On 26 Feb 2002, at 19:46, Henk Stokhorst wrote:
http://slashdot.org
factoring breakthrough?
Doesn't look like a breakthrough, although there may be a very
significant reduction in the amount of work required to factor
awkward numbers.
The implications in terms of public key cryptography
On 16 Feb 2002, at 12:26, Mary Conner wrote:
Trial factoring is well ahead of LL testing, but the gap is closing.
Yesterday was the first day in a long time where the net number of
checkouts for factoring exceeded those for first time LL's. That is due
to the fact that one team is having
On 17 Feb 2002, at 17:54, Russel Brooks wrote:
Am I interpreting this thread correctly? That more factoring is
needed? My climb up the LL top producers is starting to stall
so maybe it's time to switch to factoring.
I'm quite sure there's no need to panic!
So far as I'm concerned, I've
On 15 Feb 2002, at 18:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The algorithm under discussion does share some superficial
features with p-1, in that we do a bunch of a big-integer
modular multiplies followed by a gcd to extract any factors.
But in fact we have complete control over the factors that
On 16 Feb 2002, at 15:42, George Woltman wrote:
To put it in perspective, let's say you are looking for 64 bit factors
of a 10,000,000 bit number.
The basic algorithm is:
Multiply 156,250 trial factors together to form a 10,000,000 bit
number.
do {
On 14 Feb 2002, at 20:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rich Schroeppel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The cost analysis of trial factoring by GCDs of 2^P-1 with the
product of many small candidate divisors ignores an important
optimization: All the candidates can be multiplied together
mod
On 14 Feb 2002, at 19:44, Michael Vang wrote:
I doubt George would be interested in working in a little simple zip
routine when saving/reading save files? It might slow it down too
much
for some folks (although honestly, it takes a fraction of a second to
zip using the lowest
On 14 Feb 2002, at 0:47, Russel Brooks wrote:
George Woltman wrote:
***NOTE: There is an important lesson to be learned here. All testers of
10M digit numbers should backup their save files regularly!! You don't want
a hardware glitch, disk crash, etc. cause you to loose months of
On 13 Feb 2002, at 16:39, George Woltman wrote:
***NOTE: There is an important lesson to be learned here. All testers of
10M digit numbers should backup their save files regularly!! You don't want
a hardware glitch, disk crash, etc. cause you to loose months of work.
Same applies to LL
On 12 Feb 2002, at 12:41, Aaron Blosser wrote:
Have the predictions on the work eliminated by P-1 factoring been pretty
much confirmed by the # of large factors found? In other words, is the
extra processing time paying off?
I'd hazard a guess that the time saving is indeed appreciable,
On 12 Feb 2002, at 13:21, Aaron Blosser wrote:
After long and hard thought on this (approximately 30 seconds), I have
the following suggestion:
Each team account (could apply to accounts with just one machine as
well) should have 2 passwords.
A master password that could be used on the
On 7 Feb 2002, at 15:02, Bruce Leenstra wrote:
All,
What this list needs right now is a nice juicy math debate, so here
goes: I was reading the faq about P-1 factoring, and it talks about
constructing a 'q' that is the product of all primes less than B1
(with some multiples?) And then I
On 7 Feb 2002, at 14:11, Daran wrote:
Nah, the candle is being burned from both ends. The point is that
the small ones _are_ being poached. If you work in the same order as
the poacher, work on lots of exponents will be replicated. If you
work in the opposite order, only one exponent
On 4 Feb 2002, at 11:52, Robin Stevens wrote:
On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 08:06:27PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for Mary's current predicament, with that block of small
exponents you have, my best suggestion is to reverse the order of
the lines in worktodo.ini so that the _largest_
There are two points of view here. They seem to be more or less
irreconcilable. This argument repeats on a regular basis.
I have to say that:
(a) I agree completely that having an assignment poached is
annoying to extremely offputting, especially for a relatively new
user;
(b) I don't see
On 26 Jan 2002, at 14:45, John R Pierce wrote:
http://www.slashdot.org has a link to http://open-mag.com on a new Intel
compiler for Linux an M$ Windows. The new compiler makes use of the new
instructions in the Pentium III and IV. Of course, the most important
part of the Prime95 code
On 15 Jan 2002, at 23:26, Torben Schlüntz wrote:
Why is P-1 factoring not a single schedule task? like the LL and the
Trail Factoring?
Why is P1 factoring hooked upon the LL test?
Why does P1 not have it's own life like the TF and the LL?
I realy hated the P1 until now 21.4 fixed
On 15 Jan 2002, at 22:00, Robin Stevens wrote:
On an otherwise idle Linux system, I've been noticing that the
per-iteration speed has been varying during the course of a single
primality test. Until Saturday afternoon I'd been getting a fairly
consistent 0.188/0.189s time when the system
On 16 Jan 2002, at 2:13, Daidalos wrote:
As the current PFC is still going on, and following the experience of
the list, I took my beloved computer to a friend's computer store, in
order to instal a video card, and thus achieve the speed arranged by
great Apollo for a decent P3 at 850.
