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
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 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
: [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:
Back to the math)
On 17 Feb 2002, at 17:54
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 the
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 and
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 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 LL
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
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
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
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
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 of
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 of
15 matches
Mail list logo
