General comments on overclocking and Prime95:
If you're overclocking a CPU, it is a good idea to run the full Prime95 self
test (Options menu) to ensure that the CPU is stable and functional for all
FFT lengths. This is especially important if you are using a Xeon
processor, as there are interes
At 04:51 PM 6/7/99 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
>>Scott Kurowski and Luke Welsh have had much better vision.
[...]
>Forgive me for my ignorance: the names George (Woltman) and Scott
>(Kurowski) are well-known, but what does Luke (Welsh) do?
M29 and 2nd member of GIMPS.
>but I can't recall
On Mon, 7 Jun 1999, Gary Diehl wrote:
> I also got the "illegal sumout" and it locked up my machine. It did it
> four times in a row at the 6564090 iteration (the lock ups were hard
> locks - had to recycle power to recover).
>
> However, I had my pentium-II 266 overclocked to 333, and when I re
> I also got the "illegal sumout" and it locked up my machine. It did it
> four times in a row at the 6564090 iteration (the lock ups were hard
> locks - had to recycle power to recover).
>
> However, I had my pentium-II 266 overclocked to 333, and when I reset
> the speed back to 266 the problem
Paul Leyland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>
>> Paul Leyland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >> a new prize pool of $.11 has been
>> >> proposed (the radix is 10 :-) If you think it's worth a few
>> >
>> >The radix is always 10. I guess you mean the radix is
>> (1+1)*(1+1+1+1+1),
>>
>> That
I also got the "illegal sumout" and it locked up my machine. It did it
four times in a row at the 6564090 iteration (the lock ups were hard
locks - had to recycle power to recover).
However, I had my pentium-II 266 overclocked to 333, and when I reset
the speed back to 266 the problem went away.
Hi, I am running this and received the following message:
Error: Illegal Sumout
Is this anything I need to be concerned about and is there a listing of
such messages?
Also, a while ago the program reserved about 20 numbers for testing (all
the way into the year 2001) then it and released them
I'm I correct in thinking that since the exponent is five times the size of
current exponents that the LL test will take 25 times as long (give the same
processor)?
> You need to test exponent (1000 / log 2) = 33219281 or above.
On Mon, Jun 07, 1999 at 02:11:01PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
>I think it would be better to act like a daemon and reread its configuration
>file when hung up on. That way we wouldn't have to stop it, start it
>interactively, then start it again in the background to tell it when we go on
>vacation
On Mon, 07 Jun 1999 07:51:49 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
>
>[...]
>3.11. Is it likely that so many people sign up that you won't
>always have enough Arecibo data to feed all the clients? If so,
>how will this be handled?
>
>It's possible. Up to a point, we will handle it by sending the
>same data t
On Sun, 6 Jun 1999, Jud McCranie wrote:
> At 11:30 AM 6/6/99 -0600, Aaron Blosser wrote:
>
> >I suppose it depends on whether Moore's Law can continue to hold true. I'm
> >not so sure that we can keep doubling speeds of processors every 18 months
> >as predicted...
>
>
> That's often stated, b
George Woltman wrote:
>As recently 6 years ago, Crandall and Fagin published
>the details for doubling the speed of the test. Perhaps there are
>more theoretical or algorithmic improvements to come. (Anyone on this
>list working on that right now??)
Does 50+ bits per IEEE 64-bit float count a
At 04:51 PM 6/7/99 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
>Perhaps a gigadigit prime, but I think 10,000,000 should certainly be
within
>the limits.
I was thinking about it informally the other day, and I thought that I
expected to see 10,000,000-digit primes and 100,000,000-digit primes in
my lifet
> Is this considered cheating then?
> ((1+1)<<1+1)<<1
Nice!
You're assuming a binary computer (or, equivalently, defining "<<1" as a
doubling operator) so the purists wouldn't like it.
Paul
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.
Is this considered cheating then?
((1+1)<<1+1)<<1
But that's cheating! You're allowed only 1 as a numeric quantity, possibly
modified with any of +-*/! and sqrt.
Paul
(Brian: forget that spurious solution I gave you. It doesn't work in
general, as I now realise.)
___
Steinar H. Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>My poor PC is right now trying to find the first possible
>10-million _exponent_...
>For now, it _seems_ like we get 3010 extra digits (possibly +1) for
>each 1th iteration (of *2)
Not surprising, since log 2 = 0.30102999...
You need to test
On Mon, Jun 07, 1999 at 01:14:19AM -0700, Mersenne Digest wrote:
>I just noticed that the EFF is now offering $100,000 prize for the first
>10,000,000 digit prime. I assume that this means that they consider the
>1,000,000 digit prize essentially considered to have been claimed?
The $100,000 pri
> Paul Leyland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> a new prize pool of $.11 has been
> >> proposed (the radix is 10 :-) If you think it's worth a few
> >
> >The radix is always 10. I guess you mean the radix is
> (1+1)*(1+1+1+1+1),
>
> That made me laugh! Good point...
>
> >or, more conci
On Sun, 06 Jun 1999 11:31:42 -0700, Spike Jones wrote:
>I suspected that existence of SETI@Home would somehow benefit
>GIMPS in the long run, and now I see how it might happen: SETI@Home
>is a dog compared to GIMPS. It doesnt get outta your way when
>you want your computer's undivided attention,
Paul Leyland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> a new prize pool of $.11 has been
>> proposed (the radix is 10 :-) If you think it's worth a few
>
>The radix is always 10. I guess you mean the radix is (1+1)*(1+1+1+1+1),
That made me laugh! Good point...
>or, more concisely, (1+1+1)µ(1+1) + 1.
Mersenne Digest Monday, June 7 1999 Volume 01 : Number 569
--
Date: 5 Jun 99 23:19:34 MDT
From: Paul Derbyshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [RE: [Re: [Re: Mersenne: Serious problems with v.18]]]
> Her
> The $1500 I offered before the EFF contest began has since
> gone toward more PrimeNet hardware. Between some GIMPSers,
> a new prize pool of $.11 has been
> proposed (the radix is 10 :-) If you think it's worth a few
The radix is always 10. I guess you mean the radix is (1+1)*(1+1+1+1
On Sat, Jun 05, 1999 at 10:07:15PM -0700, Mersenne Digest wrote:
>Kevin Sexton
>37% done with 5315483 after nearly finishing on v.17
If you would like credit for it, you could always contact Scott. From what
I've seen, he's nice when it comes to that part :-) (Well, nice in genera
On Sun, Jun 06, 1999 at 10:58:13AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> First of all put the following at the bottom of your /etc/rc.d/rc.local
> file:
>
> /Your/path/to/mprime/mprime &
I'd recommend starting it as a particular user not as root. I like to
generalise this and give the user a script
Hi all,
(A belated reply to the digest...)
> Subject: Re: [Re: Mersenne: Serious problems with v.18]
[cut]
> Your work to date on that exponent was disgarded
> (though you might still get credit for time spent--Scott?)
> because it was invalid.
Indeed - we gladly offer compensation CPU time cre
25 matches
Mail list logo
