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

Re: LLRP4 Version 3.3 now available !

Expand Messages
  • Paul Underwood
    ... The way to speed up searching Carol/Kynea numbers is through modular reduction. When reducing over 2^n+-2^k-1 ( k
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 1, 2004
      --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "pminovic" <pminovic@y...> wrote:
      >
      > Jean,
      > Thank you for the new version in almost no time!
      >
      > I tried to test Kynea numbers. It's working but it's slower
      > than pfgw. Two examples are given below. Now I'm testing k*2^n+1.
      >
      > (2^110614+1)*2^110616-1 = (2^110615+1)^2 - 2 is prime! Time :
      > 929.038 sec. [LLR 3.3, 2.4 GHz P4]
      >
      > (2^110615+1)^2-2 is 3-PRP! (767.4431s+0.0228s) [pfgw, 2.2 GHz P4]
      >
      > --------------------
      > (2^240067+1)*2^240069-1 = (2^240068+1)^2 - 2 is not prime. Res64:
      > A06A1D3A94955672 Time : 4842.764 sec. [LLR-3.3, 2.4GHz P4]
      >
      > (2^240065+1)^2-2 is composite: [1FA6F8AA16DC1765] (3412.6447s+0.0320s)
      > [pfgw, 2.4GHz P4]
      >
      The way to speed up searching Carol/Kynea numbers is through modular
      reduction. When reducing over 2^n+-2^k-1 ( k<70% of n ingeneral ) we
      can use additions and shifts only; There is no need for general
      modular reduction. Maybe we need a new library from George Woltman...

      Paul
    • Jean PennĂ©
      Thank you for your tests ! I am not surprised if LLPP4 deterministic test is slower than pfgw PRP one, because the Computing U0 loop is more time consuming
      Message 2 of 6 , Dec 1, 2004
        Thank you for your tests !

        I am not surprised if LLPP4 deterministic test is slower than pfgw PRP
        one, because the "Computing U0" loop is more time consuming than the
        LL loop... Is the deterministic pfgw test also faster ?

        Second question : with composite candidates, you found different
        residues with pfgw and with LLRP4, it may be normal, or it may be
        still an LLR bug...

        Regards,

        Jean


        --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "pminovic" <pminovic@y...> wrote:
        >
        > Jean,
        > Thank you for the new version in almost no time!
        >
        > I tried to test Kynea numbers. It's working but it's slower
        > than pfgw. Two examples are given below. Now I'm testing k*2^n+1.
        >
        > (2^110614+1)*2^110616-1 = (2^110615+1)^2 - 2 is prime! Time :
        > 929.038 sec. [LLR 3.3, 2.4 GHz P4]
        >
        > (2^110615+1)^2-2 is 3-PRP! (767.4431s+0.0228s) [pfgw, 2.2 GHz P4]
        >
        > --------------------
        > (2^240067+1)*2^240069-1 = (2^240068+1)^2 - 2 is not prime. Res64:
        > A06A1D3A94955672 Time : 4842.764 sec. [LLR-3.3, 2.4GHz P4]
        >
        > (2^240065+1)^2-2 is composite: [1FA6F8AA16DC1765] (3412.6447s+0.0320s)
        > [pfgw, 2.4GHz P4]
        >
        > Regards,
        > Predrag
      • pminovic
        ... PRP ... This is true, it takes about 50 minutes to compute U0, I ll append the lresults.txt file tomorrow. ... No! To prove primality of a PRP using pfgw
        Message 3 of 6 , Dec 1, 2004
          > I am not surprised if LLPP4 deterministic test is slower than pfgw
          PRP
          > one, because the "Computing U0" loop is more time consuming than the
          > LL loop...

          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 ?

          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.

          > Second question : with composite candidates, you found 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 PRP3
          could process one number in almost exactly the same time, about
          66 sec on 2.4GHz P-4.

          Regards,
          Predrag
        • Ken Davis
          The following is posted on behalf of Jean Penne who sent his reply to primenumbers-owner instead of primenumbers by mistake. Cheers Ken ... pfgw ... the
          Message 4 of 6 , Dec 1, 2004
            The following is posted on behalf of "Jean Penne" who sent his reply
            to "primenumbers-owner" instead of "primenumbers" by mistake.
            Cheers
            Ken
            --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "pminovic" <pminovic@y...>
            wrote:
            >
            > > I am not surprised if LLPP4 deterministic test is slower than
            pfgw
            > PRP
            > > one, because the "Computing U0" loop is more time consuming than
            the
            > > LL loop...
            >
            > This is true, it takes about 50 minutes to compute U0, I'll
            > append the lresults.txt file tomorrow.
            >

            Thanks by advance !

            > > Is the deterministic pfgw test also faster ?
            >
            > 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.
            >

            I am also not surprised : Deterministic pfgw pays for its more
            general algorithms than those of LLR.

            > > Second question : with composite candidates, you found 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.
            >

            My fault ! I did'nt see the inputs were different...

            > BTW, testing k*2^n+1, n~180,000, both the new LLR and PRP3
            > could process one number in almost exactly the same time, about
            > 66 sec on 2.4GHz P-4.
            >

            Again, I am not surprised, PRP3 and LLRP4 use exactly the same code
            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.

            Regards,
            Jean
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.