% difference.
Well, it is no big deal, I thought that maybe SP1 added something that
was eating up some CPU time.
+-+
| Jud
McCranie
|
|
|
| Programming Achieved with Structure, Clarity, And Logic |
+-+
Yesterday I went from Windows XP home to service pack 1. The speed of
prime95 went down by over 2%. Has anyone else seen this? Any ideas on
what caused it or how it can be fixed?
+-+
| Jud McCranie
for
6000 iterations, which is actually 0.13 sec/iter, 3.5 times as much. The
expected completion dates under Status look right.
Is there a bug in the per iteration calculation in ver 22.3?
+-+
| Jud McCranie
.
+-+
| Jud McCranie |
| |
| Programming Achieved with Structure, Clarity, And Logic
that quick switching was causing two copies of primr95 to run. Could
that cause a problem?
+-+
| Jud McCranie |
| |
| Programming Achieved
At 04:04 PM 5/24/2002 -0400, George Woltman wrote:
Well another bug was fixed in 22.3.
Is that available? The download page says version 21.
+-+
| Jud McCranie
At 08:41 PM 5/24/2002 +0200, Dieter Schmitt wrote:
The help file says this bug was fixed with version 20.5 concerning P-1 or ECM.
I'm using ver 21.4.1.
+-+
| Jud McCranie
for about 16 months, and AFAIK, it has
never happened to me.
++
| Jud McCranie |
||
| former temporary part-time adjunct |
| instructor of a minor university
I losing cycles
somewhere? Is it possible the mainboard (Intel 850GBC) is lying to me
about the clockspeed?
Do you have an actual video card or is the video on the motherboard
(sharing memory)? That can be a factor.
+-+
| Jud
these lost
exponents? (I don't know which ones they were)
+-+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
|Thought I saw angels, but I could have been
it sound like an official
announcement. Or is the official double check finished already?
The independent check was supposed to be completed today, so maybe it was.
+-+
| Jud McCranie
Do you think that a mainframe computer will ever again hold the record for
the largest known prime, or will they be unable to compete with thousands
of personal computers in a distributed project? Just wondering.
+-+
| Jud McCranie
At 03:29 PM 11/28/2001 -0500, Donald Rober wrote:
BUT I doubt
that anyone is interested in giving up that much computing power on those
machines.
That's what I thought too.
+-+
| Jud McCranie
(it used to do that).
+-+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming Achieved with Structure, Clarity, And Logic
I should have suggested this yesterday, but let's have a meteor shower to
celebrate the probable discovery of a new Mersenne prime!
+-+
| Jud McCranie
test! Of
course we all appreciate the people who are able to devote several CPUs to
the job, but this is encouraging to the little guys. It shows that every
little bit helps!
+-+
| Jud McCranie
that?
+-+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming Achieved with Structure, Clarity, And Logic
a factor of 2.
+-+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming Achieved with Structure, Clarity, And Logic
At 02:39 PM 11/10/2001 -0500, Carleton Garrison wrote:
Well, this means almost 58% slower than expected.
Well, I hope you figure it out because the same has happened to me.
Is your video on the motherboard?
+-+
| Jud McCranie
years (maybe over 5 years?), well before there were any
prizes. I just replaced a computer that I have been using over 4 years,
and I think I was in GIMPS before I had that one.
+-+
| Jud McCranie
exponents
have been checked once only to a little past 8,000,000.
+-+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming Achieved with Structure, Clarity, And Logic
is more
than twice as large as the previous one.
+-+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming Achieved with Structure, Clarity, And Logic
ctrl-alt-del on WinXP shows 00. It doesn't even omit the leading zero.
+-+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming Achieved with Structure, Clarity
, it comes back up that way.
+-+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming Achieved with Structure, Clarity, And Logic
if you want higher performance from Prime95 while you're
using the computer.
+-+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming Achieved with Structure, Clarity
.
++
| Jud McCranie |
||
| former temporary part-time adjunct |
| instructor of a minor university |
++
_
Unsubscribe list
abandoned. That is not to
keep newcomers from contributing - they even get to do first time LL tests
(and be assured of that) - it is try to keep an exponent from being
abandoned more than once.
++
| Jud McCranie
?
++
| Jud McCranie |
||
| former temporary part-time adjunct |
| instructor of a minor university
done and expected completion date to show that they
are making reasonable progress. It could even be automatic. Or maybe check
in at 1 month, 2 months after that, and then every three months? Or is
that too elitist too?
++
| Jud McCranie
finished.
++
| Jud McCranie |
||
| former temporary part-time adjunct |
| instructor of a minor university
.
++
| Jud McCranie |
||
| former temporary part-time adjunct |
| instructor of a minor university
rather than wait 4 times as
long for a first time check.
