Mersenne Digest Saturday, May 8 1999 Volume 01 : Number 553
--
Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 23:47:19 -0500
From: Ken Kriesel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Mersenne: volunteers nominees for the QA effort
Here is the list to date of volunteers. If I missed anyone, or understated
or overstated your areas of involvement, please reply offline to me,
and I'll update the other participants in a single summary message.
George Woltman [EMAIL PROTECTED] is in it by default, as
a code developer and tester (presumably on Win95 and NT)
Any additions George?
George nominated (drafted?) the next two:
Richard McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PPC-based MAC client software (MacGIMPS) developer
"Ernst W. Mayer" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DEC Alpha SGI client software (lucas_mayer) developer
In somewhat random order are those who volunteered themselves:
Guillermo Ballester Valor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
linux win95
pentium166mmx
QAtest
Basic, Fortran, assembler (for I86X), C and C++
"Brian J Beesley" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Run QA tests - on Intel Pentium II under Windows 95 NT WS 4.0
- on Alpha 21164 under Red Hat Linux 5.1
- maybe on Intel Pentium II under Linux, later
Help design QA tests
Help keep testing databases provide statistics. Can provide
filestore to assist with this.
Will assist in any coding which may be necessary
I'm less happy about reviewing code, but I'll give it a bash if necessary
Shane Sanford [EMAIL PROTECTED]
QAtest C/C++ code
MS Visual C/C++ 4.0,5.0, 6.0; P2 450 196 meg ram
access to Win95a/Win95b/Win98/NT 4.0
Ken Kriesel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NT4 and win95 now, linux eventually
assorted systems including 486-66, pentium, dual-pentium, dual-pentiumpro,
pentiumII-400
QAtest
generating full LLtests under prime95 v14.4, v16.3, v18.1, and others.
Nick Craig-Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.axis.demon.co.uk/
suggests his ARMprime program as another means of independent-architecture
and program test results
"Jean-Yves Canart" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
QAtest
PentiumII-266 with unspecified OS
So to reach the QAtesters, use this list:
[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],BJ.Beesley
@ulst.ac.uk,[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED]
And for the code reviewers or developers:
[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],rmc
[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ken
Ken Kriesel
(resident of Madison WI, last year's #1 city and this year's #7)
Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
--
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 01:11:25 -0700
From: Paul Leyland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Mersenne: ECM question
At Paul Zimmerman's ECM page,
http://www.loria.fr/~zimmerma/records/ecmnet.html
the optimal B1 value listed for finding 50-digit factors is
4300, but
George's ECM factoring page uses 4400 for the same
purpose. Is one of
them wrong, or is there a reason for the difference?
No, neither is "wrong", for at least two reasons.
First, ECM is a probabalistic algorithm. Each run chooses a random elliptic
curve and has a certain chance to find a factor of a particular size. When
enough curves have been run, there is particular probability of finding a
factor of that size, assuming that one exists. If one choose 50% as the
desired probability, the number of curves required will obviously be fewer
than if one chooses 60%, say. A similar choice can be made for trading off
B1 value against probability, as long as the trade isn't pushed too far.
Another reason is that the B1 value is only one quantity of importance.
Even if the probability mentioned above is fixed, the optimal number of
curves depends on the value of B2. Different implementations of ECM (or
even different runs of the same implementation) are free to choose different
values of B2 for a given B1.
A non-reason, but still of interest, is that the maximum in the probability
agains B1 curve is really rather flat, and it doesn't matter too much if
parameters are chosen which are not strictly optimum.
Paul
Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
--
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 14:13:35 +
From: "Steinar H . Gunderson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #552 (IA-64)
On Wed, May 05, 1999 at 05:54:50PM -0700, Mersenne Digest wrote:
From the IA-64 register set figure in the advert, one weakness appears to me
to be the sheer amount of silicon: Intel is going from just 8 FP registers
in all the Pentium incarnations to a whopping 128, each still having the
x86's full 80 bits, in the IA-64 There are also 128 65-bit general purpose
(64-bit integer plus carry bit) registers.
I've heard the main problem is getting efficient code out of it. Merced (IA-64)
is
