at 2% difference.
Well, it is no big deal, I thought that maybe SP1 added something that
was eating up some CPU time.
+-+
| Jud
McCr
Yesterday I went from Windows XP home to service pack 1. The speed of
prime95 went down by over 2%. Has anyone else seen this? Any ideas on
what caused it or how it can be fixed?
+-+
| Jud McCranie
ng a 15,000,000 exponent.
+---------+
| Jud McCranie |
| |
| Programming Achieved with Struc
inutes for
6000 iterations, which is actually 0.13 sec/iter, 3.5 times as much. The
expected completion dates under Status look right.
Is there a bug in the per iteration calculation in ver 22.3?
+-+
| Ju
At 08:41 PM 5/24/2002 +0200, Dieter Schmitt wrote:
>The help file says this bug was fixed with version 20.5 concerning P-1 or ECM.
I'm using ver 21.4.1.
+-+
| Jud
At 04:04 PM 5/24/2002 -0400, George Woltman wrote:
>Well another bug was fixed in 22.3.
Is that available? The download page says version 21.
+-+
| Jud McCra
slow, I figured
out that quick switching was causing two copies of primr95 to run. Could
that cause a problem?
+---------+
| Jud McCranie |
| |
| Progr
rime95 with DSL for about 16 months, and AFAIK, it has
never happened to me.
+--------+
| Jud McCranie |
||
| former temporary part-time adjunct |
| instructor of
)? That can be a factor.
+-----+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming Achieved with Struc
lost
exponents? (I don't know which ones they were)
+-+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
|"Thought I saw angels, but I
ntropia, which makes it sound like an official
>announcement. Or is the official double check finished already?
The independent check was supposed to be completed today, so maybe it was.
+-----+
|
At 03:29 PM 11/28/2001 -0500, Donald Rober wrote:
> BUT I doubt
>that anyone is interested in giving up that much computing power on those
>machines.
That's what I thought too.
+---------+
|
Do you think that a mainframe computer will ever again hold the record for
the largest known prime, or will they be unable to compete with thousands
of personal computers in a distributed project? Just wondering.
+-+
| Jud McCranie
ake it start at
bootup (it used to do that).
+---------+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming Achieved with Structure, Cla
I should have suggested this yesterday, but let's have a meteor shower to
celebrate the probable discovery of a new Mersenne prime!
+-+
| Jud McC
ing if this is only his/her 4th LL test! Of
course we all appreciate the people who are able to devote several CPUs to
the job, but this is encouraging to the "little guys". It shows that every
little bit helps!
+----
e was about a factor of 2.
+-----+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming Achieved with Structure, Clarity
herboard. Other Inspirons mentioned "integrated video", which means on
the motherboard rather than a full video card.
+---------+
| Jud McCranie|
|
s does that?
+-----+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming Achieved with Structure, Clarity
At 02:39 PM 11/10/2001 -0500, Carleton Garrison wrote:
> > Well, this means almost 58% slower than expected.
>
>Well, I hope you figure it out because the same has happened to me.
Is your video on the motherboard?
+-----+
|
At 02:39 PM 11/10/2001 -0500, Carleton Garrison wrote:
> > Well, this means almost 58% slower than expected.
>
>Well, I hope you figure it out because the same has happened to me.
Is your video on the motherboard?
+-----+
|
eed.
+-+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming Achieved with Structure, Clarity, And Lo
there are only three cases where one exponent is more
than twice as large as the previous one.
+-----+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming Achiev
13,000,000 range. However, all exponents
have been checked once only to a little past 8,000,000.
+---------+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming Achiev
#x27;ve been
it over 4 years (maybe over 5 years?), well before there were any
prizes. I just replaced a computer that I have been using over 4 years,
and I think I was in GIMPS before I had that one.
+----
elected, it comes back up that way.
+-----+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming Achieved with Structure, Clarity
ges whereas
ctrl-alt-del on WinXP shows 00. It doesn't even omit the leading zero.
