[QUOTE=storm5510;532948]An example: I have a very old factoring program called Factor5. It uses the CPU only.[/QUOTE]Mfactor is faster, another cpubased program.

[QUOTE=MrRepunit;529384]Hi,
finally I completed the generalized repunit version of mfaktc. Changes compared to mfaktc0.21:  implemented factoring of generalized repunits  Removed Barrett and 72 bit kernels  Removed Wagstaff related stuff  Added 64 bit kernels  Compiling with moreclasses flag seem to be slightly faster, thus it is switched on  allowed are all bases >= 2, program might crash if base is larger than roughly 100,000  implemented special cases for bases 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12  dropped lower limit for exponents from 100,000 to 50,000 [/QUOTE]Nice work. Presumably this has the same 32bit exponent limit as mfaktc. If you have any plans to take that higher, a 67bit limit would be useful for a couple of exponents I've been trying to factor lately. (I'm currently using Mfactor for those. Mmff is not suitable for them since they are not doublemersennes.) Since there would be a performance hit, it's probably best to keep the 32bitexponent version available. 
1 Attachment(s)
Good news, finally I was able to implement negative bases.
Also the problem with the 1660 card should be fixed now. I attached the source code and 64 bit binaries for Linux and Windows. As usual test first if all tests are running successfully with [CODE]./grmfaktc.exe st[/CODE]It should give after some minutes and many lines of output [CODE]Selftest statistics number of tests 49113 successfull tests 49113 kernel  success  fail ++ UNKNOWN kernel  0  0 64bit_mul32  8631  0 75bit_mul32  9710  0 95bit_mul32  9915  0 64bit_mul32_gs  6188  0 75bit_mul32_gs  7246  0 95bit_mul32_gs  7423  0 selftest PASSED! [/CODE]Running from the command line would be like [CODE]./grmfaktc.exe tf 97 4956227 1 64[/CODE]If you want to use the worktodo.txt file it should be filled with lines like [CODE]Factor=4763923,60,61 Factor=base=127,1055167,1,64 Factor=base=97,1055167,1,64 Factor=base=17,1055167,1,64 Factor=base=10,1055167,1,64 Factor=4763923,60,61[/CODE]If no base is given the default is base 10. Some additional notes: I wrote a Mathematica notebook that allows to calculate the allowed remainders for any base. The script's source code can be extracted from the file allowedremaindersdata.c I give some results here: [CODE] base > {{<remainder list>}, <modulo value>}  13 > {{1, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17, 19, 25, 29, 31, 47, 49}, 52} 12 > {{1, 7, 13, 19}, 24}} 11 > {{1, 3, 5, 9, 15, 23, 25, 27, 31, 37}, 44} 10 > {{1, 7, 9, 11, 13, 19, 23, 37}, 40} 2 > {{1, 3}, 8} 2 > {{1, 7}, 8} 10 > {{1, 3, 9, 13, 27, 31, 37, 39}, 40} 11 > {{1, 5, 7, 9, 19, 25, 35, 37, 39, 43}, 44} 12 > {{1, 11, 13, 23}, 24} 13 > {{1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12}, 13} [/CODE]Unfortunately due to the specific CUDA implementation not all relations can be used in grmfaktc. Have fun. Cheers, Danilo 
I found some problem.
In the result [I]grmfaktc 0.21[/I] I get factor. When I run [I]mprime 30.3[/I] I don't get factor. Sample: grmfacktc 0.21 [CODE]R[10]211584161 has a factor: 11109304798164647139787 [TF:73:74:mfaktc 0.21 75bit_mul32_gs] found 1 factor for R[10]211584161 from 2^73 to 2^74 [mfaktc 0.21 75bit_mul32_gs][/CODE]mprime 30.3 [CODE]M211584161 no factor from 2^73 to 2^74, Wh8: bla, AID: bla[/CODE]When I run [I]./grmfaktc.exe st[/I] all tests are running successfully. I have Ubuntu 20.04 Error in the [I]grmfaktc[/I] or maybe the settings need to be changed? 
[QUOTE=9970;562695]
[CODE]R[10]211584161 has a factor: 11109304798164647139787 [TF:73:74:mfaktc 0.21 75bit_mul32_gs] M211584161 no factor from 2^73 to 2^74, Wh8: bla, AID: bla[/CODE][/QUOTE] There is no contradiction here. R[SUB]10[/SUB]211584161 is a shorthand for (10^2115841611)/9. That's 211584161 "ones" in decimal notation. M211584161 is a shorthand for 2^2115841611. That's 211584161 "ones" in binary notation (and a much smaller number). Two different numbers. One has a factor and the other does not. You can test, using Pari/GP. [C]F=11109304798164647139787; print(Mod(10,F)^2115841611)[/C] Download gp, start gp, run these two lines. The result indeed confirms that it = 0, ergo F does divide R[SUB]10[/SUB]211584161 
Thank you, it worked
I changed the line with the assignment in [I]worktodo.txt to[/I] [CODE]Factor=bla,[B]base=2[/B],211584161,71,72[/CODE] Added [B]base=2[/B] 
Then you turned it into [C]mfaktc[/C] (which is its parent program).
Trouble is that more universal programs need extra registers to hold variables (that are in the stricter program a constant), and the class selection/enumeration code is probably more involved than in its parent [C]mfaktc[/C]. Are the registers going to be used better or worse when you are compiling a program that does more? Have you run timing tests? So it is unclear if this is simply slower than to run strict [C]mfaktc[/C] (where base=2 as a constant throughout the code, by definition). 
[QUOTE=Batalov;562866]Then you turned it into [C]mfaktc[/C] (which is its parent program).
Trouble is that more universal programs need extra registers to hold variables (that are in the stricter program a constant), and the class selection/enumeration code is probably more involved than in its parent [C]mfaktc[/C]. Are the registers going to be used better or worse when you are compiling a program that does more? Have you run timing tests? So it is unclear if this is simply slower than to run strict [C]mfaktc[/C] (where base=2 as a constant throughout the code, by definition).[/QUOTE] grmfaktc with [c]base=2[/c] is slower than vanilla mfaktc because the former currently uses a different code path for Mersenne numbers: [QUOTE=MrRepunit;529554]For now yes. At a later point I might create a version that uses the original code path for Mersenne primes, probably once I have included negative bases...[/QUOTE] 
[QUOTE=9970;562796]Thank you, it worked. I changed the line with the assignment in [I]worktodo.txt to[/I] Added [B]base=2[/B][/QUOTE]This is not the program you want for Mersenne factoring. Please use the normal [url=https://download.mersenne.ca/mfaktc/mfaktc0.21]mfaktc v0.21[/url].

[QUOTE=9970;562796]
I changed the line with the assignment in [I]worktodo.txt to[/I] [CODE]Factor=bla,[B]base=2[/B],211584161,71,72[/CODE]Added [B]base=2[/B][/QUOTE][URL]https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=211584161&exp_hi=&full=1[/URL] shows it was already factored to 74 bits, days before the quoted post. 
[QUOTE=kriesel;562927][M]M211584161[/M] shows it was already factored to 74 bits, days before the quoted post.[/QUOTE]Actually the record of factoring 7374 is the same user ([url=https://www.mersenneforum.org/member.php?u=16557]b9970[/url]). I have had some discussions with him, and he promises to use the normal mfaktc now for his Mersenne TF work.

All times are UTC. The time now is 07:16. 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000  2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.