Fra: George Woltman
Sendt: ma 27-01-2003 21:29
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Emne: Mersenne: An officially sanctioned poach
It's been quite awhile since I've done a release of
exponents
that seem to be stuck - probably over a year.
Hallo Mary!
Ups, I don't suspect you.
Maybe the method should be more like: Look at the cleared exponent
report to find accounts only or overwhelming returning 66-bits factors.
But this might still unwantedly catch you as those factors you find
will be in this area.
Then one will have to do some
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
From: Brian J. Beesley
Sendt: lø 23-11-2002 13:23
This is not a particularly effective cheat; you still end up having to
do
significantly more than half of the computational work. Is there any
evidence
that this may be happening?
No, and I am not the
Which remind me, to avoid the cheat possible, the award for finding a
factor should be set somehow bigger than only the nearest 6x bits.
Give
a factor something like the full value of TFing it to 66 bit!
IMHO the TF with a factor found should be equal to an LL; but I have
already discussed
These days you get an assignment say 21.1xx.xxx and it will give you
approximately 0.057 P90/y.
Team_prime_rib has a calculator for the exact value you will get for any
number you TrialFactor and what you get if you really find a factor.
Visit www.teamprimerib.com to get the p90.exe program.
Which
_
Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
That's not what Nathan meant, and it would have the opposite effect of
what
Torban wants, which is to guarantee that he never LLs an exponent which
has
not had a full factorisation effort.
Your are truly right, Daran.
But my name is Torben. And not Torban. Torben means the the bones of the
Anyone receiving a TF task could edit the worktodo.ini from
Factor=20.abc.def,59
to
Factor=20.abc.def,65
He would receive approx. twice the credit the effort is worth.
Ofcourse nobody would do this, as we are all volunteers! Or could
somebody some day be tempted to raise his rank using this
1800 180921 333
1810 181920 347
1820 182922 364 2
1830 1839
Refer to the PrimeNet statistics charts
http://mersenne.org/ips/stats.html for more information.
ends somehow interrupted.
br tsc
After deleting the internet cache and doing it again 12:15 (local time)
the result stay the same.
br tsc
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Untermeyer, Gary
Sendt: on 18-09-2002 22:28
Til: Torben Schlüntz
Cc:
Emne: RE: Mersenne:
I lost a TF
I know my machine Torbenskværn was ready to report the TF of
M19.875.7* today.
It now has started M19.917.917.
It never wrote the prime.log and it never was credited upon my account,
and I don't have prime.spl for that result.
What happened?
Don't tell me the æ matters. I have
Tnx, George (and probably numerious people activated on this error
29).
I've started upgrading and found a very nice CPU report in 22.8. What I
always wanted to know is now right before my eyes: Pentium III, MMX, SSE
etc. Also doc's are very enjoyable reading, 10% better here and 25%
better
What is going on? Yes, it is true I get this error message 29. Then for
a few hours yesterday everything seemed to work well again and a had 2
machines updating results.
Do I have to update to 22.8 when I'm mostly do trial factoring? I would
rather not because I have around 50 machines on
reaction to another mail about this
This happens all the time in different shapes so I would expect some
happy day we found a crosslinked factor.
we will never find a factor who is a factor of Mx and also of My
simply because every factor give only one count with my algoritm and is
factor
of
I have forgiven you long ago! :-) What a temper and black mood. :-(
Yes I suppose we will find others. The list you show is quite short
(12), we know 39 mersennes, have we investigated them all?
br tsc
Given a Mersenne prime exponent, what is the smallest Mersenne number,
composite or prime,
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Torben Schlüntz
Sendt: lø 23-03-2002 02:54
Til: Bruce Leenstra
Cc:
Emne: SV: Mersenne: Factors aren't just factors
Bruce Leenstra wrote:
You'll notice that 'tempvalue ==
M89 is prime! M89 = 618.970.019.642.690.137.449.562.111 with no known
factors.
So it would be lovely if we could rule out any possible Mx if x had
earlier been a factor for any other My. :-) But no.
M11 proves this so nicely: M23 has factors, M89 none.
I've started looking for some factors,
Daran wrote:
Have we sent a newletter since finding M#39?
No, no that I'm aware of.
But we might have raised limit of numbers factorized by several 1000's.