+-----+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming Achieve
r depth if you want higher performance from Prime95 while you're
using the computer.
+---------+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming Achieved with Str
re seems to be no easy way to fix this!
How about a warning beforehand? Over 18,000 people have completed at least
one assignment. Are the any figures for how many started, and then never
finished?
+---------+
ths
ago.
++
| Jud McCranie |
||
| former temporary part-time adjunct |
| instructor of a minor university |
++
_
Unsubscrib
rt the percentage done and expected completion date to show that they
are making reasonable progress. It could even be automatic. Or maybe check
in at 1 month, 2 months after that, and then every three months? Or is
that too elitist too?
++
| Jud Mc
have an idea of the % of
people who start and then quit w/o finishing an assignment?
++
| Jud McCranie |
||
a first time LL test - they just
wouldn't get an exponent that someone else had abandoned. That is not to
keep newcomers from contributing - they even get to do first time LL tests
(and be assured of that) - it is try to keep an exponent from being
abandoned more t
>I don't like the idea, for the reason Nathan indicates - it smacks of
>>"elitism".
By my idea, new users would get untested exponents - they just wouldn't get
one that had already been abandoned.
_
Unsubscribe & list info
At 08:44 PM 5/12/2001 +, Brian J. Beesley wrote:
I don't like the idea, for the reason Nathan indicates - it smacks of
>"elitism".
>
>A better "fix" would be to patch PrimeNet so that it can assign an
>exponent for two LL test runs simultaneously. (Whichever finishes
>first becomes the "LL tes
o have submitted several results
that don't match other people's results they could be notified that they
may have a hardware problem.
+----+
| Jud McCranie |
||
| former temporary part-time adjunc
At 03:26 PM 5/12/2001 -0400, Nathan Russell wrote:
I think that's more of a 'quick fix', and might make new participants
>feel that GIMPS doesn't trust them.
Yes, but a new user need not know that they don't get an exponent that has
expired until they have finished an assignment. My point is th
riginally assigned so long ago that they must have been dropped several times.
+----+
| Jud McCranie |
||
| former temporary part-time adjunct |
| instructor of a minor u
le-check in a month or two rather than wait 4 times as
>long for a first time check.
That's true. My last first-time check took 3 months, which is why I went
to double checking, which take about 3 weeks.
...All 4 results will be returned in 44 days.
Great!
+------
eral months.
+----+
| Jud McCranie |
||
| former temporary part-time adjunct |
| instructor of a minor
ay, and
it has been a while since one has been finished.
+----+
| Jud McCranie |
||
| former temporary part-ti
I've edited my WorkToDo file to put the tests in order so that the ones
that take the least time will be done first. Will my doing this mess
anything up?
++
| Jud McC
20.
Dell had one. At the time I got my Dell 20 MHz 386 (fall 1987) they had a
20 MHz 286.
> The 386 debuted at 12.5 and 16 Mhz.
I thought it debuted at 16. I never heard of a 12.5 MHz 386.
++
|
was 3X.
++
| Jud McCranie |
||
| 137*2^261147+1 is prime! (78,616 digits,
- 1GHz+ (factor of 6+)
But individually they didn't scale that much.
+-------+
| Jud McCranie |
| |
| Think recursively( Think recursi
3.3
other pentiums ??
+-------+
| Jud McCranie |
| |
| Think recursively( Think recursively(
e buying now, I'd get an
Athlon. That might change in a few months.
+-------+
| Jud McCranie |
| |
| Think recursively( Think r
Presently, the Athlon is
faster for most things, and cheaper. I don't know if the P4 will pull
ahead of AMD chips for most things, so will people buy them?
+-------+
|
rcent done!"
When I joined, I was getting a LL test in about 9 hours on my P-60. Now it
takes 3 months on my P-300.
