Tony Forbes writes:
>We all know that A. Hurwitz discovered the Mersenne primes 2^4253 - 1
>and 2^4423 - 1 in 1961.
>
>(i) Were these the first two 1000+ digit primes discovered?
As far as I know, yes (note that M3217, discovered in 1957 by
Hans Riesel, was very close to 1000 decimal digits in l
I'll have to go along with other comments, that using some ancient CPU
seems odd, but then again, any baseline you use will end up being
arbitrary anyway, so... whatever works.
As for "prime95", I think that was more a reference to Windows 95, and
there was the service version, priment (or ntprim
Anyone consider using a Cray as our benchmark?
Also Anyone considering renaming prime95 considering it is 2002?
Thanks Frank.
_
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ --
Michael Vang highlights the fact that there
are two different things that we can measure:
1) work accomplished, e.g. Mnumbers evaluated,
iterations run, etc.
2) work effort expended, which requires evaluation
of processor/system power.
The P4 versions (more efficient) accomplish more
with
I have been running ECM curves on Fermat numbers lately on numbers of the form 2^(2^n)
- 1 (rather than + 1, as in the definition of Fermat numbers.) The number 2^(2^n) -
1 is the product of all the Fermat number F0 through F(n-1), so by running a curve on
M32768 = M(2^15), I can search for f
> Really we need only consider IEEE single (24+8) & double (53+11)
precision
> types... the x87 80-bit format is not much different to double
precision the
> way we use it, and I'm not aware of any common hardware
implementations of
> other floating-point formats.
At the risk of sounding dumb (Al
On Tuesday 20 August 2002 08:57, Paul Leyland wrote:
> Anyone else here old enough to remember Meaningless Indicators of Processor
> Speeds?
Oh yes. My first boss used to rate CPUs in "Atlas power"
>
> All gigaflops are not created equal, unfortunately. Wordlength alone can
> make a big diff
On Tuesday 20 August 2002 16:32, Tony Forbes wrote:
> We all know that A. Hurwitz discovered the Mersenne primes 2^4253 - 1
> and 2^4423 - 1 in 1961.
>
> (i) Were these the first two 1000+ digit primes discovered?
Yes. See http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/notes/by_year.html#table2
>
> (ii) If t
We all know that A. Hurwitz discovered the Mersenne primes 2^4253 - 1
and 2^4423 - 1 in 1961.
(i) Were these the first two 1000+ digit primes discovered?
(ii) If that is true, then is it generally accepted that the larger one
(4423) was discovered first? (The story I heard was that left the
> Why even bother with that? Just use gigaflops or something that is not
> hardware dependent at all...
Ah, but which gigaflops?
Anyone else here old enough to remember Meaningless Indicators of Processor Speeds?
All gigaflops are not created equal, unfortunately. Wordlength alone can make a b
10 matches
Mail list logo
