Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [PrimeNumbers] Consecutive semi-primes

Expand Messages
  • Jens Kruse Andersen
    ... Not exactly was a deliberate understatement. I know there is a huge difference and it makes little sense to compare sizes, except for fun. The wrong
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      About prime and semi-prime tuples I wrote:
      > Not exactly the same complexity with the right algorithm

      David Broadhurst wrote:
      > Incidentally the real breakthrough for the prime triplet record is 4135
      > digits was avoiding ECPP. But this was still an O(digits^5) problem,
      > whereas yours was O(digits^4).

      "Not exactly" was a deliberate understatement. I know there is a huge
      difference and it makes little sense to compare sizes, except for fun. The
      "wrong" algorithm for k consecutive numbers with the same number of prime
      factors (used for a 7-tuple with 3 prime factors by Phil, who admitted to
      being sloppy) is: Search k simultaneous prime cofactors, e.g. x/5, (x+1)/2,
      (x+2)/3. This was also the suggestion of others in alt.math.recreational and
      would give the normal prime tuple complexity O(k+2).

      David Broadhurst wrote:
      > PS: I re-read saw that you did your own trial factoring, sorry.
      > But I guess that it was not truly a sieve, but just for
      > one pair at a time? Mind you it's not easy to see a way
      > round that. If anyone could sieve this two-parameter
      > input problem, it would be Phil.

      Yes, I trial factored one pair at a time. My candidates were on the form
      p*q = (c*6*4691#+1) * (d*6*4691#+1)
      This (including the 6) prevents factors below 4691 in both (pq+1)/2 and
      I precomputed an array of 6*4691# mod (primes<10^8).
      Then I could quickly trial factor each pair from 4691 to 10^8 (a high limit
      for individual trial on 4k-digits with a 2.7s prp test) using only 32-bit
      inline assembler instructions on c and d.
      I thought about sieve possibilities but it seemed hard and with a few days
      expectation, I dropped it. I would have given the 10k-digit problem more

      I should also admit that I was a lot more lazy for p = (c*6*4691#+1). This is
      a good sieve form and it turned out I needed 1314 primes (bad luck), but I
      used pfgw's trial factoring for this. Later I discovered the NewPGen check box
      "use primorial mode" in plain sight. I had only looked through the type
      selection box... When it opens it actually covers the primorial box and I
      thought there was only k*b^n something available. Why didn't Paul Jobling put
      a hint in the type box for people like me with tunnel vision :-)
      Never underestimate the potential for stupidity among software users.

      Phil Carmody wrote:
      > In the world of sieving, Jens is one of the people to whom I doff my hat.
      > He stood out on alt.math.recreational because of his sieving ability.

      Thanks. However alt.math.recreational is not hard competition, at least before
      you joined it. You are the better siever and I have only beaten your speed a
      couple of times (including the prime puzzles) by spending much more time on
      special-purpose programs. GenSv seems impressive for such a generic sieve.

      Jens Kruse Andersen
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.