On 12 Jan 2002, at 10:27, Paradox wrote:
In about 10 days, I've got 5 Pentium4 computers that will be submitting
completed LL tests (for 10,000,000 digit numbers). I used to have
dozens of smaller computers working on such LL tests for years, and so
I have a collection of Prime95/mprime
On 13 Jan 2002, at 21:37, Gerry Snyder wrote:
At home I have 2 PC's, both of which devote their spare cycles to GIMPS.
One is a 1.3 GHz P4 running W98, and the other a dual 1 GHz P3 running
linux. One of the P3's is doing LL testing, and the other is doing
mostly ECM, with a little trial
On 14 Jan 2002, at 12:18, Mary Conner wrote:
Laptop fans don't seem to be very durable.
Fans in general? I've had very little trouble with CPU fans
(fortunately - and perhaps I'm lucky) but I find failed PSU fans and
noisy (vibrating) case fans to be just about the commonest faults
on
On 14 Jan 2002, at 14:45, Steve Elias wrote:
1 - i just got my wife's toshiba laptop back from toshiba warranty
service. running prime95 for ~6 months on it caused the fan to die,
and then the laptop would overheat shutdown even without prime95
running. apparently the heat caused lots of
On 11 Jan 2002, at 22:58, Russel Brooks wrote:
How do you think GIMPS will run on the new iMac?
(Or will it run at all?)
Is there any significant architectural difference between the new
old iMacs? I think not. The reports I've read about the new iMac
say that it's faster (no surprise)
On 25 Dec 2001, at 14:54, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 01:41:31AM -0500, Paradox wrote:
If the computer above could do each iteration in
0.001 seconds,
the amount of seconds required to complete the task would
On 20 Dec 2001, at 15:16, Aaron Blosser wrote:
It's when they start producing near instant factors of 1024 to 4096 bit
numbers that we'll have to really think about our current encryption
measures.
Even if they reduced the time it took to factor such numbers from
millions of years to
On 20 Dec 2001, at 9:57, Henk Stokhorst wrote:
L.S.,
Another milestone has been acomplished. M4 has been completely factored,
two factors were found, 2^4 -1 = 15 = 3 * 5.
more details at http://slashdot.org/ see: IBM builds a limited quatum
computer.
Wow! Are we _really_ sure they
On 16 Dec 2001, at 9:47, Henk Stokhorst wrote:
at the time of the discovery the amount of personal computers checking
in results to primenet was around 20,000. I have no idea where the
210,000 number came from.
If you read the original press release I think you will find that the
210,000
On 14 Dec 2001, at 4:57, Philip Whittington wrote:
I'm sorry to trouble GIMPSers with what might be more of a computer question. I
am using an Athon Thunderbird 1.3GHz and 256 MB of 133 MHz (DDR) Ram.
My computer has always emitted a high pitched squeaking noise when processes
like GIMPS
On 5 Dec 2001, at 21:23, Nathan Russell wrote:
However, when the client does contact the server (every 28 days by default,
IIRC), will it not get an this assignment does not belong to us?
But the test will continue if it is underway. If it isn't the first entry in
worktodo.ini the result
On 5 Dec 2001, at 22:33, George Woltman wrote:
No. The server never contacts the client. That's too much of a security
risk in my book.
Correct. Though I suppose the server could automatically e-mail a
warning to the user that their assignment has been pre-empted.
That isn't exactly
On 4 Dec 2001, at 20:36, Gordon Spence wrote:
I've triple-checked thousands of small exponents - some of the
ones where the accepted residual was recorded to only 16 bits or
less, which makes the chance of an undetected error _much_
greater (though still quite small) - so far no substantive
On 4 Dec 2001, at 17:59, George Woltman wrote:
Case 1: I finish first, find a prime and announce my discovery. I did
the work but the exponent is assigned to you! Who gets the
credit???
You, get the credit. User b will be mighty disheartened. I know first hand.
Slowinski's Cray beat my
On 5 Dec 2001, at 6:09, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Brian Beesley wrote:
> > On 3 Dec 2001, at 20:38, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [... snip ...]
> > > I think our record shows that a verified factor is still
> > > slightly (by a minute but nonzero margin) more reliable an
> > > indicator of
On 4 Dec 2001, at 1:19, Paul Leyland wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
(Aside - we're rather more likely to find a 75-bit factor than a 75-
digit factor. In fact, finding a 75-digit prime factor of a
no factors
known Mersenne number with an exponent
On 4 Dec 2001, at 11:48, Nathan Russell wrote:
For the information of the list, the folks who *want* to try to get
exponents below (the presumed) M#39 might want to look into manually
fetching work at 2:00 (IIRC) in the morning Eastern standard (7 or 8 GMT),
when the server releases
On 3 Dec 2001, at 20:45, Daran wrote:
Shouldn't that be 1.015 for double-checking assignments?
