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

Re: [PrimeNumbers] Using BPSW for NEXTPRIME in pfgw

Expand Messages
  • David Cleaver
    ... Please feel free to use my version. If you are already using GMP in your code, this should be an easy drop is set of functions for you. If you are asking
    Message 1 of 50 , Sep 29, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      On 9/29/2011 7:40 AM, mgrogue@... wrote:
      > I've seen a flurry of posts on this. Which version of BPSW should I use in pfgw?
      >
      > Although it appears that the Pari-GP version is the best, it would be the
      > hardest to implement. I've stated before that if someone wants to code it for
      > pfgw, I would appreciate that. If any of the others are sufficient and require
      > less effort (even though they might not be as fast), I would prefer that option.
      >
      > --Mark

      Please feel free to use my version. If you are already using GMP in your code,
      this should be an easy drop is set of functions for you.

      If you are asking about the regular version or the strong version, then I can
      tell you that there are no numbers < 2^64 that fool either version of the BPSW
      test. I make this claim based on work by Jan Feitsma, which I later wrote
      independent code to double check his work. So, for numbers < 2^64 you can use
      the regular version of BPSW because every time it says composite, it is correct,
      and every time it says prime or prp, that number will be prime.

      If you are asking about the speed of the functions, then I'm not sure which
      version because I haven't timed Tom Nicely's code, or Pari/GP's code against my
      code.

      -David C.
    • David Cleaver
      ... Please feel free to use my version. If you are already using GMP in your code, this should be an easy drop is set of functions for you. If you are asking
      Message 50 of 50 , Sep 29, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        On 9/29/2011 7:40 AM, mgrogue@... wrote:
        > I've seen a flurry of posts on this. Which version of BPSW should I use in pfgw?
        >
        > Although it appears that the Pari-GP version is the best, it would be the
        > hardest to implement. I've stated before that if someone wants to code it for
        > pfgw, I would appreciate that. If any of the others are sufficient and require
        > less effort (even though they might not be as fast), I would prefer that option.
        >
        > --Mark

        Please feel free to use my version. If you are already using GMP in your code,
        this should be an easy drop is set of functions for you.

        If you are asking about the regular version or the strong version, then I can
        tell you that there are no numbers < 2^64 that fool either version of the BPSW
        test. I make this claim based on work by Jan Feitsma, which I later wrote
        independent code to double check his work. So, for numbers < 2^64 you can use
        the regular version of BPSW because every time it says composite, it is correct,
        and every time it says prime or prp, that number will be prime.

        If you are asking about the speed of the functions, then I'm not sure which
        version because I haven't timed Tom Nicely's code, or Pari/GP's code against my
        code.

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