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

Re: Titanix improves the ECPP record

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.