That's true. My last first-time check took 3 months, which is why I went
to double checking, which take about 3 weeks.
...All 4 results will be returned in 44 days.
Great!
++
| Jud McCranie
assigned so long ago that they must have been dropped several times.
++
| Jud McCranie |
||
| former temporary part-time adjunct |
| instructor of a minor university
At 03:26 PM 5/12/2001 -0400, Nathan Russell wrote:
I think that's more of a 'quick fix', and might make new participants
feel that GIMPS doesn't trust them.
Yes, but a new user need not know that they don't get an exponent that has
expired until they have finished an assignment. My point is
submitted several results
that don't match other people's results they could be notified that they
may have a hardware problem.
++
| Jud McCranie |
||
| former temporary part-time adjunct |
| instructor
At 08:44 PM 5/12/2001 +, Brian J. Beesley wrote:
I don't like the idea, for the reason Nathan indicates - it smacks of
elitism.
A better fix would be to patch PrimeNet so that it can assign an
exponent for two LL test runs simultaneously. (Whichever finishes
first becomes the LL test, the
I don't like the idea, for the reason Nathan indicates - it smacks of
elitism.
By my idea, new users would get untested exponents - they just wouldn't get
one that had already been abandoned.
_
Unsubscribe list info --
, I'd get an
Athlon. That might change in a few months.
+---+
| Jud McCranie |
| |
| Think recursively( Think recursively( Think recursively
is
faster for most things, and cheaper. I don't know if the P4 will pull
ahead of AMD chips for most things, so will people buy them?
+---+
| Jud McCranie
joined, I was getting a LL test in about 9 hours on my P-60. Now it
takes 3 months on my P-300.
+---+
| Jud McCranie |
| |
| Think r
calculations with basically a boolean answer at the end.
...
I agree. I've never overclocked my computers because I think it is more
important to be confident in the results.
+-+
| Jud McCranie
I understand that the SSE2 instructions operate only on
64-bit (and 32-bit) floating point data, whereas the
FPU registers support 80-bit intermediate results.
I know this is a little off-topic, but how good is the P4 at integer operations?
.
+-+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming Achieved with Structure, Clarity, And Logic
.
++
| Jud McCranie |
||
| 137*2^197783+1 is prime! (59,541 digits, 11/11/99)|
| 137*2^224879+1 is prime! (67,687 digits, 1/00
.
++
| Jud McCranie |
||
| 137*2^197783+1 is prime! (59,541 digits, 11/11/99)|
| 137*2^224879+1 is prime! (67,687 digits, 1/00
, and you don't want to do that. Prime95 needs to be
transparent. It probably should be in the advanced menu, and allow you to
set the hours and days.
++
| Jud McCranie
question just said a large random number.
++
| Jud McCranie |
||
| 137*2^197783+1 is prime! (59,541 digits, 11/11/99)|
| 137*2^224879+1
,
vol 2, section 4.5.4.
++
| Jud McCranie |
||
| 137*2^197783+1 is prime! (59,541 digits, 11/11/99)|
| 137*2^224879+1 is prime! (67,687
, and that brings up the
average.
++
| Jud McCranie |
||
| 137*2^197783+1 is prime! (59,541 digits, 11/11/99)|
| 137*2^224879+1 is prime! (67,687
I just messed with a program that alters the 8087 control word, then I
realized that this could affect Prime95. Would a program that alters the
8087CW interfere with Prime95?
++
| Jud McCranie
.
++
| Jud McCranie |
||
| 137*2^197783+1 is prime! (59,541 digits, 11/11/99)|
++
_
Unsubscribe
.
++
| Jud McCranie |
||
| 137*2^197783+1 is prime! (59,541 digits, 11/11/99
.
Whoops! I'm violating someone's patent! (Don't tell anyone.)
++
| Jud McCranie |
||
| 137*2^197783+1 is prime! (59,541 digits
windowing in 1987, so his patent is invalid (prior invention).
++
| Jud McCranie |
||
| 137*2^197783+1 is prime! (59,541 digits
.
++
|
Jud
McCranie
|
|
|
| 137*2^197783+1 is prime! (59,541 digits,
11/11/99) |
++
, and most people in-the-know don't agree with it.
++
| Jud McCranie |
||
| 137*2^197783+1 is prime! (59,541 digits
.
++
| Jud McCranie |
||
| 137*2^197783+1 is prime! (59,541 digits, 11/11/99
historians. Much of the
controversy is covered in chapter 8 of "ENIAC" by Scott McCartney and other
books such as ""Portraits in Silicon". Iowa State University seems
overzealous in promoting Atanasoff.
+----+
|
.
+-+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming Achieved with Structure, Clarity, And Logic
orrect way?
+-----+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming Achieved with Structure, Clarity,
.
