mersenneforum.org

mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   Math (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=8)
-   -   Recommended TF bit levels for M(>10^8) (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=10886)

NBtarheel_33 2008-10-31 10:14

Recommended TF bit levels for M(>10^8)
 
Hi,

Wondering if anyone knows around what bit level we should TF up to for LMH-sized numbers. I think I remember seeing something like 2^72 for numbers around M100,000,000, but I'm thinking about even bigger numbers - for instance, I was looking at numbers around M867530900 ("Jenny numbers"!) - it seems like it might be wise to go almost up to 80 bits here? I recently also worked on M999999937 (biggest number PrimeNet lists), factoring up to 2^73 - that took the better part of 24 hours, but considering that the LL test timed out to almost 70 years, I guess it's worthwhile to go much higher. Where should we start P-1'ing numbers this huge?

S485122 2008-10-31 11:23

The values I have (from the sources of v24 and v25) are :[code]Bits up to Exponent
56 1 000 000
57 1 480 000
58 1 930 000
59 2 360 000
60 2 950 000
61 3 960 000
62 5 160 000
63 6 515 000
64 8 250 000
65 13 380 000
66 23 390 000
67 29 690 000
68 37 800 000
69 47 450 000
70 58 520 000
71 75 670 000
72 96 830 000
73 115 300 000
74 147 500 000
75 186 400 000
76 227 300 000
77 264 600 000
78 337 400 000
79 420 400 000
80 516 000 000[/code]In the source code :[code]
#define FAC80 516000000L
#define FAC79 420400000L
#define FAC78 337400000L
#define FAC77 264600000L
#define FAC76 227300000L
#define FAC75 186400000L
#define FAC74 147500000L
#define FAC73 115300000L
#define FAC72 96830000L
#define FAC71 75670000L
#define FAC70 58520000L
#define FAC69 47450000L
#define FAC68 37800000L
#define FAC67 29690000L
#define FAC66 23390000L

/* These breakevens we're calculated a long time ago on unknown hardware: */

#define FAC65 13380000L
#define FAC64 8250000L
#define FAC63 6515000L
#define FAC62 5160000L
#define FAC61 3960000L
#define FAC60 2950000L
#define FAC59 2360000L
#define FAC58 1930000L
#define FAC57 1480000L
#define FAC56 1000000L
[/code]This would mean that exponents above 516M should be factored to 81 bits at least.

Jacob

NBtarheel_33 2008-10-31 11:50

That's just what I was looking for
 
Thanks, Jacob. This should almost be made into a sticky, at least in the LMH forum. It makes sense that there's no information about numbers over M5xx,000,000; I believe the current version of Prime95 will not do an LL test over M596,000,000.

You really gain an appreciation for just how expensive LL testing on these kinds of numbers is when you consider that weeks, or even *months* of trial factoring makes good sense. Like on M999,999,937, I took a day to get to 73, so it would be roughly 2+4+8+16+32+64+128+256 = 510 days, or just under 1 1/2 *YEARS* :surprised just on trial factoring to 81 bits (and I bet M999,999,937 ought to go out to 84 or 85 bits, really). Wow. Then again 1 1/2 years factoring is just a brief prelude to the 70-80 year LL test my computer estimated for M999,999,937. I think I'll stick with my 30M exponents for now.

Thanks again for the info!

jinydu 2008-11-01 03:35

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;147349]I was looking at numbers around M867530900 ("Jenny numbers"!)[/QUOTE]

Where did that name come from?

Uncwilly 2008-11-01 04:10

[quote=jinydu;147437]Where did that name come from?[/quote]
:google:
Jenny 867-5309

[URL="http://graphjam.com/2008/07/29/song-chart-memes-number-of-calls-per-year-to-867-5309/"]
[/URL]

Batalov 2008-11-01 07:40

This page is virus-infected, did you know that?

jinydu 2008-11-01 09:10

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;147356]Then again 1 1/2 years factoring is just a brief prelude to the 70-80 year LL test my computer estimated for M999,999,937. I think I'll stick with my 30M exponents for now.

Thanks again for the info![/QUOTE]

Funny. Prime95 v24.14 at least doesn't seem to give estimates beyond 30 years (it just says estimated completion time after 2038).

NBtarheel_33 2008-11-01 09:32

LL testing time
 
I should have elaborated on how I got 70-80 years. I used the Advanced -> Time option in Prime95 v25.7 to run several 1000 iteration tests of M999,999,937. From the average iteration time, I extrapolated out to 999,999,937 iterations requiring somewhere between 70 and 80 years.

You're right that Prime95 will not display completion times beyond 2038 (actually, beyond whatever second marks the Unix time rollover - 2,147,483,647 seconds after midnight on January 1, 1970 - hint: what's the largest value that'll fit in a 32-bit integer?). If you look in prime.ini (I think), you'll see references to estimated completion times given in Unix time.

WRT the link, I actually went there and watched the video, and didn't get virusized. Hope there's not now something going on in my computer that I'm not aware of...

ET_ 2008-11-01 12:38

[QUOTE=jinydu;147446]Funny. Prime95 v24.14 at least doesn't seem to give estimates beyond 30 years (it just says estimated completion time after 2038).[/QUOTE]

There is a computer bug hidden for January 2038, as there was one for Y2K.

Luigi

retina 2008-11-01 12:46

[QUOTE=ET_;147455]There is a computer bug hidden for January 2038, as there was one for Y2K.[/QUOTE]Don't forget to check out all the other potential problems also. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_formatting_and_storage_bugs]link[/url]. My favourite one is "The year 170,141,183,460,469,231,731,687,303,715,884,105,727 problem".

Uncwilly 2008-11-01 17:04

[QUOTE=Batalov;147444]This page is virus-infected, did you know that?[/QUOTE]I didn't until later. The problem did crop up for me until about 10 pages in, on that site. Thanks Garo. I don't want to be the cause of a problem.


All times are UTC. The time now is 05:17.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.