> Exactly. I knew that 1/p number didn't look right. Isn't it more like
> 1/sumof(all p < current p)?
The method that I used (I think I got it from _Primes and Programming_ by
Peter Glibin) is that for any given set of primes, the probability that any
number greater than them will be divisabl
>> Sounds about right for a SWAG estimate.
> SWAG?
SWAG stands for Scientific Wild-Assed Guess - translation: educated guess
-Lucas Wiman
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
> I was just wondering, could anyone give me any info on how factoring is
> done, is there a preliminary factoring before numbers send out, how high
> we factor, what possible factors are, etc. and also, I would really like
> to see the maths behind it as well. I need something to study over summm
Brian,
>>We will of course have to check factors considerably further than we are
>>doing on our current exponent range (due to the increased LL iteration time.)
> Yes - on the principle that it's worthwhile to spend 5% to 10% of the
> LL testing time attemptimg to find at least one factor befor
>> Microsoft have just released a patch for all versions of Win 9x (_all_
>> versions of Win 95 _and_ Win 98) which (is claimed to) resolve a
>> problem with systems hanging after 49.7 days continuous
>> operation. Only took them four years to find out that this might be
>> an issue ;-)
> The
all,
Thanks to Brian J Beesley, and Peter Lawrence for the info on why my whole
2 simultanious tests idea wouldn't work.
Just an idea that ran through my sleep deprived brain...
>> Also, I'm going to quit first time LL testing. Call me impatient,
>> but I don't
>> want to wait until early July
> The existence of this file is _not_ a joke.
(not a direct quote, force of habit, I deleted the message before I
could respond).
Yes, but it seems like a joke to us Linux users out there,
for whom 2-day patches are not uncommon...
-Lucas Wiman
___
It has been mentioned several times recently that factoring is all integer
work, and LL testing is nearly all floating point.
It is my understanding that on intel CPU's, these are done on separate parts of
the CPU. Would it increase net performance to do factoring and LL assignments
at the same
> A) A doublechecking cleanup team of computers. A team of (say) five
> PIII-500s, 64MB SRAM and suitable motherboards, with cheap everything else
> (cases, etc, and probably only one old monitor to share among them all)
As a computer repairman, of two years, I agree with my father of (5 years
co
All,
alright, everybody break it up!
>> Well, you've dropped the annoying Mandelbrot quote, but you're still
>> trying to stir up trouble on my favorite mailing list.
>
> I'm not trying to stir up trouble. However, between your insulting of my sig
> file (absent temporarily, due to my ISP's mail
>I was thinking (always dangerous!) about some of the smaller
>Mersenne numbers, like 2^727-1, for which no factors are known.
>2^727-1 has 219 digits, and we are pretty darn sure that it has no
>prime factors less than 40 digits long. Therefore it would seem
>sensible to "assume" that it is the p
all,
>I don't quite see how this makes it unneccessary to check only iteration
>numbers which are powers of 2. How long does it take to find a cycle
>length of, say, 127 if you're sampling only powers of 2?
I wasn't saying that we should keep the checking only in powers of 2,
I was just using po
all,
>I think we should check the math first. I have a sneaky suspicion that looping
>won't occur in the relevant region (the first 2^n-3 iterations) unless n is
>composite - which may be interesting, but doesn't help us eliminate Mersenne
>numbers as candidate primes. But my math is inadequate t
all,
>Assuming the LL residues are pseudorandom,
Big assumption, here are the first 10 remainders for n=101 (in binary, of course):
1110
1110
100100110010
10101000110101101001110
1100101101001011011011001000100110010
10010110011101010110101011000
all,
A couple of weeks ago, there was discussion about repeating remainders in
the LL test. There was general agreement that this would be technically
unworkable due to the fact that the remainders are so large. Wouldn't it
be possible to store the last 1024 binary digits of the remainder (savi
All,
I'm going to try to get my school to install Prime95 on
their >100 PII's. Does anyone have experience dealing with
large stupid beurocracies? Any pointers? Who should I try and
talk to first?
Thank you in advance,
Lucas Wiman
>> yes, you can set the shell to command.com or prime95, or
>> whatever. There is another way to interact with the
>> system, you can do this by pressing Ctrl+Esc to bring
>> up the tasks menu. From there, you can run any program
>> that you want to. This seems like it might increase
>> the sys
All,
yes, you can set the shell to command.com or prime95, or
whatever. There is another way to interact with the
system, you can do this by pressing Ctrl+Esc to bring
up the tasks menu. From there, you can run any program
that you want to. This seems like it might increase
the system resourc
All,
How long would it take to run LL testing on M(M3021377) asuming that this
number was prime. Could we complete it before the sun explodes?
Could the Litho-universe computer complete it before protons start to decay?
-Lucas
Unsu
In a letter sent by Henk Stokhorst, he rellayed grand claims made by meganet
about a primetest in polynomial time. They are being way to secretive about
this. If they are afraid of anyone but clients using it, then patent it, but
as it stands this reeks of a scam.
>This endorsement was sent to
20 matches
Mail list logo
