> Me as well. From what I understand the breakpoints to be, my K6-2 400
> would be put on first time LL's by default. I tried it on DC's, but the
> FPU is so poor that it is really only suited to factoring. My 466 Celeron
> could do LL's very slowly, but given the relative balance between LL's
On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ah, but, factoring is actually moving ahead anyway in terms of
> CPU years required for LL to catch up - because larger exponents
> take more time to LL test. My impression is that the gap between
> the head of the factoring assignment queue and th
--Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:mersenne-invalid-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 2:55 PM
> To: Russel Brooks
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Assignment balancing (was: Re: Mersenne: Re: Trial Factoring:
>
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
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 know the LL tests drive the FPU hard, what about factoring?
Cheers... Russ
___
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 havi
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 {
>
At 05:18 PM 2/16/2002 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>So the viability of the new algorithm depends on whether we can
>compute P*F (mod 2^p-1) faster than we can compute 2^p (mod F).
To put it in perspective, let's say you are looking for 64 bit factors
of a 10,000,000 bit number.
The basic alg
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is this _really_ a problem, or is it likely to become one in the
> forseeable future? Trial factoring is well ahead of LL testing at
> present, and seems to be still pulling further ahead, despite the
> improvement in the relative efficiency of L
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
>
Just an observation,
If you are talking about putting less than half of the candidate factors
into the modular product, i.e. stopping when you reach the square root of
Mp, then most of the time you will need to do the gcd. But if you put all
filtered factors into the modular product, at some poin
Brian Beesley writes:
>Umm. Can someone please reassure me that we're not re-inventing
>P-1 stage 1?
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 ha
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
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 2^P-1, and ONLY ONE GCD NEEDS TO BE DONE. The major cost is
p
Bruce Leenstra wrote:
> 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?)
> ...
>
> Right now Prime95 constructs a lis
Bruce Leenstra wrote:
> 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?)
> ...
>
> Right now Prime95 constructs a list
16 matches
Mail list logo
