Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1080
Robert Braunwart wrote: I'm having trouble with one of my computer contacting PrimeNet. It is supposed to connect every day, but hasn't connected for two weeks. I get the Error 29 message. I have looked at the explanation for Error 29 at PrimeNet, but none of the four possibilities apply to me. I am running Prime95 v. 21.4 and have not upgraded in a long time. Also, I have been running Prime95 on this computer for a long time. Any suggestions? Bob... The message forwarding service is still obviously down :-( George was going to ask Scott if he could get Entropia to restart the service again... about a week ago... It still hasn't been apparently... since a number of clients I have, haven't been able to contact the server since June 27th... Hopefully, the service can be restarted in the next two weeks... or there could be a considerable amount of re-assignments of exponents by PrimeNet... The best solution might be upgrading to v22, but again, unfortunately, that may not be possilbe for a number of users, who don't have access to certain clients anymore... In which case, there COULD BE... a significant decrease in computing power to the project :-( Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Old files in my mprime dirs
Daran wrote: Actually the .001 extension would be expected... especially if running MPrime on a dual CPU box... with one instance using the -A1 switch... Using the -A switch will put an extension with the instance after it... No -A switch... no extension... OK. I've never used a Dual CPU Box. Actually... it doesn't matter whether it's a dual CPU box or not... it all depends on the -A switch... You could set up two instances on a single CPU box... and put a Time= line in the prime.ini file(s)... and have one without the -A switch running L-L tests at night... and one with the -A switch running factoring during the day... to reduce memory use... Note: ECM and P-1 use the -A switch for extensions... but the L-L tests and trial-factoring do not... L-L will only add an extension equal to iteration / X (where x is from interimfiles=X in prime.ini)... if interimfiles= is present... However... to complete the P-1s... assuming they were initiated by a L-L test... adding Pfactor=exponent,66 lines to the WORK0001.INI would do it... no ,1 is needed... since it would indicate the P-1 is complete... Not for Pfactor assignments it doesn't. Here's what undoc.txt says [...] I have verified that this is correct. A '1' in the last place causes it to choose DC limits. OK... but if the test were in progress... and not completed... MPrime has already chosen the limits... Restarting it with the DC limits... which might be different... would cause MPrime to restart the P-1 tests from scratch... A factor might be found... but if Chris didn't want to go thru the trouble... he might as well delete the files... since when double-checking gets there... the P-1 will be done... since PrimeNet doesn't know it was even started... One question: If Chris is going to finish them on a different - single CPU machine, would he have to remove the extension? Not if Chris used the -A1 switch to run the tests... but it would be easier to just remove the extension... and not use the -A switch entirely... if using a single CPU box... and only one instance of MPrime... Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Old files in my mprime dirs
Chris Marble wrote: I've been running mprime on Linux for a bit less than 2 years now. I was looking at the directory on one box and found some ancient files: mE013037.001 mF320219.001 mF550789.001 mF614243.001 mF687599.001 These are from a dual CPU box. The leading m suggests they're from factoring but but file sizes are 3.5 to 3.9 MB. These are from P-1 runs... not factoring... The first letter will determine the test... E = ECM... M = P-1... P = Trial-Factoring OR L-L... Trial-factoring files are always 32 bytes... The fact that they are 3.5 to 3.9 MB indicates... that they all are P-1 tests in progress... and not completed... Prime95 (and MPrime) will delete P-1 files automatically if run as part of the L-L test... If they were P-1 tests run by themselves... and completed... they would be from 1.75 to 2 MB... You are correct... however... in assuming that E=14 and F=15... in this case... To check what happened to these exponents and the results... and whether they were reported to PrimeNet... you will have to look at the RESU0001.TXT and PRIM0001.LOG... RESU0001.TXT will give whatever results Prime95/Mprime came up with... and PRIM0001.LOG will tell what results... in any... were reported to PrimeNet... What happened that these files were left around a year ago? If the P-1 was part of an L-L test... there could've been a crash or something... that prevented Prime95/Mprime from completing the tests... and therefore not deleting the files... Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Old files in my mprime dirs
Daran wrote: Chris Marble wrote: What happened that these files were left around a year ago? They shouldn't have an extension, so I'm gessing. Backup and restore? Recovered from a damaged filesystem? My recommendation would be to complete the P-1 as though they were DCs. Just remove the extensions and put Pfactor=exponent,66,1 into your P-1 factory's worktodo file. Actually the .001 extension would be expected... especially if running MPrime on a dual CPU box... with one instance using the -A1 switch... Using the -A switch will put an extension with the instance after it... No -A switch... no extension... However... to complete the P-1s... assuming they were initiated by a L-L test... adding Pfactor=exponent,66 lines to the WORK0001.INI would do it... no ,1 is needed... since it would indicate the P-1 is complete... Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Why is trial factoring of small exponents slower than large ones?
G W Reynolds wrote: I am using mprime 22.12 on a pentium 166 MMX to do trial factoring. For the exponents currently being assigned from primenet it takes this machine about 12 minutes to factor from 2^57 to 2^58. I thought I would try factoring some small exponents (under 1,000,000) from the nofactors.zip file. I put FactorOverride=64 into prime.ini and started mprime as usual but progress is _much_ slower, it will take about 8 hours to factor from 2^57 to 2^58. Can someone tell me why the time difference is so great? The number of potential factors and time required to attempt to trial-factor exponents are inversely proportional to the exponent... and proportional to the bit-depth... All potential factors are in the form 2kp+1... The smaller the p (the exponent)... the more potential factors in any given bit-depth... Basically... If you cut the exponent in 1/2... you will have approximately TWICE as many potential factors to test... and therefore it will also take approx. TWICE the time to trial- factor that exponent... (assuming trial-factoring to the same bit-depth for each exponent)... But... If you increase the bit-depth... you will DOUBLE the number of potential factors to test... for each bit-depth you increase by... (ie: 2x for 2^57 to 2^58... 4x for 2^57 to 2^59... 8x for 2^57 to 2^60)... To keep the approx. same number of potential factors to test... for any given trial-factoring attempt... you could DOUBLE the exponent AND increase the bit-depth by ONE... (ie: go from p=20M to p=40M and factor from 2^57 to 2^58 instead of from 2^56 to 2^57...) FYI... Trial-factoring the range 70M-75M... from 2^60 to 2^62... is taking approx. 1.25 hours/exponent on a P2-266... which is approx. 2x as fast as a P166-MMX... (Thankfully I have more than one machine working on this range :-) ) Eric Hahn P.S. By factoring exponents around 1M instead of 20M... and factoring to 2^64... instead of from 2^57 to 2^58... you are increasing the number of potential factors (and hence the time required)... by an approx. 2048x... That reduces down to instead of 12 MINS from 2^57 to 2^58 at p=20M to 17 DAYS for p=1M from 2^57 to 2^64... :-( _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
P-1 (was Re: Mersenne: Why is trial factoring [....])
Brian Beesley wrote: If you have a reasonable amount of memory on your system I'd reccomend running P-1 on selected exponents just above 1 million - use the pminus1 database file to direct your work. Otherwise ECM on small exponents, or trial factoring on those exponents which have not been done deep enough - there are a considerable number of these in the 6M - 8M exponent range. If anybody is interested in P-1'ing exponents just above 1 Million... I am just finishing the range 1,000,193 - 1,001,089 to the limits B1=10M, B2=1B... and can provide the save files from the exponents in this range... (for deeper testing)... I will note however... that even on a decent machine... an Athlon 1.4GHz... it has taken approx. 5.4 days for each exponent to get to these limits... and will only increase as the limits do... Since... IMHO... the odds of finding a factor using P-1 on these exponents... even increasing to the limits of Prime95... (4.29B)... is low... I am going to start attempting to ECM these exponents to a depth of 30 digits... (B1=250K, B2=25M)... If unsuccessful on the ECM to 30 digits... than I will just stick to the 3 main other tasks/ranges I am already working on Eric Hahn _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: ECM
Not knowing a whole lot about ECM... I thought I'd ask this question... and maybe put out a new topic to discuss... ;-) Let's say you've done 700 curves with B1=25,000 to find a factor up to 30-digits... and you've been unsuccessful... :-( Now you've decided to try 1800 curves with B1=1,000,000 to try and find a factor up to 35-digits. Do you have to start from scratch... or can you somehow use the information from attempting to find a factor up to 30-digits... to save some time and energy... and speed up the search process at the same time??? Eric... (finder of over 150,000 factors (and climbing)) _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Poaching -- Discouragement thereof
On Wednesday 22 January 2003 22:50, Richard Woods wrote: Here's what I've just posted in the GIMPS Forum. - - - _IF_ PrimeNet has automatic time limits on assignments, ordinarily requiring no manual intervention to expire assignments or re-assign them, then why would any GIMPS participant, other than a system administrator or a would-be poacher, need to know someone else's: (a) current iteration, (b) days-to-go, (c) days-to-expire, or (d) last date-updated? If there's no non-poaching non-administrating user's need-to-know for those items, then just stop including them in public reports. Include them only in administrative reports and private password-requiring individual reports. That would deny target-selecting information to would-be poachers, right? Sure. So would eliminating the report altogether. I'll add my 2 cents worth to this by saying what difference does it really make how detailed the reports are??? Any report, no matter how detailed, can be used for both good AND bad, just like anything else. When they split the atom, did anybody foresee it being used to drop the bomb??? When they discovered they could transplant organs, did anybody foresee people being murdered for black-market transplants??? My point is, if somebody is going to poach exponents, whether it's sanctioned or not, how detailed the report is, doesn't make a single bit of difference. Here is a very good example, having just looked at the Assigned Exponent Report. There are two exponents below 7 million out being double-checked. If somebody wants to have everything under 7 million checked sooner than later, and they know they can test both exponents in say 5 days, they are going to do it, no matter what. It doesn't matter whether the report looks like: 6715589 D* 64 506675260.9 14.2 74.2 14-Jan-03 22:02 24-Nov-02 20:49 crown bubak 6977699 D* 64 6750207 233.7 -27.2 22.8 17-Dec-02 13:16 05-Jun-02 02:23 guizuzaguizuza OR looks like: 6715589 D* crown bubak 6977699 D* guizuzaguizuza Why?? Because the poacher knows they can do both in 5 days! It doesn't matter whether the current assignee is on iteration 1 or 6715580, or has been assigned the exponent 1 day or 350 days. The poacher is going to do the exponents anyways. Besides that, if there is more than one poacher, they're taking a chance that somebody else hasn't already poached the exponent, and they are checking it for the 5th time. Again, it doesn't matter how detailed the report is. Personally, IMHO, I like to see all the details, just to get a general idea of how things are progressing. Maybe it's because it's math, math is all about numbers, and I like numbers. (you know, the more details, the more numbers there are!) If anything was changed in the reports, I would say I would like to see the reports accurately report factoring depth, but even George's files don't do that (because of the .5 adjustment used for P-1). If a exponent says it's been tested to 2^68, how do you know it's 2^68, or whether it's 2^67, with P-1 having been done as well??? But that is so minor of a thing, it's only a glancing thought. OK... I'll shut up now... and get back to more mersenne testing... Eric Hahn _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Poaching and related issues...
