> 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

This is true, it takes about 50 minutes to compute U0, I'll

> LL loop...

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

The input is different too, n=240068 and n=240065. The survival

> residues with pfgw and with LLRP4, it may be normal, or it may be

> still an LLR bug...

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- 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:>

pfgw

> > I am not surprised if LLPP4 deterministic test is slower than

> PRP

the

> > 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 different

My 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 PRP3

Again, 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.

Regards,

Jean