by sticking to the
program-assigned factoring limit.
Also, you can't continue trial factoring above 2^67 on your exponent
unless you give up using PrimeNet for assignments.
If you still really, really want to do it, then read all the
documentation files that came with your Prime95 software. T
use it _does_ take FFT size into account.
My examination was of V22 source code. I've not yet seen V23 source
code -- there might be some change in the V23 algorithm.
Richard Woods
_
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://
by them, but the
proportion thus eliminated is roughly the same regardless of exponent
size, so the ratio of trial factoring times remains roughly equal to the
inverse ratio of exponents.
Richard Woods
_
Unsubscribe & list in
; work out if I have ever poached any numbers, I'll save
> you the bother. Yes I have. How many? - can't remember,
> less than 20 or so. Will I do it ever again? - don't
> know.
I hadn't even _thought_ of trawling through files to see whether you had
ever poached any assignments, until I read that last paragraph of yours.
Thank you for your revelation -- I commend your honesty.
Earlier I separately posted my comments ("Mersenne: 80% instead of
100%?") on the contrast between this last paragraph and your previous
claim about trustworthiness of Mersenne prime discoverers.
Richard Woods
_
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
bly wouldn't have much legal standing if you
> wanted to go after someone who poached a number from you that
> turned out to be a prize winning prime.
Poaching in GIMPS/PrimeNet isn't a matter of legality; it's
Gordon Spence wrote:
>> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 14:28:04 -0500
>> From: "Richard Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Poaching -- Definition (was: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest
V1 #1038)
>>
>> Paul Missman wrote:
>>> I know that this migh
t because _you_ choose not to highly value
the exclusivity of your assignment doesn't mean that _others_ who do
value that exclusivity highly should not be able to enjoy the benefits
of unpoached assignments. But poachers don't ask whether the
assignment-holder would mind being poached.
Richard Woods
_
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
words, the man claiming that he could be especially trusted
admits _having already poached, perhaps up to "20 or so" times_.
I suppose I should commend his honesty.
So, maybe only 80% of Mersenne prime discoverers during the GIMPS era
can be trusted not to poach, instead of 100%?
Richard Wo
as any reason to prevent her from
> doing any of this.
... _if_ she genuinely was working outside GIMPS/PrimeNet and was not
aware of the GIMPS/PrimeNet assignment system.
> There simply is no real problem here t
between Slowinski & Gage, and him. It was just
happenstance that Slowinski and Gage completed L-L testing M1257787
while George was in the midst of L-L testing that very same number.)
Richard Woods
_
Unsubscribe &
the needless
duplication of effort also comes new ideas that did not rise, or might
not have arisen, in the separate discussion.
But IMO we still need to consider whether the separate discussions are
best for GIMPS in the long run.
R
ery exclusive chance to demonstrate
their discretion during the post-discovery verification phase. None of
the other thousands of GIMPS participants have been given even a
_chance_ to demonstrate that particular, very exclusive type of
discretion. Can none of the latter category be trusted not to
practical) cross-communication.
Richard Woods
_
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
ing or usage that some others do, so I wouldn't
request report access or volunteer to monitor in the first
place.
> Or how about myself, as one of the *very* exclusive club
> of people who have actually discovered a Mersenne prime?
As long as you could be trusted by system administrat
> yourself something of a tempting target.
Increasing the difficulty for a poacher to _find_ a tempting target
would mean other participants could be less concerned about making
themselves into such a target, and just concentrate on doing the work
they considered most suitable within the
, important topics discussd
on the GIMPS Forum and are informed of important announcements/decisions
posted on the Forum?
Richard Woods
_
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
which data fields in either the HRF3.TXT or LUCAS_V.TXT
file provide information about currently-assigned, in-progress,
incomplete assignments (which are the poachable ones)? I asked this
in the GIMPS forum, but haven't seen any answer there yet. So will
you please point out what I overlooked
liy working on
an assignment for a year and was almost finished?
Richard Woods
_
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
nd attention of
others to detect stragglers _about whom action needs to be taken_?
If not, then why provide this information to poachers? If so, just give
some other trusted individuals the password for the full assignments
report.
