hex display _could_ work without too much overhead for an all-int LL-tester? > And I don't think you can print the last few digits of a decimal > expansion without converting the whole number. I know, it's a problem. And we certainly wouldn't want to compute in BCD! :-) > >From a teaching point of view it might be better to start with a > (much slower) program like Richard Crandall's lucdwt program. This is > "simple" enough that it's easy to see what's going on, and, being > entirely written in a fairly portable version of C, it is relatively > easy to add code to output residuals at intervals of your choice. lucdwt. I can't wait to try that. Thank for the tip. > I used this technique to generate intermediate residuals for > exponents up to 79 million which were used for cross-checking the > operation of the new code in Prime95 v19. "Simple" programs have their advantages too. Once the uniform savefile format is implemented on the various platforms, cross-checking should become easier. Prime95 should perforce remain a black box during a Lucas Lehmer test, for educational purposes one would also utilize a program that shows (part of) the number after each LL iteration. > Once we're into serious numbercrunching, only three things matter: > accuracy, speed and nothing else. Accuracy is essential, speed important. Understandability would help to get more people running the program. Distributed numbercrunching by volunteers depends on it. Robert van der Peijl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 05:19:19 +0200 From: "Robert van der Peijl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: difference between LL and double check Paul van Grieken asked on 21 Oct 1999 at 17:16 h > Why is there a difference in iteration time between the LL test and a > double test. For the same FFT-size, the double checking code has to perform a bit extra work per iteration: it multiplies by 2 before the DWT, and divides by 4 afterward. This guarantees totally different data during the convolutions. This allows to use the same starting value L[1], thus generating (if nothing went wrong in the hardware) the same residue as the first test. (This is a translation of my reply in Dutch to Paul van Grieken) How much slower (in percentage) does this make double checking compared to a first-time LL test? Robert van der Peijl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 09:25:23 +0000 From: "Steinar H . Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Alot of small exponents for double checking will be reassigned tonight and the following days On Sun, Oct 24, 1999 at 01:25:00PM +0200, Floris Looyesteyn wrote: >I thought about this but with the thousands of clients, wouldn't >the chance of getting one of these be 0? Depends, especially on when you check out the exponents. See rick's previous postings -- he showed a way to get lots of them :-) /* Steinar */ _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 10:55:34 -0400 From: George Woltman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: difference between LL and double check Hi, At 05:19 AM 10/25/99 +0200, Robert van der Peijl wrote: >> Why is there a difference in iteration time between the LL test and a >> double test. There isn't - other than double-checking is working on smaller exponents. >For the same FFT-size, the double checking code has to perform a bit >extra work per iteration: >it multiplies by 2 before the DWT, and divides by 4 afterward. This isn't quite how double-checking works. What happens is the initial Lucas value, 4, is shifted left a random number of bits. We remember this shift count in the variable called units_bit. Each iteration does a squaring, then computes the new location of the units bit (old_units_bit * 2 modulo exponent_being_tested). Now that we know where the units bit is, it is easy to subtract two. This has the same property of having the FFT deal with different data, but without the cost of a multiply by 2 and divide by 4 on every iteration. BTW, the above is done on first-time tests too. Regards, George _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 08:59:33 -0700 From: "Joth Tupper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: More Schlag > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bob Margulies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, October 24, 1999 9:15 AM > Subject: Mersenne: More Schlag > > > In reading the numerous postings about Liouville numbers and patterned > transcendentals, I notice that there has been a careful avoidance of the > definition of the term 'pattern.' If the Liouville Transcendental Number > is expressed in a base other than 10, I would guess that there's still a > pattern, but I don't know how to see it. Perhaps a pattern is something > that sets the 'I see a pattern' bit in my head. Sounds ok by me. I would accept as a 'pattern' for a (possibly transcendental) number ANY closed form expression giving a general term. That is, there is some function f(n) for (positive) integers n such that a number with 'pattern' is given by the infinite sum f(1)+f(2)+f(3)+...+f(n)+... The Liouville number I remembered was f(n) = (0.1)^(n!) for n=1,2,3,... A simpler (and larger) number used f(n) = (0.1) ^ (n^2) As I recall, either of these definitions can use any rational number (between 0 and 1) in place of 0.1 and we get a transcendental number. Using something convenient in base 10 is not the critical point. The critical question is the form of f(n) -- in this case the kind of exponent grows faster than a linear function. I seem to recall a non-intuititive theorem about rational approximations to numbers (this is from c. 1968). If you can approximate a number too closely, then it is transcendental. S.Lang wrote a book on trancendental numbers and degrees around 1973 and a precise statement might be there. Does anyone recall this? JT _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 19:23:14 +0100 From: "Brian J. Beesley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: ReCache for Windoze (was: mprime startup at boot-time) On 24 Oct 99, at 18:23, Bruce A Metcalf wrote: > Hello, I must have missed the discussion of ReCache the last time around. > Would