At 09:50 AM 1/25/03 -0600, Shane Sanford wrote: Increasing the difficulty for a poacher to _find_ a tempting target would mean other participants could be less concerned about making themselves into such a target, and just concentrate on doing the work they considered most suitable within the rules. If the rules you are referring to include the possible new guidelines George proposes (which in a nut shell goes something like this -- snips taken from a couple of posts on the forum by George) Consensus seems to be building around a sliding scale. It's 2 to 3 months for the smallest double-checks and first-time tests (to avoid holding up milestones), 6 months for recycled exponents, 12 months for an exponent at the leading edge. 2+ years for a 33M exponent. Give or take. A leading edge first time test today is unlikely to hold up a milestone for maybe 2 years. I'm not advocating yanking a reservation just because you've had it one year. I think we are proposing reassignment if you take more than a year and some other criteria is met such as: a) You aren't making significant progress. b) You are holding up a milestone. c) Require the user to fill out a web form saying I'm still working on it Even these guidelines though... are NOT going to stop any poacher intent on doing such, to complete a small exponent so a milestone can be reached... OR for any other reason... I whole heartily believe the best way to eliminate poaching is to minimize the reasons there are poachers to begin with rather than trying to make it more difficult to do. Even masking the exponents has a big loop hole in that it would take years to become effective even if implemented today. All that has to be done is to save a copy of status.txt today and you know a very very big chunk of the exponents that will fall in the trailing edge of the assignment list of many many years. After that it's a trivial matter of elimination to deduce which is which when masked. IMHO, NO system whatsoever, will be able to prevent a poacher intent on doing such. ANY system that is used, is going to have a flaw or loophole of some kind. We could eliminate the status reports completely, and only assign exponents blindly, but even that won't work. The only thing it would do is make a whole lot more work for some individual, which would most likely be George. Even this possible new system for the server assignments is flawed. Let's say a maximum time limit is set and reached. The exponent is expired and is re-assigned. How do we know that exponent won't be expired time and time again??? The answer is, that we don't, and any poacher intent on doing such, knows that too, and is going to poach the exponent... NO IFS, ANDS or BUTS... ANY system... and I mean ANY system is not going to prevent poaching from happening. Did prohibition stop the sell and consumption of alcohol??? It reminds me of the saying When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns! Any person determined to poach, is going to find a way to do such, no matter what system is used to prevent it! The best solution is probably strong discouragement of the practice of poaching. eminding EVERYBODY that not only is poaching NOT sanctioned, but that the time spent poaching is wasted, and could have been used to further the project otherwise. Also note that the poacher themselves are risking being poached themselves, and that even more time is wasted as the exponent is tested for the 5th time, when just a 2nd test would have been sufficient. Using the example from my previous post, 2 exponents taking 5 days to test, and being tested 5 times instead of 2, is wasting 15 days worth of times that could have been used to complete 6 additional trailing-edge tests, or maybe 2 additional leading-edge tests. Maybe not so significant is the grand scheme of the project overall, but maybe as far as reaching certain milestones, it is. Sort of makes you wonder, just what milestone the project would be on, if NO POACHING was occurring. Maybe all exponents under 8 million could have been tested by now, instead of just under 7 million. OK... I'll shut up again... and go back to my own work... (some of which I might add is FAR OUTSIDE of Primenet ranges, but HAS STILL BEEN POACHED on occassion!)... Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: Primenet Summary Report
Has anybody else had trouble with the PrimeNet Summary Report (SUMMARY.TXT) at: http://mersenne.org/primenet/summary.txt (or even in the World Test Status)??? No matter when... every time I try to view it... it is never complete... It usually is terminated at approx. the 19M mark... None of the other pages or reports have any problem... just that particular one... Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: Range of 41,564,021 - 42,521,373
I am posting this message to both this list and the LoneMersenneHunters group on Yahoo... As of this date... I have told by 6 people... that they would like to do work in this range... (that I had previously stated I was testing)... and have started doing work... some of which is being duplicated... :-( If you would REALLY like to work in this range... if only hoping to discover what MIGHT be a mersenne prime... please contact me... and let me know what you are doing... (and any results)... so that work is NOT being duplicated unnecessarily... Even on a Athlon running at 1333MHz... it takes a full week to trial-factor to 2^69... if no factor is found... several days for P-1... and at least 8 mos. to LL-Test... I DO NOT have any problems with people wanting to do work in this range... but please note... there is NO GUARANTEE that a mersenne prime exists in this range... and I assume NO LIABILITY if there is NOT!!! But please... let's work together... and cooperate... and NOT DUPLICATE WORK THANK YOU SO MUCH!!! Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: ECM
OK... I think I know the answer to this... but want to double-check to be sure... While doing factoring... using ECM... factors up to: 15 digits is the equivalent of ~2^50... 20 digits is the equivalent of ~2^67... 25 digits is the equivalent of ~2^83... 30 digits is the equivalent of ~2^100... If trial-factoring has been done up to 2^68... is it possible to skip testing ECM curves for factors up to 15 and/or 20 digits... and go straight to testing ECM curves for digits up to 25 digits??? Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Fwd: Predicting Mersenne Primes
H I'm not going to say a SINGLE WORD!!! Especially considering it appeared NOBODY had ever noticed that post... As Enron executives have been saying... I would like to reserve my right to remain silent under the 5th amendment... Eric == ORIGINAL MESSSAGE == George Woltman wrote: I'll forward your attempted post. I don't remember Eric's prediction, but if true it is quite insightful (or lucky). From: Dale Horn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Predicting Mersenne Primes I tried to post this on the Mersenne mailing list at [EMAIL PROTECTED], but it never showed up. I was wondering if is was possible to predict where a Mersenne Prime will be? I ask because I was looking at the mersenne.org website and noticed that it states that on December 6, 2001, the 39th known Mersenne Prime was found. It was listed as 2^13466917-1. I was also looking through some of the past digests from the list and noticed that an Eric Hahn posted a message on July 30, 2000, stating that one of the ranges a Mersenne Prime should be found was between 2^13430227-1 and 2^13501387. _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: 39th Mersenne Prime
danny fleming [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To Whom It May Concern: I have devised a method of easily figuring out approximately how many prime numbers are before a given prime. Here it is: since the natural logarithm of a number increases +2.3 for every power of 10, the 39th Mersenne Prime, since it contains 4,053,946 digits, is the 4,053,945*2.3= 9,324,074th prime number. Even more sophisticated methods can come even closer, it might make it easier to find unknown primes. Sincerely yours, Danny Karl Fleming Hm interesting math!! According to the info I have available... the 9,324,074th prime number would be somewhere around 166,800,000... which places it between 2^27 and 2^28... Last I heard the 39th Mersenne Prime was 2^13,466,917-1... a far cry from 2^28 Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: Hyper-threading
Found this article on News.com about the new Pentium 4's coming out next year... code-named Prescott. It mentions a speed of 4GHz... and the use of hyper-threading... Hyper-threading is supposed to allow two applications or application threads to run on one processor at the same time... by allowing one application (or thread) to use parts of the processor it needs... and the second application (or thread) to use others... Esentially this could speed up testing even more... by having one thread of Prime95 use the FPU... while another uses the IAU... The article also mentions AMD's Clawhammer due out the end of this year... able to run 64-bit applications... This could significantly reduce the number of adds/multiplies required for testing _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: Re: MERSENNE: Factoring Failure?