Or the highest number just being handed out by the primenet server has
reasched some limit worthwhile mentioning.
br
tsc
Thanks is a poor word, but anyway thanks to all.
I will move on, though my first idea such like:
2kp+1 is a factor when k is 2^x
is already dead at M37. :-( damned!
I will find another proposal, prove it or disprove it, and continuing
getting new ideas.
It seems to me that this k (in
Why is P-1 factoring not a single schedule task? like the LL and the
Trail Factoring?
Why is P1 factoring hooked upon the LL test?
Why does P1 not have it's own life like the TF and the LL?
I realy hated the P1 until now 21.4 fixed that. And I hated the
CPU-clocks of earlier versions to,
I have downloaded the factor files suggested by GIMPS but it gives no
meaning. How do I read the files *.cmp?
And why is this not documented close to the source of the *.cmp files?
I am also a bit disannoyed about numbers less than M751 that should be
fully factorized seems unavaible, or am I
You could fool the program by telling it to use dial-up connection at
the test/primenet menuitem. Then it will never tell anything until you
again tell it to use you internet connection. Then you have the peace to
change without a new assignment (and a probably p-1 factoring - which
you ofcourse
No you wouldn't because they would like yourself go to do only
factoring work, and as George said to me when I propose this a year ago:
It would make the focus of GIMPS towards factoring and not like it is
now on primenumber finding.
We will (again in
This might run anything; but I'm probably to stupid to manage to set
up anything on it. :-/ Can anyone use this machine as is for any
purpose related offcourse to primechruncing?
If the system has a C compiler, you can certainly run LL tests
using Glucas.
No C compiler; not even
This might run anything; but I'm probably to stupid to manage to set up
anything on it. :-/
Can anyone use this machine as is for any purpose related offcourse to
primechruncing?
br tsc
_
Unsubscribe list info --
Nothing to see here in Denmark. It was cloudy.
br tsc
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Steinar H. Gunderson
Sendt: sø 18-11-2001 21:09
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Emne: Mersenne: Re: [Mersenne] celebrate
On
If - and of any worth - I would accept a database in almost any size at
my network if it could help factoring faster.
And anyway who am I to suggest this:
Account ID LL P90* Exponents Fact.P90 Exponents P90 CPU
CPU yrs LL Tested CPU yrs* w/ Factor hrs/day
Yes I did check all prime.log and all results.txt. I would never have
missed it if it had been mentioned in any of these files. You probably
also did not notice that I have all results I have produced going to a
special file called: Results.all (how creative I am :-) ), and this
process is done
What will we do when anyone finds a number of 10 million+ digits which
is prime?
Will everybody just leave the project because there is no prize to gain
any longer?
After the introduction of search for 10 million digits number this
could leave the project with quite a big hole, say from
It seems like I have had credit for one factor that I never did:
M16871993 with factor: 2224518820603490479
I am the owner of this exponent as it is assigned to me. Yes!
But I didn't work on it.
If you're running v20 then P-1 will be done early - the current test
will break off at the
It seems like I have had credit for one factor that I never did:
M16871993 with factor: 2224518820603490479
I am the owner of this exponent as it is assigned to me. Yes!
But I didn't work on it.
If I did it would have been 3rd in the worktodo.ini, and when it arrived
I hadn't touch that
True. I was a little to fast about that one. The number though looked
promising. :-)
tsc
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Greg Hogan
Sendt: fr 02-11-2001 00:10
Til: Torben Schlüntz
Cc:
Emne: RE: Mersenne: Strange factor arrived though
Ups, by help from Brian Beesley and a little work with the time= I
have it working now.
I think it was my old paranoia from a time when I was not running the
servers alone - I wouldn't let anyone know that a program like prime95
was active. Now I don't care as I have nobody but users to face.
I admit I'm not that good in telling primenet what computers I have and
what throughput rate to expect.
eg.: I made 14 accounts all using the same 150 Mhz machine, though I
knew none or only few would be 150 Mhz. These accounts all run
occassionally, eg. in company holiday around the clock,
Yep! But the time entry only allows the program to sleep (still eating
all CPU cycles even when running at zero priority). Take any NT 4.0 or
W2K machine and you will see the system idle time doesn't add seconds
while Prime95 still eats them (and doing nothing).
For my servers to become
35 matches
Mail list logo