I think 1.03. However you do have a point. P-1 limits do depend on
the trial factoring depth, and are much smaller for DC assignments
than for first tests, so there is already something built in.
On 1 Dec 2001, at 17:39, George Woltman wrote:
This is because my rather limited reporting software only adds up the
LL results in the verified and one-LL-tests databases. Once an
exponent is factored it is removed from those databases.
The other problem here is that the known factors
On 2 Dec 2001, at 19:57, Gordon Spence wrote:
From: Steve Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
George did say that, and I was aware of his statement, but that still has no
effect on the point I was making.
George's GIMPS stats also give no credit at all for finding factors,
Tell me about it, over
On 1 Dec 2001, at 17:47, Alexander Kruppa wrote:
Warut Roonguthai wrote:
http://www.academicpress.com/inscight/11302001/grapha.htm
Look like the cat is out of the bag now - it's 2^13,466,917 - 1. Was
this early publication indended? I thought the press release was due
only after
On 26 Nov 2001, at 19:18, George Woltman wrote:
Hi,
At 12:46 AM 11/27/2001 +0100, george de fockert wrote:
One of my machines does trial factoring.
Now in the M1790 range, factoring to 2^66.
This takes a very long time, is it better to let it double check ?
It is a matter of
On 20 Nov 2001, at 21:11, George Woltman wrote:
At 07:54 PM 11/20/2001 -0500, A T Schrum wrote:
I looked but hadn't found how an AMD XP 1600+ should identify
itself within Prime95. It calls the processor a Cyrix 6x86 running
at 144 MHz when it is running on a 1400 MHz motherboard. I set it
On 20 Nov 2001, at 23:46, Martijn Kruithof wrote:
Are you talking about a linux system?!
Add a cron job executing:
ifup ppp0 (or your distro's equivalent to get up the dail up link)
sleep 10 ; mprime -c ; sleep 5 ; ifdown ppp0
Every week for instance (also configure mprime
On 12 Nov 2001, at 23:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Many recent double-check assignments involve a second round of
factoring because (a) the trial-factoring breakpoints are higher now
than they were when the first L-L test was assigned, and/or (b) P-1
factoring had not yet been implemented in
On 11 Nov 2001, at 20:12, Nathan Russell wrote:
The output from the script is interesting, but it can be very
misleading for those of us who have recently upgraded equipment.
Yes, those who have recently upgraded equipment - or added more
systems - will find their hours per day very far from
On 12 Nov 2001, at 3:37, Daran wrote:
* Over 70,000 double-checks completed.
* Over 100,000 exponents tested for the first time!
Does this mean that we're not doing enough double-checking?
Seems to imply that about 40% more first tests are being
completed than double checks. If so then
On 6 Nov 2001, at 16:09, Gerry Snyder wrote:
In a recent ethics briefing I was told that running seti@home on work
PC's was a no-no because there had been three break-ins to computers
using that program as a back door.
No idea whether that is really the case, and no idea what
On 3 Nov 2001, at 21:40, Kel Utendorf wrote:
At 21:01 11/03/2001 -0500, George Woltman wrote:
Can prime95 take advantage of SMT? I'm skeptical. If the FFT is
broken up to run in two threads, I'm afraid L2 cache pollution will
negate any advantage of SMT. Of course, I'm just guessing -
On 30 Oct 2001, at 14:39, John R Pierce wrote:
near as I can guess, the issue here is that Prime95 is running a few
priority notches above idle and when another process tries to run at a
lower priority it will stall behind prime95.
Well - a process that keeps being preempted will tend to
On 30 Oct 2001, at 10:37, Lars Lindley wrote:
Are there plans for making mprime and prime95 capable of using 64bit
processors like IA64 and AMD Sledgehammer?
I know that these processors are able to run 32 bit code but will
there be a 64bit optimized version of mprime/prime95?
IA64 may
On 29 Oct 2001, at 19:37, John R Pierce wrote:
I've had similar problems with a few other multimedia sorts of
junkware. Near as I can tell, some of these things put their video or
animation thread at Idle_Priority+1 or something, and it gets eaten
alive by Prime95.