Steve Harris wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 3:44 PM Subject: Re: FW: Mersenne: Re: Factoring Failure? snip Either way, GIMPS has never considered missing a factor as a big deal. It only means some wasted effort running a LL test that could have been avoided. True enough - though I'm concerned that the no factors below 2^N database may be seriously flawed, from the point of view of GIMPS it would seem to be a waste of time to go round redoing trial factoring just to fix this problem. Yes, from the point of view of GIMPS (that is, searching for Mersenne primes) it's not a huge deal... but there also exists an effort to fully factor the candidates that are not prime, and this throws a big problem into that project. Someone could be trial factoring an exponent from 2^59 to 2^65 and find a factor in that range after a smaller factor had been missed, and it will go into the database as the smallest factor when it actually is not. Might be decades before the smaller factor is discovered. Actually... IIRC... George noted once that the database of smallest KNOWN factors was just that... and did NOT necessarily mean that it contained the smallest factors of any given exponent... There was a bug in a previous version (v19??) which caused Prime95 to not continue trial-factoring to find a smaller factor after one had been found and it had been stopped (or went to sleep)... There was also the advent of P-1 factoring which does not necessarily find the smallest factor, but instead finds factors comprised of lots of small factors, and can therefore miss smaller factors which does not have lots of small factors... In this case... the database would not necessarily have the smallest factor for every exponent with a factor found... but instead the smallest KNOWN factor... which is not necessarily the smallest factor for that exponent... Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: M727 factored!
George Woltman wrote: M727, the smallest Mersenne number with no known factor, is done. (It was clearly out of reach of ecm.) --- Start of forwarded message --- From: Peter-Lawrence.Montgomery Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 03:26:19 GMT C(2,727-) * c219 = prp98.prp128.SNFSDodson/AKL/CWI * Penultimate prime champion * Runner-up for SNFS difficulty 17606291711815434037934881872331611670777491166445300472749449436575622328 171096762265466521858927 40099499726183758517891939428601665707063794593443940689888526556802581529 262728143398959743444150539520890742947533452401 --- End of forwarded message --- This result does not surprise ME in the least... Anybody on the list that saw my post back in July of last year... knows that from the statistcal anaylsis that was done at that time... I posted the following for M727: M727 - 94.3716% probability - 2 factors M727 - 52.8693% probability - 3 factors M727 - 6.0014% probability - 4+ factors M727 - 91.1834% probability - 313-bit min. factor size M727 - 93.0447% probability - 428-bit max. factor size M727 - 21.7336% probability - highly composite factors Now we know that M727 has 2 factors... and the factors are 326 and 426 bits in length, respectively... Preliminary testing also shows that ( factor - 1 ) is NOT highly composite (having many, many factors)... Would anybody care to verify the data I posted back then for M751 M751 - 83.8467% probability - 2 factors M751 - 74.2974% probability - 3 factors M751 - 19.5801% probability - 4+ factors M751 - 87.2999% probability - 281-bit min. factor size M751 - 81.0003% probability - 526-bit max. factor size M751 - 30.1716% probability - highly composite factors Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Factoring on a P4
Bradford J. Brown wrote: For some reason, I am at a loss to explain, a v21 P4 1.4 GHz factors significantely slower that a P3 v20 700MHz. Is there a reason, and solution, for this? Hmmm... Good question... AFAIK, the only change George has or is going to make in the factoring code since v19... is to change the Athlon over to use the P2/P3 code path... instead of the 486 code path... Doing such will allow Athlons to trial-factor 2.5-3x faster... There really isn't a whole lot more speed increase that can be gained from the factoring code as a whole, AFAIK... You will also notice a BIG speed decrease with trial-factoring on ANY machine as you move from factoring up to 2^62... to factoring up to 2^64... to factoring above 2^64... This is expected with the extra instructions necessary to handle the larger trial-factor sizes... Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: Prime95 - V21.1.1 aka v21a
Hi All, I downloaded and ran the new v21a and did some timings on several different machines and compared them to timings done on v19 and v20... I ran the timings on each version for 100 screen outputs at 100 iterations per screen output... for a total of 1 iterations... and then averaged the iteration times... I used the same exponent on all versions and machines... (an exponent I am primality testing that is just shy of 11,400,000) What I can up with was these results... V19V20V21 - - - PII at 266Mhz 0.579 0.578 0.586 Celeron 1 at 466Mhz 0.605 0.604 0.615 Celeron 2 at 550Mhz 0.289 0.288 0.223 P3 at 733Mhz 0.239 0.238 0.188 Athlon at 1333Mhz 0.100 0.098 0.077 Admittedly, while the 466Mhz Celeron 1 has almost double what the iteration time was expected to be... (for some yet unknown reason -- Prime95 is getting 98.9% of the CPU time)... the % increase/decrease is still evident Note also that the Athlon *did* have a performance increase on par with the Celeron 2 and P3 machines Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: Missing Exponents ?!?!?
Did anybody else notice that the exponents in the range between 33,250,000 and 33,300,000 aren't being offered up by the PrimeNet server ?!?!?That a whole 1328 exponents that doesn't even seem to be available for tssting The assigned exponents report shows the assignments jumping from 33,249,991 to 33,300,011... Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: Companies form Distributed Computing Alliance
Hewlett-Packard, Compaq Computer and SGI have joined with distributed computing software seller Platform Computing and a host of other companies to standardize the way computers are harnessed into distributed computing collections Full story at: http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-3586486.html Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.exu.ilstu.edu/mersenne/faq-mers.txt
Re: Mersenne: P-1 Credit
Terry S. Arnold wrote: Does anyone have any skinny on when we will start getting credit for 1. doing P-1 testing? 2. finding a factor during P-1 testing? AFAIK, from what George has said, credit will eventually be given after BOTH v21 comes out, and the Scott has time to do some modifications to the PrimeNet server... Time Frame? ...??... Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.exu.ilstu.edu/mersenne/faq-mers.txt
Re: Mersenne: CPU Time Credit Calculation
Marc Getty wrote: How does the CPU time contributed get calculated? I would assume that there is a standard credit for each FFT size, but I can't find what that credit is anywhere on mersenne.org. Actually, the formula isn't based on FFT size. To get a good estimate of how much time you'll get credited for any given exponent, you'll need to multiply the exponent minus 1 by the average time it takes to do each iteration. Then multiply by the number of times faster the PC is than a P-90. Finally the % of a year you get is the approx. amount of time credited. For example: On the exponent 5,593,943... Multiply 5,593,942 by .275 to get 1,538,334 seconds. Multiply 1,538,334 by 3.5 (for a PII-266) to get 5,384,169 secs. 5,384,169 seconds is 17.073% of a year... So you'll get approx 0.171 P-90 years credit I doubt that anyone out there is using more then a 1792 K FFT. Well There are actually a few of us brave souls out there who are QA'ing exponents in FFT sizes all the way up to 4096K!! Based on my estimates, the exponent I'm QA'ing will provide me with ~36.348 P-90 years of credit when completed. Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.exu.ilstu.edu/mersenne/faq-mers.txt
Re: Mersenne: Re: Top Producers
Gordon Spence wrote:
I went to check my account just on the entropia web-sites
individual accounts report page. The default userid is challenge,
I just hit enter without thinking and this is the report
[...SNIP...]
Can somebody, anybody, please explain how 1 cpu @ 500 and 1 @448 can
possibly equal 6194 hours per day
Likely from the fact that around the first of February, all of
the old, defunct ("dead") accounts without activity for a year
or so were merged into the 'Challenge' account. A message was
posted on the list regarding the action from Scott), with the
"Hopefully nobody will mind" message. There were no protests
as far as I recall...
In fact, here's the message (which I just found!):
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: "Scott Kurowski" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Mersenne: PrimeNet Top Producers List
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 23:40:57 -0800
Hi all,
Following the database synchro we performed on PrimeNet yesterday,
we cleaned up some of the 'dead' user accounts over a year old.
The cumulative machine times were added to the Entropia.com, Inc.
'challenge' account, the first one opened on PrimeNet in April
1997. Hopefully nobody will mind our reclaiming the fragmented
time. :-)
regards,
scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.exu.ilstu.edu/mersenne/faq-mers.txt
Re: Mersenne: Re: Top Producers
Just an additional note to my last message... Here's what I found from a couple of top producers reports around the time: Top Producers Report 22 Jan 2000 05:01 (Jan 21 2000 9:01PM Pacific) 86. challenge 36.031469 1.579106323.64 Top Producers Report 19 Feb 2000 02:01 (Feb 18 2000 6:01PM Pacific) 1. challenge 744.487626 125.040 3848 7282.07 And currently: Top Producers Report 22 Aug 2000 22:01 (Aug 22 2000 3:01PM Pacific) 3. challenge 745.440 7630 125.040 3848 6189.45 Notice how much the CPU hrs/day has fallen since... Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.exu.ilstu.edu/mersenne/faq-mers.txt
Mersenne: Rambus Memory
Intel benchmarks show little advantage to Rambus! A new series of benchmarks have emerged that show Rambus memory provides less oomph than cheaper, standard high-speed memory. And the odd part is that the tests come from Intel, the major proponent of Rambus. In benchmark tests conducted by Intel, computers equipped with standard high-speed memory and Intel's 815 chipset outperformed similarly configured PCs with Rambus memory and the corresponding 820 chipset from the company. Full story at: http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-2242968.html [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Direct RDRAM HOLY WAREveryone knows (rather, should know) that RDRAM memory provides a minor speed boost compared to SDRAM, and the much higher cost of RDRAM is completely unjustified. I've heard that Dell is switching back to SDRAM in its computers now, which is a Good Thing(TM)./HOLY WAR _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.exu.ilstu.edu/mersenne/faq-mers.txt
Mersenne: And the winner is....
