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

RE: [PrimeNumbers] Re: Some Benchmark Primality Test

Expand Messages
  • cino hilliard
    Hi David, ... anayway, I thought we were benchmarking in this last post? I am still curious how long it would take primo to prove 31838235*2^29717+1 is prime.
    Message 1 of 5 , Sep 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi David,



      >So before you do primo, do pfgw -tc


      anayway, I thought we were benchmarking in this last post?



      I am still curious how long it would take primo to prove 31838235*2^29717+1 is prime.

      At fiirst, I thought time was proportional to the number of digits but now I realize
      that ain't so. "When in doubt, specialize"



      Not all lost though. I learned a new word.



      I tried pfgw on the primo top entry of the top 20.



      http://www.ellipsa.eu/public/primo/top20.html



      c:\pfgw>pfgw -tc -q2^^29727+20273
      PFGW Version 20090725.Win_Dev (Beta 'caveat utilitor') [GWNUM 25.12]

      Primality testing 2^29727+20273 [N-1/N+1, Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge]
      Running N-1 test using base 11
      Running N+1 test using discriminant 19, base 9+sqrt(19)
      Calling N+1 BLS with factored part 0.08% and helper 0.07% (0.30% proof)
      2^29727+20273 is Fermat and Lucas PRP! (12.4107s+0.0008s)



      Interesting.

      What dominion does 31838235*2^29717+1 have over 1*2^29727+20273?

      Is 80 days the best that can be done for the top primo prime?


      http://primes.utm.edu/primes/page.php?id=89447



      pfgw still ROCKS!


      Cino




      To: primenumbers@yahoogroups.com
      From: d.broadhurst@...
      Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 22:24:24 +0000
      Subject: [PrimeNumbers] Re: Some Benchmark Primality Test





      --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,
      cino hilliard <hillcino368@...> wrote:

      > 31838235*2^29717+1 is prime! (15.3991s+0.0311s)

      OK

      > This 8954 digit number will be the top primo candidate
      > if you have the time

      Using ECPP to re-prove a prime already proven by BLS
      would be an exercise in fatuity.

      David










      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • djbroadhurst
      ... Very roughly, I reckon that the Primo time is proportional to digits^(9/2). David
      Message 2 of 5 , Sep 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,
        cino hilliard <hillcino368@...> wrote:

        > At first, I thought time was proportional
        > to the number of digits but now I realize
        > that ain't so.

        Very roughly, I reckon that the Primo time is proportional to digits^(9/2).

        David
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.