someone be willing to explain where this can be obtained, how to > install, and the likely benefits to Prime95? ftp://lettuce.edsc.ulst.ac.uk/gimps/software/ReCache.zip To install: Unzip the file & place the executable in a directory referenced in the search path. [Or in the same directory as Prime95] Read the other file. To run: from DOS command prompt: change directory to the folder containing Prime95 then issue the command "ReCache nn Prime95.exe" where nn is the amount of physical memory in the system in megabytes. Can easily be set up as a Windows shortcut. Benefits: the ReCache program forces unused DLLs out to swap space & causes a general "tidy up" of the whole Windows memory space. This makes any compute-intensive program launched using it operate a little more efficiently. Speed up of 1% or 2% is usual. > I'd also be particularly interested in an automatic routine, as my Windoze > box crashes 3 or 4 times a day. (Yes, I know -- but I've only read through > chapter 3 in "Linus for Dummies" so far.) Place a shortcut to Prime95 (or to launch Prime95 using ReCache) in your startup folder, using "Start/Settings/Taskbar/Start Menu/Add" But you probably should find out why windoze crashes so often. If you're on a busy LAN, it does help to have a full set of LAN security patches installed! Regards Brian Beesley _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 14:26:56 -0600 From: "Mike Bean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: mprime v19 release factoring mprime v19 sep23 version: Factoring M8632699 to 2^64 is 92.2286% complete. 5.531 sec. (3042241006 clocks) Factoring M8632699 to 2^64 is 92.2378% complete. 5.532 sec. (3042454084 clocks) mprime v19 oct3 version: Factoring M8632699 to 2^64 is 92.2476% complete. 15.946 sec. (8770110717 clocks) Factoring M8632699 to 2^64 is 92.2568% complete. 15.930 sec. (8761602607 clocks) Why the difference in speed? Also, neither version will let me download anymore assignments while I have factoring assignments in worktodo.ini. _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 17:28:16 -0400 (EDT) From: "Vincent J. Mooney Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: ReCache for Windoze (was: mprime startup at boot-time) I have 256 MB of memory (about 30 gig of hard drive space). Will this process assist me? At 07:23 PM 10/25/99 +0100, you wrote: >On 24 Oct 99, at 18:23, Bruce A Metcalf wrote: > >> Hello, I must have missed the discussion of ReCache the last time around. >> Would someone be willing to explain where this can be obtained, how to >> install, and the likely benefits to Prime95? > Brian Beesley responded: >ftp://lettuce.edsc.ulst.ac.uk/gimps/software/ReCache.zip > >To install: Unzip the file & place the executable in a directory >referenced in the search path. [Or in the same directory as Prime95] >Read the other file. > >To run: from DOS command prompt: change directory to the folder >containing Prime95 then issue the command "ReCache nn Prime95.exe" >where nn is the amount of physical memory in the system in megabytes. >Can easily be set up as a Windows shortcut. > >Benefits: the ReCache program forces unused DLLs out to swap space & >causes a general "tidy up" of the whole Windows memory space. This >makes any compute-intensive program launched using it operate a >little more efficiently. Speed up of 1% or 2% is usual. > >> I'd also be particularly interested in an automatic routine, as my Windoze >> box crashes 3 or 4 times a day. (Yes, I know -- but I've only read through >> chapter 3 in "Linus for Dummies" so far.) > >Place a shortcut to Prime95 (or to launch Prime95 using ReCache) in >your startup folder, using "Start/Settings/Taskbar/Start Menu/Add" > >But you probably should find out why windoze crashes so often. If >you're on a busy LAN, it does help to have a full set of LAN security >patches installed! > >Regards >Brian Beesley >_________________________________________________________________ >Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm >Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers > _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 21:42:19 +0000 From: Benoit Potvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: Pi and statistics For those interested in Pi, the distribution of its digits and repeating sequences, look at ftp://www.cc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/README.our_latest_record Regards, Benoit Potvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 21:48:00 -0400 From: George Woltman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: Error 2250 using Linux mprime Hi all, This was just reported to me. Others may find it useful. Regards, George I took the liberty of looking at this. It appears that even w/ "gcc - -static", the new glibc name resolution stuff contains explicit uses of several dynamic libraries. If these libraries aren't present, gethostbyname(3) will silently fail, yielding the 2250 errors. There's a discussion of this in the usenet archives at: http://x35.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=414019916&CONTEXT=940892973.188547100&hitnu m=0 I worked around this by moving the following .so's to my bootdisk for my ips machines: libc.so.6 ld-linux.so.2 libnss_dns.so.2 libresolv.so.2 This may not be ideal for everyone. _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 13:40:30 +0000 From: "Steinar H . Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Error 2250 using Linux mprime On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 09:48:00PM -0400, George Woltman wrote: >I took the liberty of looking at this. It appears that even w/ "gcc >-static", the new glibc name resolution stuff contains explicit uses of >several dynamic libraries. If these libraries aren't present, >gethostbyname(3) will silently fail, yielding the 2250 errors. Note that this is _intentional_ -- see the glibc faqs (haven't read the usenet discussion you're referring to). You _can_, however, compile NSS statically, although that defeats most of the purpose. This might be an idea for mprime v19.1? /* Steinar */ _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ End of Mersenne Digest V1 #652 ******************************