RE: Statistical Analysis of Prime Exponent Mersennes After much private debate, I'm providing the following I have inquired and received information about. Please, don't flame me or ask me to explain further, as I'm only the messenger and don't have all the answers myself... Q: Can all the data be posted to the list? A: HA! Not likely. The current size of 1.43TB of "raw" data which must be "interpreted" (taking 25+ times the space) is too large. I don't know about others, but I don't have the 20+ years to download the data over a 56K modem if posted to the list... Q: What algorithms are used? A: 'A variety of standard algorithms and methodologies used in traditional and non-traditional statistical analyses. Used in large number of complex, unique and even 'unusual' relations.' Q: Is the code and/or program available? A: 'No. Major chunks of code are proprietary, licensed, patented [or pending] or 'otherwise' restricted from distribution. Typical PC unable to run; Lack of memory or storage.' Q: Can you provide data on M727, M751, M#39, M#40, M*10M-digit? A: 'Here is info.' ACTUAL (REAL-LIFE INTERPRETED) DATA: M727 - 94.3716% probability - 2 factors M727 - 52.8693% probability - 3 factors M727 - 6.0014% probability - 4+ factors M727 - 91.1834% probability - 313-bit min. factor size M727 - 93.0447% probability - 428-bit max. factor size M727 - 21.7336% probability - highly composite factors M751 - 83.8467% probability - 2 factors M751 - 74.2974% probability - 3 factors M751 - 19.5801% probability - 4+ factors M751 - 87.2999% probability - 281-bit min. factor size M751 - 81.0003% probability - 526-bit max. factor size M751 - 30.1716% probability - highly composite factors M#39 - 53.7390% probability - range=10987349-11013853 M#39 - 64.0127% probability - range=10914203-11092621 M#39 - 81.6073% probability - range=10793527-11204183 M#39 - 97.3391% probability - range=10526447-11390453 M#40 - 61.4726% probability - range=13430227-13501387 M#40 - 77.3902% probability - range=13359163-13592549 M#40 - 86.0715% probability - range=13231913-13684399 M#40 - 96.5507% probability - range=13092361-13973117 M#43 - 58.3097% probability - range=41976841-42057331 M#43 - 71.6352% probability - range=41901683-42138559 M#43 - 79.7464% probability - range=41753977-42302809 M#43 - 93.4218% probability - range=41564021-42516373 NOTE: Highly composite means 6 or more factors of the factor - 1... Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.exu.ilstu.edu/mersenne/faq-mers.txt
Mersenne: Better late then never?
Hi! All, I apologize if some of the following message are a little late, but I've been "out of commission" recently. At least they're better late than never Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.exu.ilstu.edu/mersenne/faq-mers.txt
Re: Mersenne: Credit for factors found using P-1 tests
Terry S. Arnold wrote: I don't appear to have gotten credit for a factor found with P-1. What is the procedure for getting credit for a factor found during P-1 testing as part of Double checking? Currently, PrimeNet does not provide credit for P-1 factoring. As I recall, George has said v21 will support it, but there will have to be some modifications to the server to allow the crediting to occur... Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.exu.ilstu.edu/mersenne/faq-mers.txt
Mersenne: P-1 Database
Wanted: Brave Souls Re: P-1 Testing small exponents Besides exponents in the 200,000 - 500,000 range that are available, new ranges in the 751 - 100,000 are now available! Note, however, the smallest exponents have been tested to some degree already. As a result, they will take a good degree of time to test. Some save files are available though! If you're interested in P-1 testing some small exponents, let me know. For exponents under 30,000, bounds of at least B1 = 1E8 (100M) and B2 = 4E12 (4B) are requested... Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.exu.ilstu.edu/mersenne/faq-mers.txt
Re: Mersenne: Exponents Already Factored To 64 Bits
Stefan Struiker wrote: I noticed several factoring assignments, in the M13.4 mill range, where factoring was taken to only 64 bits, but not to 65, as would be done on a "fresh" candidate. Are these die-hards from the early daze when machines were wicked slower? Or is there another explanation? Could be that they're using v18... v19 changed the factoring depth limits. Previously, Prime95 would factor to 64-bits up to 20.4 million range. Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: P-1 Database
Hello! All, I've updated the P-1 database again, adding two new lists. There are now four lists available: 1) The entire database (includes *all* tested exponents) 2) Tested prime exponents with no known factors 3) Tested prime exponents with at least one known factor 4) Tested composite exponents NOTE: Exponents with a factor found by P-1 are not listed if I don't know the bounds used for them. In addition, the exponent range between 200,000 - 500,000 is now available for reservations for further (deeper) testing... May the search be with you... Eric P-1 Database: http://mersenne.wackye.com http://www.mcn.org/2/ehahn/mersenne/ _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Factoring Assignments: Are They Always First-Time?
Jeff Woods wrote: being found. Currently, all exponents thru Prime95's limit of 79.3M have been factored to at least 2^50... If a factor is found for an exponent, it's eliminated from further testing of any kind. Isn't the factor itself verified? Yes, it is. However, at least in the case of Prime95, George has written the code such that the factor is validated before it's even displayed as a being a factor and written to the results file. If it's invalid, the code continues as if the "factor" was never found... Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Desperately Seeking Faster Iron
Stefan Struiker wrote: With first-time L-L checking sliding toward a lunar month on an "old" 1GHz Athlon, we wonder how the Willamette and Itanium might further The Cause. Anyone have guessimates on the numbers for these two, say at 1GHz? I'd guessimate about 17.5-18 days for an exponent around 10,000,000, for the first Willamette(s) which is supposed to debut at 1.4GHz... Then again, according to my calcs, a 1GHz Athlon should finish the same exponent in about 17.5-18 days... Go figure! Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: Common practice for P-1 math?
Greetings all, I was wondering if it was common practice (ie: the norm) for P-1 to take the product of two or more factors when giving out a found factor, if two of more factors are found? To clarify, I was curious about how P-1 would indicate more than one factor being found. So, I took M113 and fed it into Prime95 with the bounds of B1=200, B2=2. Prime95 notified me that P-1 had found a factor in Stage #1, and that the factor was 9734174361238150513. This factors out to 3391 * 23279 * 65993 * 1868569, all of which are known factors of M113. Again, is this the norm for P-1? Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Account inconsistency
Nathan Russell wrote: Can anyone explain this inconsistency in what the server believes the MSRC account has done? I have a hunch, but it could be wrong. If a double-checker found one of your results wrong, you would have lost credit for that exponent. However, the report might still list it, since it should by all means count towards your total number of exponents *processed*. Actually, I suspect it's that results have been turned in, and that the account report was "grabbed", since the last top producers report update. The server hasn't updated it since 07 Jun 2000 19:01 (Jun 7 2000 12:01PM Pacific) I've experienced similar situations in the past when the server doesn't update a report every hour as expected, and the report remains unchanged for a day or two as a result... BTW, the server not updating a report every hour has been happening quite frequently lately... :( Eric P.S. The partial top producer lists don't update even if the full length report does. But I believe it's because the screwy nature of the full length report. If you want to see what I meen, take a look at the full length top producers list. It begins like... Mersenne PrimeNet Server 4.0 (Build 4.0.031) Top Producers Report 08 Jun 2000 22:01 (Jun 8 2000 3:01PM Pacific) This report is updated every 60 minutes RankAccount IDLL P90* Exponents Fact.P90 Exponents P90 CPU CPU yrs LL Tested CPU yrs* w/ Factor hrs/day -- --- - - . curtisc3175 8 . challenge 7630 3848 . SW 380737 . TempleU-CAS272934 . vidmar 174420 [...rest of list...] _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Entropia Servers
Levi Broderick wrote: Yeah.. I kinda also noticed that the entropia.com servers have been wacky today. Something strange, though -- I was playing around with URL's and this can get you your account information: http://www.mersenne.org/cgi-bin/primenet_report.pl?UserID=*HIDDEN*UserPW=* HIDDEN* (http://mersenne.org/ips/accounts.html) Ah! So it appears that the transition of the cgi(s) from Entropia.com to Mersenne.org have finally been made I had understand this would eventually happen. Kinda surprised that this info was up on the mersenne server; I always thought it and the entropia servers were located separately. Oh well, for those of you who wanted to check your account info, here's at least a temporary solution. :) As I recall, George had posted something several months ago about entropia.com hosting the GIMPS domain (mersenne.org) from that point on. I also remember something about a transition of the PrimeNet server from the Entropia to the Mersenne domain. As of 2 or 3 weeks ago, everything had seemed to be moved over expect the cgi(s). (As of last Friday, the URL(s) requiring cgi (including the one above) did not work if they pointed to mersenne.org) From what it appears you must now have mersenne.org instead of entropia.com in *any* URLs that point to the PrimeNet server for complete access. Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Manual Testing Forms Still Broken
Stefan Struiker wrote: To All: In the server transition, the Manual Testing Forms still seem to be broken. Can't UNreserve exponents, for example. Hmmm The manual tests page does appear to post to entropia.com by default. :( One hack around this (until the page is changed) is to save the file to disk, load it into a text editor, find the lines that start with: form action="http://entropia.com/cgi-bin/ change these lines to: form action="http://mersenne.org/cgi-bin/ Save the file back to disk. Afterwards, load the file back into your browser *from disk*, and fill in the appropriate manual test boxes. Clicking on the "submit" buttons should then perform the task desired correctly. NOTE: Once saved and changed on disk, you don't have to redo the procedure all over again. You can instead just load the previously saved file on disk! On a side not, the thing that bothers me most about the whole thing though, is that no warning came of the time/date the switch would be made, leaving people completely in the dark. You only got a "Page Not Found" error when you attempted to get your info. As I recall, something was said about a warning being issued first the next time something like that was going to happen... Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: Online P-1 Database
Greetings all, I've made a few modifications to the P-1 database webpages. In addition, I'm providing a new address for it, since some people have been having trouble accessing it. For those who would like a short address: http://mersenne.wackye.com For those who've been having trouble, the long address: http://www.mcn.org/2/ehahn/mersenne/mersenne.html Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: M#39, M#40, M727, M751, et al.