+-+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming Achieved with Structure, Clarity, And Logic
.
+-+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming Achieved with Structure, Clarity, And Logic
solutions, we've found
our factors...
Good idea, but this is Fermat's factoring method. It works pretty well if
a and b are close.
+-+
| Jud McCranie
At 09:57 AM 10/14/99 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The supposed clustering is in fact typical of 'random' data.
Didn't someone on this list test the data for randomness using a Poisson
distribution a few months ago?
+-+
| Jud
of that exponent?
I have some other exponents queued up (that I transferred) - would the
communication with the server warn me if they have been tested?
+-+
| Jud McCranie
for.
+-+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming Achieved with Structure, Clarity, And Logic
.
+-+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming Achieved with Structure, Clarity, And Logic
of the same order.
Is that true? I thought that a LL test of a Mersenne was faster.
++
| Jud McCranie |
||
| 127*2^96744+1 is prime! (29,125 digits, Oct
At 07:13 PM 7/25/99 -0400, Chris Nash wrote:
That bit is virtually free of charge. Any quadratic non-residue will do just
fine.
But you don't easily know if a number is a QNR, do you?
+--+
| Jud "program first and think later" McCranie |
At 01:10 PM 7/18/99 -0400, Geoffrey Faivre-Malloy wrote:
I was reading Fermat's Enigma today and something occurred to me...would it
be possible to work with a number quicker if we used a higher base? I.E.
Use base 32 instead of base 10?
Multiple precision arithmetic operations do that.
At 12:38 AM 7/13/99 -0400, Lucas Wiman wrote:
Here are the percentages for the first 3000 powers of 2. The first collumn
is the percentage, the second is the difference from the predicted Benford
percentage. Weird, I would have thought that it wouldn't affect powers of
two...
That's the type
At 09:05 AM 7/13/99 -0400, Chip Lynch wrote:
In some vague attempt to not take the Benford issue off topic, it's
interesting that numbers 2^n (for all Natural numbers n) follows the
pattern VERY closely,
In the limit as n - infinity, 2^n must follow the law exactly. Almost by
definition.
At 11:55 AM 7/12/99 -0400, Chip Lynch wrote:
I'm not sure what the law of leading digits is, but I read this as talking
only about base 10 numbers... so the leading digit 1 is compared to
leading digit 2, 3, 4, ..., 9. Right? So for numbers 2^n (in Base 10),
[or is it 2^p?] there are a lot more
At 10:16 AM 7/9/99 -0700, Kris Garrett wrote:
Has it been proven that all mersenne numbers greater than one are
square free?
As far as I know, it has not been proven (and no repeated factors are known
either).
+--+
| Jud "program first and think
At 06:51 PM 7/9/99 +0100, Brian J. Beesley wrote:
For reasonably small multi-precision numbers, Head's method is
actually very good, if you're working on a true RISC processor with
no integer multiply instruction.
I started using Head's algorithm in 1981 on my Apple II. It was better
than
At 06:19 AM 7/8/99 -0400, you wrote:
All,
In the book _Primes and Programming_ Head's method of multiplying
two numbers mod n is mentioned. Is this actually more effiecient
than simply multiplying the two numbers and taking the modulus?
Yes, because it keeps the numbers smaller. It was
At 11:52 AM 7/8/99 -0700, Rudy Ruiz wrote:
I am not aware that anyone has yet proven the infinitude of Sophie
Germain Primes. [Granted that, in itself, does not mean anything ;)
I was wrong. As far as I know, it hasn't been proven either (but it is
almost certainly true). I had seen a
At 08:11 PM 7/8/99 -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
That is going to be a *lot* slower than FFT convolution, for numbers the size
of the Mersenne numbers we're testing!
Head's algorithm is for getting x*y mod n when 0=x,yn; and n is such that
nM but n^2M, where M is the largest integer you can store
At 10:47 AM 7/6/99 +0200, Benny.VanHoudt wrote:
Now lets only focus on the set 2^p - 1 with p prime, i.e., the set
of numbers that we are checking out at GIMPS. Has anyone proven that
an infinite number these are NOT prime (this is VERY likely to be
true)? If so, how can one prove this easily
At 06:55 PM 7/6/99 +0100, Brian J. Beesley wrote:
Can you please supply a reference to this proof? Chris Caldwell's
Prime Pages show this as a conjecture (with a strong heuristic
argument).
No, I was wrong about it having been proven.
+--+
| Jud
At 03:05 AM 6/30/99 -0400, Lucas Wiman wrote:
I realize this is probably a FAQ, (and I intend to put it there), why is
the distribution of factors so non-linear?
Because small factors are more likely to divide a given number.
+--+
| Jud "program
At 04:16 AM 6/29/99 -0400, Lucas Wiman wrote:
All,
Here is version 1.1 of the FAQ.