+-------+
| Jud McCranie |
|
ptimized for the P4:
http://www.mersenne.org/bench.htm
+-------+
| Jud McCranie |
| |
| Think recursively( Think recursively
people have a P4.
+---+
| Jud McCranie |
| |
| Think recursively( Think recursively( Think
>involves very long calculations with basically a boolean answer at the end.
...
I agree. I've never overclocked my computers because I think it is more
important to be confident in the results.
+------
>about as
>fast as an 850 MHz Athlon or a 1200 MHz P-III.
Not very impressive for the P4. I'm planning to get a new computer next
year, and this strongly influences my choice.
+-----
320MB.
+-+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming Achieved with Structure, Clarity, And
> > I understand that the SSE2 instructions operate only on
> > 64-bit (and 32-bit) floating point data, whereas the
> > FPU registers support 80-bit intermediate results.
I know this is a little off-topic, but how good is the P4 at integer operations?
_
cients.
++
| Jud McCranie |
||
| 137*2^197783+1 is prime! (59,541 digits, 11/11/99)|
| 137*2^224879+1 is prime! (67,687 digits
te precision.
++
| Jud McCranie |
||
| 137*2^197783+1 is prime! (59,541 digits, 11/11/99)|
| 137*2^224879+1 is prime! (67,687
in a manner of speaking: in 1981
There's a newer edition, 1994.
++
| Jud McCranie |
||
| 137*2^197783+1 is prime! (59,541 digits, 11/11/99)
ople's work, and you don't want to do that. Prime95 needs to be
transparent. It probably should be in the advanced menu, and allow you to
set the hours and days.
++
|
at's right, but the original question just said a large random number.
+----+
| Jud McCranie |
||
| 137*2^197783+1 is prime! (59,541 digits, 11/11
itself, and that brings up the
average.
++
| Jud McCranie |
||
| 137*2^197783+1 is prime! (59,541 digits, 11/11/99)|
| 137*2^224879+1 is prim
mputer Programming,
vol 2, section 4.5.4.
++
| Jud McCranie |
||
| 137*2^197783+1 is prime! (59,541 digits, 11/11/99)|
| 137*2^224879+1 is prime! (
I just messed with a program that alters the 8087 control word, then I
realized that this could affect Prime95. Would a program that alters the
8087CW interfere with Prime95?
++
| Jud McCranie
want to use the list.
++
| Jud McCranie |
||
| 137*2^197783+1 is prime! (59
the patent in October 1996 "
I was using windowing in 1987, so his patent is invalid (prior invention).
+--------+
| Jud McCranie |
||
| 137*
tually been granted a patent on this.
Whoops! I'm violating someone's patent! (Don't tell anyone.)
+--------+
| Jud McCranie |
||
|
grammer would think of windowing, given the problem.
+--------+
| Jud McCranie |
||
|
s some CPU time?
++
| Jud McCranie |
||
| 137*2^197783+1 is prime! (59,541 d
all composite.
++
|
Jud
McCranie
|
|
|
| 137*2^197783+1 is prime! (59,541 digits,
11/11/99) |
++
ing like that.
++
|
Jud
McCranie
|
|
|
| 137*2^197783+1 is prime! (59,541 digits,
11/11/99) |
++
At 11:29 PM 11/28/99 -0500, Vincent J. Mooney Jr. wrote:
> I also give Atanasoff 5 stars for NOT PATENTING anything.
He (and ISU) tried to patent it.
++
| Jud McCra
of most historians. Much of the
controversy is covered in chapter 8 of "ENIAC" by Scott McCartney and other
books such as ""Portraits in Silicon". Iowa State University seems
overzealous in promoting Atanasoff.
+----
book store.
++
| Jud McCranie |
||
| 137*2^197783+1 is prime! (59,541 digit
roversial, and most people in-the-know don't agree with it.
+----+
| Jud McCranie |
||
| 137*2^197783+1 is prime!
at don't.
+-----+
| Jud
McCranie
|
|
|
| Programming Achieved with Structure, Clarity, And Logic |
+-+
igits repeating, but
>some other repeating pattern ? Hmm.