Greetings all, I need some ideas, suggestions, comments, recommendations, etc., either in private or on the list (for discussion purposes only, so as not to overload the list). I've received information back on some statistical data after a long, grueling analysis of Mersenne data. There is tons upon tons of data from this anaylsis, much more than I could ever possibly handle, more or less receive (at least 100 DVDs worth of data -- compressed!) Here's what I'm looking for: 1) Should I post a *tiny* fragment of this information? 2) What information should I post, if I do? 3) Would it be beneficial to the overall effort? 4) Would it divert resources that could be used better otherwise? 5) Could it cause problems with regard to that "p" hunting term? 6) Anything else?? Eric Hahn P.S. I deeply thank Sarah Wright and Mark Burke for their contribution of time, effort, and resources, as well as their continued effort in this endeavor... Without them, this and further analysis would not be possible!! _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: P-1 Database is online!
Greetings all, The first iteration of the P-1 Factoring database is now online! It still has some work to be done, including (but not limited to) collecting, sorting through, and merging a lot of information for exponents 1,000,000, and separating the list into two (one for exponents without any known factors, one for exponents with at least one known factor). The address to find it at is: http://mersenne.wackye.com Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: $7 Million in prizes
Hi! This is a little off-topic (not completely tho), and thought that I few of you might be interested in this... The Clay Mathematics Institute is offering $7 Million in prize money to anybody who can provide solutions to any of their 7 Millenium Prize problems ($1 Million for each problem). The problems are considered to be the hardest and greatest unresolved mathematical problems of the 20th century. They include: P versus NP The Hodge Conjecture The Poincaré Conjecture The Riemann Hypothesis* Yang-Mills Existence and Mass Gap Navier-Stokes Existence and Smoothness The Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer Conjecture *This one deals with prime numbers and is on-topic... You can find out more at their website: http://www.claymath.org Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: Mersenne P-1 Database
Calling all P-1 factorers, I'm in the process of creating a database of P-1 factoring data for all Mersenne numbers. I have not found any other database for this information available on the 'net. There is some data kept by Will that's available, but it only goes to M(169,991)... I am collecting data for unfactored Mersennes presently, but this may expand -- depending on size of the database -- to include all Mersenne numbers not completely factored... If you're interested in seeing this database get started, and of making use of it, please send me your data. I need the exponent, B1 bound, and B2 bound. You can send the a results file if that's the easiest... Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: The recent popularity of Single-Checking
Nathan Russell wrote: There is a user, "sd70045", who has almost 100 single-checking assignments out on a single machine ID. These would take a state-of-the-art box well over two years to finish. Additionally, these assignments have almost identical figures for time to complete etc. The first exponent in this group is 8936071; the others are directly below it. I examined this, and found out that there is actually 197 assignments checked out to this individual (188 to the same machine ID (7 dbl-chks, 5 factoring, 176 L-L tests)). By my estimates, this single machine ID has 5 yrs worth of work for even the faster state-of-the-art PC. While they have various run times, they all have 16 days to go and 16 days until expiration... They all were also updated on the same date and time (10-Feb-00 17:55). None appear to have had any work performed on them at all!! While I normally might think this might be a person switching over to use PrimeNet from previously not using it, and possibly using a large cluster (using the same ID for the entire cluster), there are a few indications this isn't the case. First, their ranking on PrimeNet is 8112 and 2323 for primality testing and factoring respectively, and their P-90 CPU hrs/day at 13.79. Second, their ranking on George's list is 6800 (with only one additional exponent tested above PrimeNet's count). Finally, they have 6 other machines that actually appear to be performing some kind of work. In any case, these exponents will expire in 16 days. As a result, I'm not concerned about it. Within 3 weeks they'll be re-circulated among other users. The only thing that would cause concern, is if the user intentionally updates these exponents in the next two weeks... Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Milestones?
Nathan Russell wrote: From: Jeff Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Mersenne: Milestones? Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 12:37:31 -0400 We still have a handful of exponents to go. I was looking at the server's assignments out pages. I guess the assignments in question must be non-PrimeNet. There are some lower exponents not assigned to PrimeNet, due to some people who are still using *old* versions of the program. Based on the figures I have available, there should be 12 exponents left to finish testing (if they haven't been finished already) not assigned to PrimeNet to prove both prime. We'll find out for sure when George updates his database... The official location for these milestones is: http://www.mersenne.org/status.htm I am aware of that, but IIRC these are updated only every few days. George has been updating the page once a week, usually on Wednesday; sometimes on Thursday... Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Milestones?
Let me rephrase something from my last message: There should be 12 non-Primenet exponents left to finish testing (if they aren't already) to prove both M(2976221) and M(3021377) are the 36th and 37th Mersenne primes, respectively... Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: Re: Problems with Iteration Time Prime 95
David Hoyle wrote: I am running v19.2.1 on a P3/500 and can achieve 0.34 second iteration time with Prime running alone. However, because of our dodgy electricity supply out here in the country, I have to run the m/c with an APC UPS which has Powerchute 5.0.1 installed to achieve graceful shutdown if there is a protracted power failure. Even despite setting Prime95 to priority 9, a program in the UPS suite - ICONCLNT.EXE - takes 78% to Prime's 17% of the cycles according to Wintop98. Before getting in touch with the manufacturer of the UPS system, who is not going to see his program as malfunctioning, I thought I would check if anyone else in the GIMPS programme has had a similar problem and found a way round it. The only things taking any signficant resources for the vast proportion of the time are Prime 95 and the UPS to ensure the power supply integrity is guaranteed. I hope this is not a Catch 22 situation. David, Good news!! I ran across the same problem when I first installed my UPS several years ago. I *did* call APC and was told that ICONCLNT.EXE only manages the icon in the system tray (that's the *ONLY* thing it does!!). It you can live without it (ie: not having the power status of the UPS always displaying in the system tray), you can get rid of it. It will *not* affect the reliability of the UPS in any way. The system tray icon is a visual indicator for the user. The UPS makes noise when the status changes, so there isn't any real need for it. In Windows 98, go into System Information tool (located under Programs | Accessories | System Tools. Select the Tools menu and then System Configuration Utility. Click on the Startup tab. Find ICONCLNT.EXE in the list, and remove the check in the box. Click OK, exit the program, and restart Windows. BAM!! No more system tray icon, Prime95 can get the CPU's time, and the UPS is running fine!! Eric Hahn _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Java/javascript anyone?
George Woltman wrote: In my new benchmarking page I'd like to create a form that takes CPU type, CPU speed, and exponent and returns the estimated number of days to complete the exponent. I hope this will help newcomers understand how much effort is required before joining GIMPS. Can this be done in Javascript (both MSIE and Netscape)? Can it be done on the client side (i.e without a "Submit" button and CGI)? If so, would someone care to volunteer to write the necessary script using three or four lines from the http://www.mersenne.org/bench.htm table and I'll fill in the rest? George, I've come up with a dynamic javascript form for the purpose. It needs a little more work to be done. I'm converting the numerous 'if' statements into an array lookup, and making it calculate out more than just days... I should have it fixed up within two or three days I'll send it to you when it's finished to your opinion at that time! Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Re: Facelift (round 2)
Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 18, 2000 at 02:32:01PM -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
actually, I believe its done with client side JavaScript.
Anyways, it doesn't work in NS, and NS _invented_ JS ;-)
That's because the way MS wrote the JS...
MS has a variable for the drop-down toolbar menu that's
initialized as false. They then check to see if the browser
is MSIE, and if it is, changes the variable to true. If is
isn't, it leaves it as false, and the drop-down toolbar isn't
displayed...
BTW, MS also claims it isn't displayed because of a bug in NS,
which isn't true, since they don't check and change the variable
if NS (or any other browser) is used...
From MS' JS:
var ToolBar_Supported = false;
if (navigator.userAgent.indexOf("MSIE")!= -1
navigator.userAgent.indexOf("Windows") != -1
navigator.appVersion.substring(0,1) 3)
{
ToolBar_Supported = true;
}
Eric
_
Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: M727 has a factor?!?!?
Hi!! Tell me I'm wrong... and if not, what happened?? I just made a slight error in adding a P-1 factor assignment to the WORKTODO.INI file for M727 and came up with the following result (on screen): P-1 on P727 with B1=30, B2=1 P727 stage 1 complete. 116 transforms. Time: 0.018 sec. (4659194 clocks) Stage 1 GCD complete. Time: 0.001 sec. (164887 clocks) P727 has a factor: 11633 and in the RESULTS.TXT file: [Sat Apr 08 10:43:37 2000] P-1 found a factor in stage #1, B1=30, B2=1. UID: Net_Force/V20, P727 has a factor: 11633 This meets all the criteria too 1) 11633 is PRIME. 2) 2kp+1 = 2*(8)*727+1 = 11633 3) 8n+1 = 8*(1454)+1 = 11633 4) 2^p (mod n) = 2^727 (mod 11633) = 1 Eric P.S. the error in question was: Pminus1=727,1E16,0,0,0 _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: M727 has a factor?!?!?
