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

After 340 tests

Expand Messages
  • Hans.Rosenthal@t-online.de
    Finding a 199k-digit prime after only 340 tests with Proth -- would you still call this a waste of CPU-cycles, David B.? Hans
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 29, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Finding a 199k-digit prime after only 340 tests with Proth -- would
      you still call this a waste of CPU-cycles, David B.?

      Hans
    • Andy Steward
      Hi Hans and All, Note: PrimeForm . There are Aleph-Null Primes out there and enough Forms to keep us all happy. I m an official, paid-up Factor Freak . I
      Message 2 of 4 , Dec 29, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Hans and All,

        Note: "PrimeForm".

        There are Aleph-Null Primes out there and enough Forms to keep us all
        happy.

        I'm an official, paid-up "Factor Freak". I like tailoring my PFGW
        searches by balancing the size of the integer N against the Cyclotomic
        "shape" of N-1. I also like it that, when PFGW says Phi(p,x) is PrP,
        that is when the real work starts: spreading my available CPU resources
        according to:
        * Size of PrP
        * Digits lacking for proof
        * Factors found already
        * Count and size of composite factors remaining
        * Hours of work already done

        ... success in this involves theory, judgment, experience and (most
        importantly) luck. You "Trivia Freaks" determine ranges for your PFGW
        and Proth searches. What determines a successful range? I would suggest:
        theory, judgment, experience and (most importantly) luck.

        This is just the way I like to amuse myself. I am sure that I speak for
        all Factor Freaks when I say: "Congratulations on proving an enormous
        prime". None of us _really_ consider such work "trivial". (You do
        realise that David enjoys trolling?)

        Servus,
        Andy
      • djbroadhurst
        I seem to be getting grumpy. Perhaps it comes from having a Williams-Lenstra candidate with N^2-1 at 33.331% Neither of the standard methods (extra square
        Message 3 of 4 , Dec 30, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          I seem to be getting grumpy.
          Perhaps it comes from having a Williams-Lenstra
          candidate with N^2-1 at 33.331%
          Neither of the standard methods
          (extra square tests or rigorous bounds)
          for the extra bit are compatible with the final Lenstra
          test, as far as I can see.
          So I guess I'll just have to initiate new code: APR-CL-WL.
          Maybe my humour will then improve.
          Apologies in the interrim.
          David
        • Hans.Rosenthal@t-online.de
          ... Yes, and every Aleph-Null prime means an Aleph-Null *prime factor* for all the factor freaks out there :) Does this make you (the prime factor freaks
          Message 4 of 4 , Jan 1, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Andy Steward wrote:

            > There are Aleph-Null Primes out there and enough Forms to keep us all
            > happy.

            Yes, and every Aleph-Null prime means an Aleph-Null *prime factor* for
            all the factor freaks out there :)

            Does this make you (the prime factor freaks faction) happier?

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