15673Re: LLRP4 Version 3.3 now available !
- Dec 1, 2004The following is posted on behalf of "Jean Penne" who sent his reply
to "primenumbers-owner" instead of "primenumbers" by mistake.
--- In email@example.com, "pminovic" <pminovic@y...>
> > I am not surprised if LLPP4 deterministic test is slower than
> > one, because the "Computing U0" loop is more time consuming than
> > LL loop...Thanks by advance !
> This is true, it takes about 50 minutes to compute U0, I'll
> append the lresults.txt file tomorrow.
> > Is the deterministic pfgw test also faster ?I am also not surprised : Deterministic pfgw pays for its more
> No! To prove primality of a PRP using "pfgw -tp" is very slow.
> Again I don't have exact timings handy but I think at least an
> hour in comparison to less than 18 minutes to find that
> (2^110615+1)^2-2 is 3-PRP.
general algorithms than those of LLR.
> > Second question : with composite candidates, you found differentMy fault ! I did'nt see the inputs were different...
> > residues with pfgw and with LLRP4, it may be normal, or it may be
> > still an LLR bug...
> The input is different too, n=240068 and n=240065. The survival
> rate of Kynea (and Carol) is high and there are so many
> candidates to test that I simply cannot afford to process the
> same number twice :-)) Will try the same number later using
> smaller exponents.
> BTW, testing k*2^n+1, n~180,000, both the new LLR and PRP3Again, I am not surprised, PRP3 and LLRP4 use exactly the same code
> could process one number in almost exactly the same time, about
> 66 sec on 2.4GHz P-4.
to do squarings, the only difference is that, for Proth deterministic
tests, LLR computes the base "a" for each number, although PRP3 sets
always "a" = 3, but all that is done outside the loops.
- << Previous post in topic