Will Edgington wrote: P-1 on P727 with B1=30, B2=1 P727 stage 1 complete. 116 transforms. Time: 0.018 sec. (4659194 clocks) Stage 1 GCD complete. Time: 0.001 sec. (164887 clocks) P727 has a factor: 11633 This meets all the criteria too 1) 11633 is PRIME. 2) 2kp+1 = 2*(8)*727+1 = 11633 3) 8n+1 = 8*(1454)+1 = 11633 4) 2^p (mod n) = 2^727 (mod 11633) = 1 11633 divides M1454 where 1454 = 2*727, but 11633 does not divide M727. Your #4 calculation has a bug, probably a rounding error; the correct result is 11631. Well, I went back and did it by hand!! You're right about #4... BTW, George wrote that what I got was a result of a parsing error on the part of Prime95 (it did 2^727+1, not 2^727-1). R = 1 727 = 1011010111 E=727D=1R=2A=4 E=363D=1R=8A= 16 E=181D=1R= 128A= 256 E= 90D=0R= 128A= 7371 E= 45D=1R= 1215A= 5531 E= 22D=0R= 1215A= 8804 E= 11D=1R= 6133A=11370 E= 5D=1R= 4008A=11004 E= 2D=0R= 4008A= 119 E= 1D=1R=11632A= 2528 E= 0*11632* Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: How do I start factoring...
Michael Oates wrote: How do I start factoring when I am part way through doing an LL test, I would just like to have a break from LL tests for a few weeks and do some factoring, but I don't want to loose the number I am part way through. What is the procedure to use? There's actually 3 ways you could go about doing this... 1) Request exponents to factor thru the manual testing forms at http://www.entropia.com/ips/manualtests.html#checkouts and then add them to your WORKTODO.INI file at the beginning (stopping PRIME95 first, adding the lines, then continuing). 2) Make sure PRIME95 is set up to request factoring, stop PRIME95, edit the WORKTODO.INI file to remove the LL-test, save the WORKTODO.INI file, continue PRIME95 and let it contact IPS and request some factoring work, stop PRIME95, re-edit the WORKTODO.INI file, add the LL-test back at the end, save the WORKTODO.INI file, and continue PRIME95. NOTE: Cut and Paste works best if doing it this way. 3) Start a new instance of PRIME95 doing factoring work. At this point you can either let the new instance run (stopping the original instance while the new instance in running), or stop both instances, combine the WORKTODO.INI files into the original instance's WORKTODO.INI file (having the LL-test at the end), and continue on with the original instance of PRIME95. I sure there are probably a couple of other ways too Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Factoring Depths
Dave Mullen wrote: I'd just like to get a clarification on some files I downloaded from the Entropia FTP. Re the file of exponents, and how far they have been trial factored. I extracted a range using the decomp program. Each exponent has a number by the side, but I am unclear to what this number refers. Is it a) The bitlength of the K value alone i.e. a bit length of 32 would indicate all K values 1 to (2^32) have been tested ? or b) The bitlength of 2 x K x Exp + 1 as computed ? Just to save me repeating previously done work. The answer is B. It the length of the actual factor being tested. Therefore, 1139,64 means that all potential factors thru 2^64 (18,446,744,073,709,551,615) have been tested (all ~10^12 of them). Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: RE: information please
Perhaps somebody with a little more knowledge about these matters can help this person... Frank Dull ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes: i am new to this type of stuff and need some help. can you please point me to some explicit information on the web dealing with the different factoring methods? i hear about trial factoring and ecm and p1 and nfs and mpqs and others but am unable to find any good information about them. how do you figure the information required for them like bounds and curves and polynomials and such? i need it as simple as possible since i can not understand half of what i have seen. _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: Re : Odd's on finding a factor
Dave Mullen wrote: >Sorry, I'm no mathematician, and new to the Mersenne field. > >> No, in the x-y bit range (remember that n bit integers are >> about >2^n) the first factor could be x/2 to y/2 bits long >> (powers of a power >multiply). > >What I was trying to say in my disjointed way was ... > >(Example) M11 = 2047 (11 bits long). Now 2047 has only 2 factors >(23 >x 89) and the square root of 2047 is approx 45. 45 is 6 bits >long, therefore the factor lower than the square root must have >= 6 bits, >and the factor higher than the square root must have >>=6 bits. > >23. is 5 bits long, and 89 is 7 bits long. > >Thus for the exponent 1165 bits long, if it only has 2 factors , >then the first factor must be between 2 and 3413 bits long, and >the second factor must be between 3413 and 1164 bits long. >Note that the bit lengths of the 2 factors added together must >equal the bit length of the Prime (or bit length of the >Prime + 1) !! There only a slight error with your logic... For the exponent 1165, the root is *not* 3413 bits long, but more like 5825000 bits long. Perhaps you forgot exponents add, not multiply. For simplication: 2^3 * 2^3 = 2^6 8 * 8 = 64 Therefore: 2^1165 = 2^5825000 * 2^5825000 Eric Hahn _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: high factoring bug in prime95
George Woltman wrote: This is primarily directed at the 4 or 5 users dedicated to factoring exponents above 35 million. Prime95 version 19.1 has a bug that causes it to miss some factors for these large exponents. If you are one of the 4 or 5 affected users, please download version 19.2 to fix the problem. One ugly fact about this too... exponents already tested above 35.79M may need to be re-tested! Within 10 seconds of starting v19.2, two new small factors were found for exponents already tested and found to have factors (just not that small)... Six new smaller factors were found testing just 24 exponents previously tested that had factors. And for exponents that have had no factors found yet, there might be a smaller one that wasn't discovered :( Eric Hahn _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Trial-factorers
Brian Beesley wrote: On 27 Oct 99, at 17:23, Eric Hahn wrote: I'm looking for program(s) capable of trial-factoring prime exponent Mersenne numbers (using 2kp+1) meeting the following requirements: [...requirements...] Well, I'm prepared to have a go. Could we tighten up the spec a bit? Wow!! I was going to post a message with regard to the fact that it looked like I was going to have write some code to produce my own program. While the programs that were suggested are well written, perform their designed functions, etc., they were either not capable of the tasks required or too slow to be useful. Now, look. I even have a volunteer to write some code!! :) (a) There's also been some interest in something else that Prime95 doesn't do - trial factoring 2^p+1. (b) I assume we're only interested in 2kp+1 factors. This means that we will miss any factors which are not of this form. (Applies to Mersenne numbers with composite exponents, and all 2^p+1 numbers - though I believe that the "missed" exponents are easy to derive analytically.) I'm not opposed or take exception to any possible additional capabilities... It just might require a little extra effort for the coding. (c) I presume we're looking for a program optimized for IA32 architecture. The mersfac* programs are available but are unlikely to be optimally efficient on any particular hardware platform. Optimized for IA32 would be beneficial (which processor architechure runs 80% of PCs?). If possible, the ability to modify so as to optimize for other architectures would be a plus, however. One big concern is speed though! Given that, I suggest limits on exponent 2^62 and on factor 2^95 (these are convenient for the architecture). After waking up several nights ago with some pretty *scary* thoughts, I realized a couple of things. As such, exponents through 2^62 should do fine. Anything that might be necessary above 4.6 x 10^18 could probably be extrapolated (not that I can think of any reason, currently, that would cause it to be necessary). Factors, however, would be slightly different. I suppose 2^95 would be acceptable for a base level (or default), especially if testing an entire bit depth (or a large range of factors). However, if testing a small and specific range of K, say K=2^143 to K=2^143+500, it might need to go considerable higher. I'm willing to make a few sacrifices for this to be possible... Admittedly, I'm not "in the loop" regarding the division of the massive numbers for which I'm talking. I'm sure somebody is, however (and maybe could explain it). It's probably sensible to go for an application which runs in a "DOS box" rather than a proper windowed application. This makes it a bit easier (for me) to write also makes deriving a linux variant almost trivial. (Does anyone know for sure whether or not there's a DOS box in "Millenium"? I heard a nasty rumour...) I heard the same nasty rumor... Actually, I've heard several, including ones about the floppy and Win16 support, among others. Eric _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: Trial-factorers
I'm looking for program(s) capable of trial-factoring prime exponent Mersenne numbers (using 2kp+1) meeting the following requirements: 1) Capable of trial-factoring any exponent 1 (at least to some considerably large number, say 1 trillion?) As I recall, Brian [Beesley] mentioned something once about having a program that could test an exponent of an arbitrary size... Brian?? 2) Capable of testing a factor of any size. (even over the 2^76 limit of Prime95). I just know somebody is going to have to mention the time involved in testing factors of such a large size. Let me just say, I realize *exactly* how much time would be required... 3) Capable of trial-factoring a range of k's. (example: from k=1000 to k=2500) It would be best if all three of the requirements could be fulfilled by a single program... Can anybody be of some help??? Eric Hahn _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Questions about prime.ini syntax, and hardware advice.