Here's a question that needs to be addressed: how to go from digits to
exponents, and exponent to digits.
+--+
| Jud "program first and think later" McCranie |
At 04:16 AM 6/29/99 -0400, Lucas Wiman wrote:
All,
Here is version 1.1 of the FAQ.
Also. FAQs involve why do we think there are an infinite number of Mersenne
primes, how many are expected below a given limit, and what s the probability
of finding one.
At 11:17 PM 6/29/99 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
Then what is the best fit? Exponential? :-)
It is slightly parabolic. The good news is that it is trending upward faster
than linearly.
+--+
| Jud "program first and think later" McCranie |
The Status estimate of the chance that the number you are testing seems to
be off by a factor of e, based on Wagstaff's estimate.
+--+
| Jud "program first and think later" McCranie |
+--+
At 09:59 PM 6/28/99 +0100, Gordon Spence wrote:
The GIMPS home page explains the following
"Finally, if a factor is later found for a Mersenne number or the
Lucas-Lehmer result is found to be incorrect, then you will "lose credit"
for the time spent running the test."
It is on
At 12:14 PM 6/27/99 -0400, Geoffrey Faivre-Malloy wrote:
How large will the exponent be for a 10,000,000 digit prime number?
digits x 3.32192 gives the approximate exponent.
+--+
| Jud "program first and think later" McCranie |
For those of us who don't have access to Wagstaff's 1983 paper "Divisors of
Mersenne Numbers", it is nicely summarized in "The New Book of Prime Number
Records", by Paulo Ribenboim, chapter 6, section V.A. (page 411-413 in this
edition). He gives 3 statements:
(a) The number of Mersenne primes
At 03:58 PM 6/26/99 -0400, Allan Menezes wrote:
According to Paulo Ribenboim's book quoted below by Jud Euler's Constant
gamma=0.577215665... and working out the number of mersenne primes below
p=700
in Mathematica 4.0 gives 39.5572 primes, so we must be missing a prime if
Wagstaffs' right.
At 01:45 AM 6/24/99 -0700, Alan Simpson wrote:
It is clearly not the case that the exponent of the n-th Mersenne prime is
not (3/2)^P{n} or e^(gamma*n), but something like c^{n+o(n)), where "o(n)"
is the usual "little-o of n" (lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} o(n)/n = zero (a
severe abuse of
Since Prime95 writes to the disk periodically, is it safe to do a disk
defragmentation while it is running?
+--+
| Jud "program first and think later" McCranie |
+--+
There is a conjecture that the nth Mersenne exponent resulting in a prime
is approximately (3/2)^n. Consider Mersenne primes through M37. (I don't
know exactly what M38 is yet, and there may be other small ones. Also, the
double checks of the range through M37 haven't been completed.)
You can
At 06:09 AM 6/14/99 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The reason it took so long is that it wasn't until now that ANYONE
had Win9x run that long without rebooting.
I might have actually hit that problem and not realized it. Until recently,
for many months I had my old P-120 running in another
ate: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:25:53 -0400
To: "Aaron Blosser" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Jud McCranie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #575
Cc: "Mersenne@Base. Com" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
References: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Versio
At 11:38 AM 6/13/99 +0200, Sturle Sunde wrote:
And exactly how do you think that justifies that a GIMPS-participant does
it knowingly?
I'd like to ask the following of readers of this list who have been working on
an exponent for more than 1 year, and have an expected completion date after
At 04:32 PM 6/13/99 +0200, Sturle Sunde wrote:
Great. Next time Primenet tells me "Error, this exponent is already
tested" on the exponent I reserved a few months ago, I should be very
happy and tell myself: "Great! Someone have tested the exponent for me,
and will get the credit if it was
At 09:32 AM 6/13/99 -0600, Aaron Blosser wrote:
Criteria I used were:
1) Original *quite* long time to complete
2) No check-ins for a period of at least 6 months.
I thought that if no check-in was done in 60 days, the number was put back in
the pool.
At 11:46 AM 6/13/99 -0500, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
To those on this list who are pursuing why certain exponents are not
being completed "sooner" -- think about it -- WHAT DIFFERENCE WILL
IT MAKE in __your__ life when exponent so-and-so is completed ??
I write the exponents resulting in primes
At 04:32 PM 6/13/99 +0200, Sturle Sunde wrote:
When a person tells the world which exponents he is testing, and
continously reports his progress, people could at least complain to him
before hijacking the exponents he has been testing for a year
Some people that are out of contact may be
There seems to be a big discrepancy between what the status page at
merseme.org shows (updated 6-6-99) and what the PrimeNet status page
(updated hourly) shows as far as the exponents under 4,000,000. So maybe
these small exponents that the former page shows that I was concerned about
have
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