Isn't it the old problem
On 28 Oct 2001, at 0:28, Terry S. Arnold wrote:
Another consideration is that many system/network administrators have
gotten ludicrous about what they will allow on their networks. They
think that Prime95 just might let in a virus or even worse spill
company secrets. By and large they are
On 29 Oct 2001, at 19:30, Henk Stokhorst wrote:
[... snip ...] However it has already been
implemented in the latest version (v21). That version contains more
improvements so I wondered if it wouldn't be a good idea to inform
users through the occasional newsletter. Particulary because it
On 26 Oct 2001, at 11:36, Nathan Russell wrote:
Presumably a badly written Linux driver
can cause the same problems as a badly written Windows driver.
Yes. There is however a subtle difference. Linux drivers come with
source code, so if there is a bug, any competent programmer can
fix it.
On 25 Oct 2001, at 10:31, Ken Kriesel wrote:
M33219278 is the smallest Mersenne Number with at least 10^7 digits,
but M33219281 is the smallest Mersenne Prime with at least 10^7
digits.
Um, I seem to remember testing that number confirming Rick
Pali's discovery that it is _not_ prime.
On 20 Oct 2001, at 9:44, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
Interesting to compare the performance numbers given for the Itanium
running Glucas v2.8c against my Thunderbird running mprime v21.4 :
- At the smallest FFT length, the Itanium is WAY faster.
Probably a large cache effect.
this
On 14 Oct 2001, at 19:57, George Woltman wrote:
The P4 has two advantages. One is memory bandwidth. The other
is SSE2.
If memory bandwidth was a primary reason then the P4 would run
the standard P6 (Pentium Pro) code efficiently. If you remember
the postings when the P4 was originally
On 14 Oct 2001, at 13:40, Francois Gouget wrote:
Nope. It is still 0.18 microns (see Anandtech). If you have a
source
claiming otherwise I would like to see it. They plan to switch to 0.13
early next year. Then, they should be able to increase the frequency
big time.
Oops, I got that
On 14 Oct 2001, at 7:30, Jean-Yves Canart wrote:
According to latest benchmarks (http://www.mersenne.org/bench.htm),
AthlonXP seems to be slower than the Thunderbird. Does anybody have a
technical explanation ?
The Athlon XP lies about its speed. Remember the old Cyrix trick?
Well AMD have
Just my 2c worth:
Wouldn't it make more sense for XP users to run NTPrime now that
George has released v21.4 in that format?
Surely you would then have one copy running irrespective of how
many users happened to be logged in - even zero :) ?
I presume the Win XP problem is that start at
Hi,
Due to work on the electrical power supply to the building, the
server lettuce.edsc.ulst.ac.uk which provides a mirror for the
Mersenne database software files will be offline from 15:00 GMT
today Friday September 21st until 08:00 GMT Monday September
24th.
I apologize for any
On 10 Sep 2001, at 7:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I beg your pardon: you didn´t really expect to get informed about a
planned outage BEFORE it happens or a crash AFTER it happened, did
you?
Well, as a service operator myself (though without any
responsibility to PrimeNet), I do try to warn
On 10 Sep 2001, at 14:47, Gareth Randall wrote:
What is the entropic efficiency of our calculations?
Um. We're not even gaining information in the strict (information
theory) sense, since all Mersenne primes existed long before
anyone formulated the concept - yet we are certainly raising
On 10 Sep 2001, at 0:44, Stephan T. Lavavej wrote:
So, will the Pentium 4 Northwood core (with 512KB L2 cache as
compared to the current Willamette's 256KB L2 cache) perform
even better on Prime95? Will there be a setting to tell Prime95
that a Willamette or Northwood core is specifically
Hi,
Coincidentally to Peter's message, and as an encouragement to
anyone else working in this field, it just so happens that one of my
systems discovered a previously unknown (AFAIK) factor of one of
the Cunningham Project numbers yesterday evening:
[Fri Sep 07 21:33:06 2001]
ECM found a
On 8 Aug 2001, at 9:44, Christian Goetz wrote:
I changed the OS and the prime program with it. But now I am shocked!
With prime95 my comp needs .315 with mprime he needs .405 !!!
I think the improvements of prime95 should be included in mprime as
well.
There is a pre-release of mprime
On 2 Jun 99, at 6:03, Aaron Blosser wrote:
Once this new one is verified, it will be interesting to see if there is a
prime either just below or just above it, to see if this elusive and highly
unverified "island" theory sticks in this case or not.
I thought "Noll's Island conjecture"
On 1 Jun 99, at 21:26, George Woltman wrote:
The 38th Mersenne prime was *probably* discovered today. The exponent
is in the 6,000,000s (the prime is in the neighborhood of 2,000,000 digits).
The discoverer is a member of the top 200 contributors according to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We can illustrate working modulo M23 = 8388607 = 47 * 178481.
3 is a quadratic reside modulo 47 (e.g, 12^2 == 3 mod 47),
so 2 + sqrt(3) is in the base field of order 47.
The multiplicative order of 2 + sqrt(3) divides 47-1, and turns out to be 23.
3 is a
69 matches
Mail list logo