Albert Garrido wrote: I'm currently trying to configure the Time command, as listed in the docs, to get the prime95 client to function as follows. User ID=XYZABC Time=1-5/18:00-0:00,1-5/0:00-08:00,6-7/0:00-24:00 (reset of Prime.ini) If you're trying to run from Midnight to 6AM and 6PM to Midnight on Mon-Fri, the time line should read as follows: Time=1-5/0:00-08:00,1-5/18:00-24:00,6-7/0:00-24:00 Note Midnight is 0:00 when starting the day and 24:00 when ending it. It's exactly like what you have for Sat-Sun. It's also best if you put them in order by time (you'll notice I switched the two Mon-Fri times around). There's not usually any problems, but glitches do happen. I don't know if the undocumented commands are being supported, or it's been discussed already. I'm using the prime.ini=yourfilename and local.ini=yourfilename. Perhaps somebody else can help you here. They look okay, but I have never used them myself (no need!) I know it's slightly off-topic, but I am in need of advice as far as how well Prime will run on this machine. I currently have an order in place for an Kryotech Cool Athlon™ 900. [...] How fast would something like this get through an average LL test? Something in the 10202624 range? [...] Based on the known information about LL-testing times, Prime95 should be able to LL-test a number such as 10,202,623 in 2 to 2.5 weeks. A 10M digit exponent could be tested in about 7-8 months _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Factoring numbers...
Jukka Santala wrote: Is it just me, or does factoring smaller Mersenne numbers take propotionally much longer? I would expect M727 to be much faster than the 33M range to a fixed depth, yet the opposite _seems_ to be true. For any given factoring bit-depth, larger exponents will take a shorter period than smaller exponents. This is due to the number of potential factors that are available in at any given depth. Each bit-depth takes twice the amount of time to test as the previous one (ie: 2^57 takes 2x the length of 2^56) To determine the approximate number of potential factors that must be tested at any given depth, take the bit-size of the first pontentail factor, 2p+1, and double for each bit-depth up to the bit-depth you want. Finally, divide by 2 (eliminating potentials not meeting the 8n-1 or 8n+1 rule). So, the first potential factor of 727 would be 1455 (an 11-bit number). Take 1 for the number of potential 11-bit factors, and double over and over until you get where you want (2 12-bit potentials, 4 13-bit, 8 14-bit, etc.). However, 33,219,283's first potential factor is 66,438,567 (a 26-bit number). It has 1 26-bit potential, 2 27-bit, 4 28-bit, etc. Take these numbers and divide by 2 for the numbers of potential factors that need testing. You can see how there are *way* more potential 57-bit factors for 727 than 33,219,283. NOTE: These figures are approximate as 727 may only have say 3 potential 14-bit factors to test. (Actually, it only has 2!). It will give you a good idea of the number of potential factors you are looking at testing for any given bit-depth though... To illustrate better: To test the exponent 727 at 2^57 (only 57-bit factors), you must test approx. 7 x 10^13 potential factors. To test the exponent 33,219,283 at 2^57 (only 57-bit factors), you must only test approx. 2.15 x 10^9 potentail factors. BTW, there is a more accurate way to determine the exact number of potential factors that need to be tested at any given depth, but requires a little more effort. And when we're talking a difference of a couple million potential factors with a total of 100 trillion potential factors to test, is it really important to know the exact number?? Eric Hahn _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: glitches in mprime v19?
Jason wrote: b) When I killed mprime (v19), I realized that it had been *factoring* my highest exponent (which was not the current one being tested), when it's explicitly set up to do Lucas-Lehmer tests only. Is this the intended behavior? The number that it was factoring is 710, if that's pertinent. Was this exponent newly assigned or already had it been assigned at some point in the past? All versions attempt to trial-factor exponents (if necessary) to a certain point before beginning the L-L tests. To give an accurate amount of work queued up, they will perform any necessary trial-factoring (for those exponents to be L-L tested) before they begin (or continue) any further L-L testing. As it happens, v19 has new breakpoints in trail-factoring. For example, all exponents in the 8-9 million range had previously been trial-factored only to 2^63, however v19's breakpoints will cause additional trial-factoring to 2^64 to be attempted for exponents above 8.25 million. There are also some exponents (between 7-7.27 million) that has only been trial-factored thru 2^62. V19 will attempt additional trial-factoring thru 2^63 for these exponents. The limits for v18 and v19 trail-factoring (in millions) are: Trial-FactoringV18V19 thrurange(s) range(s) === = === 2^72 --- 71.00 - 79.30 2^71 --- 57.02 - 71.00 2^70 --- 44.15 - 57.02 2^69 --- 35.10 - 44.15 2^68 --- 28.13 - 35.10 2^67 --- 21.59 - 28.13 2^66 --- 17.85 - 21.59 2^65 --- 13.38 - 17.85 2^64 9.15 - 20.40 8.25 - 13.38 2^63 7.27 - 9.15 6.515 - 8.25 2^62 5.16 - 7.27 5.16 - 6.515 2^61 3.96 - 5.16 3.96 - 5.16 2^60 2.95 - 3.96 2.95 - 3.96 2^59 2.655 - 2.95 2.36 - 2.95 2^58 2.135 - 2.655 1.93 - 2.36 2^57 1.675 - 2.135 1.48 - 1.93 Eric Hahn _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: Factoring
Does anybody know if there is an exponent where the factor is, or know whether there is a proof on whether a factor can (or can't) be, a root?? A square?? To clarify this: We know that any factor of 2^p-1 is in the form 2kp+1. Letting x =2, Can (2kp+1)^x = 2^p-1 ?? Can (2kp+1)^x * (2kp+1) ... = 2^p-1 ?? Eric Hahn _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Iteration Times (was: GIMPS client output)
At 09:47 AM 9/21/1999 -0700, James Escamilla wrote: Wouldn't the run time at 4.231 be about 10 years? Yes, for that particular exponent (79,299,959), it would take approx. 10 yrs. and 231 days to test. That's assuming 4 items: 1) A P2 266MHz PC was being used the entire time. 2) The PC was being used exclusively to test the exponent 24/7. 3) The 4.231 sec/iter is constant (which it isn't!) 4) A factor isn't found (below 2^62 is unsuccessful at least!) Eric Hahn _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
RE: Mersenne: GIMPS client output
Rick, Glad to see *somebody's* awake!! grin From: Eric Hahn P.S. At the 79.3M range, you'll probably not want to set it at 100 iterations... Per iteration time on 266MHz PII with 64MB RAM is 58.781 seconds!!! The only question that comes to mind is if you had to plough through factoring before you got to the LL test...but then I realise that you still wouldn't be done if that were true. You're right! Even on a P3-500, it'd take 7-8 months to plough through all the factors to 2^72. I intentionally told it that it had been factored thru 2^73 to prevent it from doing such. This was for a test I was running... I signed up for an exponent in the 33mil range and the factoring alone took 13 days on a P3-500. I'd originally does it for testing purposes, but after that I've just got to let it continue. :-) I've got 2 machines working on 10M digit exponents. One will work until completion, while the other will be forced to trial-factor only (a feature not offered in v19 which I've mentioned to George). In a year's time, I'd love to see some numbers on how many signed up for tem million digit numbers and later quit for smaller exponents... Well, let's see... You got yours assigned Sept. 5 at 3:38 UTC. 14 exponents assigned, 3 factored, 11 still in progress... and counting... Interesting to note, however, that 2 of the exponents factored and 1 still in progess had factors listed on Alex Kruppa's site: http://www.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/~kruppa/M33M/index.html before 10M digit exponents were assigned by IPS. Which ones?? 33,219,341 and 33,219,469 and 33,219,707 (33,219,341 was assigned by IPS to Alex, BTW g) Eric Hahn _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: Interesting PrimeNet Error
Ah, here's something interesting... I was working on a machine which was running Prime95 (v18, BTW, and in a visible window), when it decided to contact PrimeNet. No Problem! It sent the text messages about trial-factoring until: [...] Sending text message to server: M10461667 has a factor: 7841028322998353783 Sending expected completion date for M10461667: Sep 21 1998 ERROR 11: Exponent already tested. [...] Yes, the expected completion date message was expected as the machine was still testing (for smaller factors), and was sitting at 127520*2^32 (Pass 5 of 16) at the time it did this... I just found it interesting that PrimeNet would produce an error like this. What would happen if Prime95 should happen to find a smaller factor? Would it be accepted? H. Eric Hahn _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: Iteration Times (was: GIMPS client output)
Okay, okay... obviously a lot of people were awake sigh (you can stop flooding me with emails!!) In a previous message I wrote: P.S. At the 79.3M range, you'll probably not want to set it at 100 iterations... Per iteration time on 266MHz PII with 64MB RAM is 58.781 seconds!!! (Yes, it's true, but I'm also just checking to see if anybody's awake :)) I went back to the exponent in question and ran another test. There are a couple of notes here: 1) This originally was done for a particular test in QA. 2) George didn't have the new timings up at the time. 3) I thought it was high myself, but what did I know? What I found was: 1) I obviously had something running in the background I was not aware of. 2) The actual time dropped to 4.231 sec/iter 3) Amazingly, there didn't appear to be much HDD paging happening except went you hit 'STOP'! BTW, for those of you who don't know (or actually asked), these exponents use 4096K FFT runlengths, and 16M save files... Eric Hahn _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Factors Everywhere
What I'm looking for is the following two items for *all* Mersenne numbers 2^p-1 where p is prime and p1: It can be proven that there are an infinite number of these. Yeah, right, I knew that... I guess I should've clarified and said for all of them that the information is known :( If no information is known where p100M, then what can I do?? 1) All known factors (including, but not limited to, the smallest known factor (noted if it isn't)) 2) Largest potential factor attempted I ask that the two items are human-readable at the very least. Will Edgington maintains this information, but it may be hundreds of megabytes in size. If a website, such as Entropia, has the space it will be useful to make this database available (in many small compressed files) so that others may use it. Isn't the majority of the information he has in machine-readable format though?? I can't make much use of it, if I can't read it... Eric Hahn _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: GIMPS client output
