Re: [PrimeNumbers] Question on speed
- --- Jud McCranie <j.mccranie@...> wrote:
> At 02:36 PM 1/13/2007, Phil Carmody wrote:No, 'potential primes'. I can do that instantly by doing nothing.
> >--- george hayes <<mailto:gr.hayes%40yahoo.com>gr.hayes@...> wrote:
> > > I created a program that is testing for potential primes at
> > > 10^1,000,000,000+.
> > > My test yesterday was from 10^1,000,000,000 to 10^1,000,000,000+1,000,000
> > > it took 9 minutes and 5 seconds to run the test. I was able to eliminate
> > > all but 9112 as being prime. That is using a small prime library
> > of primes up
> > > to 1,000,000 approx.
> > > Just to make sure it is clear that is 10 to the 1 billion. Got a lot of
> > > questions about that on another forum.
> > From the speed, I can only assume you're running on a programmable
> > calculator,
> He says that he is doing billion-digit primes.
However, if I wanted to make use of a "small prime library of primes up to
1,000,000 approx.", then I'd probably sieve the range with that the, and I'd
take something more comparable to a second than ten minutes.
There's less than one thousandth of a prime in that range, and certainly zero
provable ones even if there's one probable-prime.
() ASCII ribbon campaign () Hopeless ribbon campaign
/\ against HTML mail /\ against gratuitous bloodshed
[stolen with permission from Daniel B. Cristofani]
Want to start your own business?
Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.