Does anyone see any problem with this scheme? (... other than
96 = 1997 January 2,3,4
97 =6,7
98 =7,8
99 =9,10,11,12
100 = 12,13,14,15
101 = 15
102 = 16,17,18
103 = 18,19
104 = 19,20,21
105 = 21,22,23
1
285 = 1998 January 1,2,3,4
286 =4,5
287 =6,7
288 =9
289 = 12
290 = 13,14,15
291 = 15,16
292 = 18,19
293 = 20,21
294 = 22,23,24,25
295 =
Mersenne Mailing List -- Digest Number vs. Date Index
The date range listed for a digest issue is that of the messages
posted within that issue, and does not necessarily include the
publication date in the issue's header.
There are anomalous dates in some message headers. Example: In
807 = 2001 January 3,5,7
808 =7,8,9,14
809 = 15,16,17
810 = 19,20,22
811 = 22,23,27
812 = 2001 February 2,3,4
813 = 3,4,5,6
814 = 6,7,8
815 = 8,9,10,11
816 =
490 = 1999 January 3,4
491 =4,5,6
492 =6,7
493 =7,8
494 =9
495 = 10,11,12
496 = 12,13
497 = 12,14,15,16
498 = 16,17,18
499 = 19,20
500 =
sting to [EMAIL PROTECTED] will have the
index's introductory heading and number vs. date for the first 95
Digests (through the end of 1996).
Richard Woods
_
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/s
I've discovered yet another of my ISP's e-mail
flaws.
Richard Woods
_
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
zip. My guess is that someone has reserved the 219x range
by e-mail with George W.
Richard Woods
_
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/
that the
project is being sabotaged by miscreants who are threatening to
derail its reputation and that of many valuable Internet-based
distributed computing projects."
Richard Woods
_
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://w
optimized for
maximum pipelining, hyperthreading would allow another application
to use unused pipeline capacity. But Prime95 is already so optimized.
Richard Woods
_
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech
Speaking of the Primenet status summary report at
http://mersenne.org/primenet/summary.txt ,
someone needs to allocate another couple of columns to "Exponent
Range" if it's going to be reporting on exponents over 9999.
Try accessing the Primenet status summary report directly at
http://mersenne.org/primenet/summary.txt
Richard Woods
_
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ --
it on power-of-two to which Prime95
TFs a given Mnumber, or (b) the lower or upper limits on Mnumber
exponent for which Prime95 TFs to a given power-of-two.
Recent Prime95 changes raised (a) for some Mnumber exponents, and
thus lowered (
time for a 256K FFT is
0.1316.
If we assume that the P-90 iteration times vary proportionally (in the
ratio 0.778/0.1316) with PII-400 iteration times, we find that
M1288 (640K FFT, 0.372 sec/iter. on PII-400) would take 0.898 P-90
CPU-year, but M12890001 (768K FFT
MUCH* faster than the new AKS algorithm. However, the new
AKS algorithm will work on other forms of primes to which the
Lucas-Lehmer test is not applicable.
Richard Woods
_
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatec
aller than the posted bit limit in the current
nofactor.cmp at http://www.mersenne.org/gimps.
AFAIK, the number of such findings is too small to make any significant
difference in the probabilities calculated by the P-1 limit-choosing
algorithm, but it would be well to remember that it can still ha
a
factor using that combination.
Though both P-1 and L-L costs are dominated by the number of FFT
squarings required, the nonlinear dependence of P-1 squaring cost on
exponent and bounds means that there can be a discontinuity in chosen
bounds when the exponent passes from the range for one FFT s
different enough for the P-1 limits
> to vary slightly.
No. The P-1 limit-choosing algorithm does not consider RollingAverage
either.
Richard Woods
P.S. When replying to this message, check that your reply's To: field
contains "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". My ISP&
How will the Mersenne digest following Volume 01 : Number 999
Richard Woods
_
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Ahem ...
Will the Mersenne-digest following Volume 01 : Number 999 be "Volume 02
: Number 001"?
Richard Woods
_
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FA
39 matches
Mail list logo
