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

Titanix improves the ECPP record

Expand Messages
  • Giovanni La Barbera
    Hi, 10^3999 + 4771 is prime. The proof took about 3000 h of a PENTIUM III, 800 MHZ, with the help af a second PIII for difficult steps. The program used is
    Message 1 of 4 , Jun 3, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi,

      10^3999 + 4771 is prime.
      The proof took about 3000 h of a PENTIUM III, 800 MHZ, with the help
      af a second PIII for difficult steps.

      The program used is Titanix by Marcel Martin.

      Please see:

      http://www.znz.freesurf.fr/pages/titanixrecord.html

      Giovanni & Marco La Barbera
    • d.broadhurst@open.ac.uk
      Fantastic feat by Giovanni, Marco and Marcel to push ECPP to 4k digits. It is very impressive that Tx scales up so well. By my reckoning, the records of
      Message 2 of 4 , Jun 3, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Fantastic feat by Giovanni, Marco and Marcel to push
        ECPP to 4k digits.
        It is very impressive that Tx scales up so well.
        By my reckoning, the records of
        Titanix.exe, Proth.exe and Pfgw.exe
        all grew in the space of a few days.
        Must be something in the air...
        David
      • Bouk de
        An incredible record! Well done! I had already noticed that TX2.1 was much faster, but this is really fast. Will you make a new estimator? Bouk. ...
        Message 3 of 4 , Jun 4, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          An incredible record! Well done!

          I had already noticed that TX2.1 was much faster, but
          this is really fast.

          Will you make a new estimator?

          Bouk.

          --- Giovanni La Barbera <giolaba@...> wrote:
          > Hi,
          >
          > 10^3999 + 4771 is prime.
          > The proof took about 3000 h of a PENTIUM III, 800
          > MHZ, with the help
          > af a second PIII for difficult steps.
          >
          > The program used is Titanix by Marcel Martin.
          >
          > Please see:
          >
          > http://www.znz.freesurf.fr/pages/titanixrecord.html
          >
          > Giovanni & Marco La Barbera
          >
          >
          > Unsubscribe by an email to:
          > primenumbers-unsubscribe@egroups.com
          > The Prime Pages : http://www.primepages.org
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >


          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
          a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
        • d.broadhurst@open.ac.uk
          It s interesting that neither Marcel nor I could conjure up a an argument for digits^6. Maybe there s some fancy complexity argument that gives this
          Message 4 of 4 , Jun 4, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            It's interesting that neither Marcel nor I could
            conjure up a an argument for digits^6.
            Maybe there's some fancy complexity argument that
            gives this asymptotically. But my finger counting
            couldn't get beyond digits^5.
            So maybe instead of A*(d+const)^6 one should
            just fix A*d^c, at d digits. Including a constant might
            have masked a growth slower than digits^6.
            I think one should fit the exponent to the data.
            Just plot log(time) against log(digits) and
            measure the slope of the best fit.
            David
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.