Iteration: 164000 / 8410531 [1%]. Clocks: 115665753 = 0.496 sec. Might be nice to display the percentage out to an accuracy that changes every hundred iterations. Hmm, looks like that's an integer of the percentage, not rounded. Guess it doesn't matter. For the one I'm working on it looks like 3 decimal places would be needed to see a change every 100 iterations. v19 allows this by manually adding 'PercentPrecision=' to the PRIME.INI file (Prime95 must be stopped and exited before editing, and then restarted). The valid range after the '=' is 0 to 6, therefore you can have it say: Iteration: 164000/8410531 [1.949936%]. Per iteration time: 0.496... Iteration: 164100/8410531 [1.951125%]. Per iteration time: 0.496... Mind you, even at the limit of v19 (79.3M), setting it to a value of 4, and having screen outputs at every 100 iterations, will still cause the value to increase (although by 0.0001%) Eric Hahn P.S. At the 79.3M range, you'll probably not want to set it at 100 iterations... Per iteration time on 266MHz PII with 64MB RAM is 58.781 seconds!!! (Yes, it's true, but I'm also just checking to see if anybody's awake :)) _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: Factors Everywhere
Ok, I've come up with this SWAHBI (like a SWAG, but an idea instead of a guess). What I'm looking for is the following two items for *all* Mersenne numbers 2^p-1 where p is prime and p1: 1) All known factors (including, but not limited to, the smallest known factor (noted if it isn't)) 2) Largest potential factor attempted I ask that the two items are human-readable at the very least. I've pulled a couple of files off mersenne.org (FACTORS.ZIP and NOFACTOR.ZIP) as well as off Alex Kruppa's page. While the files appear complete as far as I can tell, they only cover the ranges of p between 11 - 9,999,991 and 33,219,281 - 35,999,993. They also don't cover *all* known factors! Any and all information on the ranges between 10M - 33.22M and 36M is greatly appreciated, as well as any known factors not listed in the files I've pulled. Eric Hahn _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
RE: Mersenne: Suggestions for Prime95 v19
::Reto Keiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now before the new version of Prime95 is released I have some suggestions for new function which should not be too difficult to add: Some of these functions exist already in v18 and prior versions, just not as you might think... - A menu item that forces the program to write intermediate data to disk. It is useful, when the user wants to install a new program or play a game which probably forces the computer to crash. So it is possible to save data without exiting the program before a riskful action. Prime95 already does this if you use the menu items TEST | STOP and then TEST | CONTINUE. - A function which prvents writing to disk for some time. When the user writes a CDr, it sometimes is dangerous, when prime95 writes intermediate results to disk during that time. Again, you can either use the procedure above to stop Prime95 before and start it after CD-R recording, or you can change the minutes between disk writes under OPTIONS | PREFERENCES before beginning recording. - Extended status information -relative speed of the system (e.g. using rolling average) -hours in use Not sure what you're looking for here... Possibly, the same information Prime95 uses to calculate ECD (estimated completion dates)?? -# flops done (calculated) Hmmm... This seems like it might be a little difficult. First, Prime95 uses integer code on 486, Cyrix, and AMD K5 chips when performing factoring. Second, each iteration of a test involves many calculations. Third, Prime95 is running as a background (idle process) task. -# iterations done (total of all exponents) -history: all tested iterations on this machine Take a look at the RESULTS.TXT file in the directory with Prime95. It lists the results from all previous exponents... -processor usage (compared with the unused system Running as a background (idle process) task makes this unfeasible. You'd be better off using something like WinTop in Windows95 (found in the Win95 KernelToys) or something like it for other OSes... Eric Hahn _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: The $100,000 award for 10,000,000 digit prime
George Woltman wrote: Hi all, At the risk of opening Pandora's box, I'd like to bring up the possibility of splitting up the $100,000 award for a 10 million digit prime. I'm soliciting everyone's opinion before making a decision. 1/4 to George or charity (his choice) 1/4 to Scott or charity (his choice) 1/2 to the discover(s) or charity* *The discover(s) get to chose only if there is orderly exploration of exponents. Otherwise, it goes to a charity of their choice. That would be changed to 20%, 20%, 40%, and 20%, with the last 20% going to the individual(s) responsible for increasing the search speed significantly, if such event occurs. This promotes an orderly exploration of exponents, yet allows those who want to find a 10M digit prime just for fun (and unorderly) to have the opportunity without being completely penalized. It also encourages the advancement and development of new algorithms. This is all, of course, assuming a GIMPser is the discover(s)... _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: M38 = M6972593
NOW it does, after the official announcement Remember when Roland found M37? Someone found a 0x000 residue in the report and beat George to the punch, so Scott modified the reports so that they would NOT post a zero residue automatically. So THIS time, when word came that we'd found a potential prime, some enterprising person immediately grabbed the "assigned exponents" file, and the "cleared exponents" file, and by the process of elimination, deduced the prime number because it was the ONLY candidate listed as "assigned" but was not EITHER cleared as non-prime or still in progress. Actually, it was updated and added on July 5. Previously, the cleared exponent list looked like the following (accounts removed for space): 6972451 62 0x1921D245846367__25-Jun-99 15:07 6972467 62 0x01123F0756E444__03-Jul-99 11:27 6972509 62 0x681B51793464A4__17-May-99 06:07 6972617 62 0xC377193C8903C1__05-Apr-99 05:25 6972649 62 0x30982ED7214ACA__09-May-99 12:49 6972709 62 0xEADF232189A0F0__21-Jun-99 08:30 George was telling Scott to correct for this 'leak' so that a really determined person could not do a comparison-elimination to deduce a prime number find before George announces it. Fixing this one 'leak' won't do the job, if you know how and where to look... Besides, *some people* know how to keep quiet about certain things. You didn't see this person going around announcing it to the world immediately after it was found, did you??? In fact, their website didn't post it being found until after it was verified, and even then, didn't disclose the number!! On the other hand, they could've noticed a discrepany and shrugged it off as meaningless until after word got out a new prime was found. At that point, they could've gone back and said to themselves '*that explains the discrepany!*'. Just a couple of possibilities Of course, Curt Noll's web page made that a pointless exercise... ;-) (Note to Scott - create a dummy non-zero residue a stick it in the cleared exponents report). Too late!! The Cleared Exponents Report reads: 6972593 62 P 0x 01-Jun-99 13:57 nayan precision-mm Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne: SJ Mercury News
For those of you who are interested, the San Jose Mercury News has published the story. http://www.mercurycenter.com/premium/scitech/docs/prime06.htm Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne: IPS Factoring Assignments
I was just about going to ask if George was going to more factoring assignments available to IPS or if IPS just wasn't showing ones that had been made availabe, when I noticed that the range of 10.0 - 10.2 Mil was posted. Now instead of having enough for about 2 weeks, there are enough for about 7 weeks, since GIMPS members go through them at a rate of ~1000 per week Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne: M38 = M6972593
(Note to Scott - create a dummy non-zero residue a stick it in the cleared exponents report). Too late!! The Cleared Exponents Report reads: 6972593 62 P 0x 01-Jun-99 13:57 nayan precision-mm Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #590
>>>Has the prime number that was found a week ago been announced on >>>this list? >>>I.E. What number was it? >>It hasn't been announced yet... but from what little information >>that is available, i.e. The Oregonian newspaper article, the >>exponent must be =at least= 6,643,859. >>Eric >Eric: Isn't 7 million bits something very near to 2^7,000,00 ? >I think that could be the case. So could we say: exponent at least >6,900,000? >Rudy >From the "The Oregonian" article: >The new number is 7 million bits of information -- or more than >twice as long. Good point. But 7,000,000 bits =is= 2^7,000,000 - 1 (which is obviously a composite number) I was looking at the following portion of the article... 'Confirmed this week by George Woltman, a Florida engineer and founder of the "Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search," the new prime possesses more than 2 million digits -- more than twice as many as the previously largest-known prime, which was discovered last year by a 19-year-old college student.' pardon the sarcasm!> Whatever the case, certain individuals who have decided to "poach" exponents to ensure M(36) and M(37) are actually M(36) and M(37) respectively, are going to have to wait a lng time to verify whether this new find is actually M(38) or really M(39), etc. instead. Guess they better get out those Pentium XV 1000GHz processors we heard about earlier. They'll need them to process the well over 35,000 LL tests (including double-checks) to accomplish this task!!! ending sarcasm mode> Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
RE: Mersenne: A few questions
How large will the exponent be for a 10,000,000 digit prime number? To be a 10,000,000 digit prime number the exponent must be at least 33,219,281 (which also happens to be a Mersenne candidate). Has the prime number that was found a week ago been announced on this list? I.E. What number was it? It hasn't been announced yet... but from what little information that is available, i.e. The Oregonian newspaper article, the exponent must be =at least= 6,643,859. Eric Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