I think he means that your mind will think it sees patterns when there
aren't any.
-
+-------
d
won't hold up in the long run.
+-----+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming Achiev
is the correct way?
+---------+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming Achieved with Structure,
t pi is irrational.
+---------+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming Achieved with Structure,
x27;t be much difference.
+-----+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming Achieved with Struc
r slightly. One of them
will be closer to the true value.
+---------+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming
actual number.
>And
>that log base 2 of the exponent of the mersenne prime number n should be a
>line ?
Any log will give a straight line (approximately).
+---------+
|
At 02:49 PM 10/16/99 -0400, George Woltman wrote:
>v19 selects the Pentium Pro code instead.
I tried version 19 on a PII and a Celeron, and in both cases it thought
they were P-Pros. It got the MHz correct.
+-+
| Jud McCra
t;points, one on either side of the line).
That won't work either.
+-----+
| Jud McCranie|
|
can find if this equation has any integer solutions, we've found
>our factors...
Good idea, but this is Fermat's factoring method. It works pretty well if
a and b are close.
+-------
At 09:15 PM 10/14/99 -0400, Darxus wrote:
>What's the best way of finding the number of decimal digits for the number
>2^p-1 ?
p * log10(2) and round up to the next integer. log10(2) = 0.301029996.
+-----+
| J
e way the process works.
+---------+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming Achieved with Struct
At 09:57 AM 10/14/99 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>The supposed clustering is in fact typical of 'random' data.
Didn't someone on this list test the data for randomness using a Poisson
distribution a few months ago?
+------
e not accounted for.
+---------+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming Achieved with Structure,
that exponent?
I have some other exponents queued up (that I transferred) - would the
communication with the server warn me if they have been tested?
+-+
| Jud McC
At 12:16 AM 10/13/99 -0400, Darxus wrote:
>Are prime numbers prime in all bases ?
Yes. The base of the number is just how we write it - it is not the number
itself.
+-+
| Jud McCra
ster and my C-400 is 1780 times faster. But that is comparing
working with integers instead of FP.
+---------+
| Jud McCranie|
|
Prime95. Any ideas?
+-+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming Achieved with Structure, Clarity, And Logic
hat it is impossible.
+-----+
| Jud McCranie|
| |
| Programming Achieved with Structure
This may have been answered before, but I got Primenet error 12029 when
connecting manually. What is this?
+--+
| Jud "program first and think later" McCranie |
+--+
___
At 08:24 AM 7/31/99 -0500, Chris Caldwell wrote:
"Good" number theory meetings are relatively common, but this
>"Millennial Conference" looks like it will be exceptional.
Perhaps it will be the equivalent for the next millennium of Hilbert's 1900
talk was for this century (giving his 23 prob
At 11:36 PM 7/28/99 -0700, Greg Hewgill wrote:
>No doubt you've all heard about the paradox of Man's first interstellar
>voyage.
>If we were to build and launch a spaceship today that would take us to the
>nearest star in, say, 100 years, then a better spaceship launched later would
>arrive soone
At 07:13 PM 7/25/99 -0400, Chris Nash wrote:
That bit is virtually free of charge. Any quadratic non-residue will do just
>fine.
But you don't easily know if a number is a QNR, do you?
+--+
| Jud "program first and think later" McCranie |
+-
the same order.
Is that true? I thought that a LL test of a Mersenne was faster.
++
| Jud McCranie |
||
| 127*2^96744+1 is prime! (29,125 dig
At 01:10 PM 7/18/99 -0400, Geoffrey Faivre-Malloy wrote:
>I was reading Fermat's Enigma today and something occurred to me...would it
>be possible to work with a number quicker if we used a higher base? I.E.
>Use base 32 instead of base 10?
Multiple precision arithmetic operations do that.
+-
1 - 100 of 208 matches
Mail list logo
