[QUOTE=Brian-E;300738]If we go down the road of working together with M@H beyond only the most trivial level, that is beyond sharing known factors, then suddenly the entire operation becomes only as good as its weaker participant. In practical terms, that probably means a huge sacrifice of credibility by GIMPS. M@H, a new initiative with dubious ideas as indicated by Dr. Silverman, should not be allowed to contribute to the same database as the long-established GIMPS except insofar as sharing instantly-verifiable known factors.[/QUOTE]

Obviously such cooperation would require Mr. B. to release his code, if he hasn't already.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;300739]Obviously such cooperation would require Mr. B. to release his code, if he hasn't already.[/QUOTE]

I would be [B][I][U]very[/U][/I][/B] surprised if Mr. Bobrecki could produce any LL code which is anywhere near as optimal as Mr. Woltman's.

The only possible benefit I see from collaboration is collecting data on factors found which GIMPS missed in the early days. No real benefit to the core GIMPS agenda.

Sadly, Mr. Bobrecki project is taking cycles away from other BOINC projects which are doing actual new (and possibly useful) work.

[QUOTE=chalsall;300740]I would be [B][I][U]very[/U][/I][/B] surprised if Mr. Bobrecki could produce any LL code which is anywhere near as optimal as Mr. Woltman's.
[/quote]Yes, but 1) He might not like using GIMPS' code, and 2) There's something to be said for independent code. Agreed though that it generally would be pretty darn slow, even compared to [G]|[M]lucas.
[QUOTE=chalsall;300740]
The only possible benefit I see from collaboration is collecting data on factors found which GIMPS missed in the early days. No real benefit to the core GIMPS agenda.[/quote] Depends on where/where they do LL tests, though it seems it wouldn't be anywhere near our wanefront as yet.
[QUOTE=chalsall;300740]
Sadly, Mr. Bobrecki project is taking cycles away from other BOINC projects which are doing actual new (and possibly useful) work.[/QUOTE]
That's why we're considering this in the first place; GIMPS could gain a lot from BOINC, and BOINC shouldn't be cheated out of cycles by M@H (or rather, we should optimize M@H as much as possible).

[QUOTE=chalsall;300740]I would be [B][I][U]very[/U][/I][/B] surprised if Mr. Bobrecki could produce any LL code which is anywhere near as optimal as Mr. Woltman's.
[/QUOTE]
But bear in mind that all that is required is squaring a large number.

(A large number of times -:)

D

[QUOTE=davieddy;300752]But bear in mind that all that is required is the squaring a large number.[/QUOTE]

But bear in mind that squaring a large number is [i][u]very hard[/u][/i].

Or how about this: I'll give you £25 if you can write a program that can square a 12M digit number in 200 minutes on one core of a Core2. I don't think I could. Prime95 can do it in 90 ms.

[QUOTE=davieddy;300752]But bear in mind that all that is required is squaring a large number.[/QUOTE]

Is that anything like squaring a circle?

[QUOTE=Dubslow;300753]Or how about this: I'll give you £25 if you can write a program that can sqaure a 12M digit number in 200 minutes on one core of a Core2.[/QUOTE]Is that 200 minutes to write the program or 200 minutes to sqaure [sic] a 12M digit number?

Pity you didn't direct your comment to me, then I would be £25 richer.

But I think you over estimate the level of optimisation required to square things quickly. A basic and naive FFT implementation can do squaring a lot faster than 200 minutes. P95 code can, of course, do it very quickly, but the speed-up over normal FFT code is not anywhere as marked as you suggest with 200 minutes vs. 90ms.

[URL]http://mersenneathome.net/forum_thread.php?id=100&nowrap=true#416[/URL]
Is that true? :loco:

[QUOTE=retina;300755]Is that 200 minutes to write the program or 200 minutes to sqaure [sic] a 12M digit number?[/quote] The latter.
[Quote=retina;300755]
Pity you didn't direct your comment to me, then I would be £25 richer.

But I think you over estimate the level of optimisation required to square things quickly. A basic and naive FFT implementation can do squaring a lot faster than 200 minutes. P95 code can, of course, do it very quickly, but the speed-up over normal FFT code is not anywhere as marked as you suggest with 200 minutes vs. 90ms.[/QUOTE]
And do you think D or I could write even a basic FFT? (Actually, if I had my high school linear algebra text book I probably could, but it'd take me a few days at least.)
[QUOTE=kracker;300756][URL]http://mersenneathome.net/forum_thread.php?id=100&nowrap=true#416[/URL]
Is that true? :loco:[/QUOTE]
Yes; in page 2 of this thread, George says he sent an email to Mr. Bobrecki.

Ah, I saw that but I didn't hear he replied....
This will be really nice if it does work I guess :)

[QUOTE=kracker;300760]Ah, I saw that but I didn't hear he replied....
This will be really nice if it does work I guess :)[/QUOTE]

I didn't hear that he had, not in this thread, but that's what I assume based on your link.