LLR Version 3.8.11 released
 

Hi All,

I uploaded today the stable (I hope!) version 3.8.11 of the LLR program.
You can find it now on my personal site :

[url]http://jpenne.free.fr/[/url]

The 32bit Windows and Linux compressed binaries are available as usual.
The Linux 64bit binaries are also released here.
I uploaded also the complete source in a compressed file ; it may be used to
build the Mac-Intel executable and also the 64bit Windows binary.
This LLR version is linked with the Version 27.9 of George Woltman's gwnum library.
I released also a cllrd binary, which is linked with the debug version of the
gwnum library.
The main new feature in this version is it can now test the primality of numbers of the form b^n-b^m +/- 1 with n > m ; the header of the input file must then be ABC$a^$b-$a^$c +1 or -1, respectively.
If n > 2*m, only a strong PRP test can be done, but the factored part of the candidate is shown, if the number is PRP. If the factored part is at least 33%, the PFGW program can then be used to complete the proof. If the factored part is lower, it may be necessary to build an helper file, or to use a more general prover...
As usual, I need help to build the 32bit Mac Intel binary, and also the 64bit Mac Intel and Windows ones.
Please, inform me if you encountered any problem while using this new version.

Merry Christmas, Happy new year and Best Regards,
Jean

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you, Jean. :smile:

I have proved a couple of primes: [URL="http://primes.utm.edu/primes/page.php?id=116666"]10^277200-10^257768-1[/URL] and [URL="http://primes.utm.edu/primes/page.php?id=115855"]10^277200-10^99088-1[/URL]

On an Intel 4770k, hovering around 4.1GHz, the PRP tests run at 1.43msec/bit and the full proving test at 3.4msec/bit. The PRP tests are as quick as OpenPFGW. We were hoping for a bigger speed up, because R*b^n==R*b^m+R (mod b^n-b^m-1) and for smaller "m" I think a quicker special modular reduction is possible, by way of base conversions and an added shift.

One bug is that if "ForcePRP=1" is put llr.ini then I get:
[CODE]Starting probable prime test of 10^257768-1
[/CODE]

[QUOTE=paulunderwood;362580]Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you, Jean. :smile:

I have proved a couple of primes: [URL="http://primes.utm.edu/primes/page.php?id=116666"]10^277200-10^257768-1[/URL] and [URL="http://primes.utm.edu/primes/page.php?id=115855"]10^277200-10^99088-1[/URL]

On an Intel 4770k, hovering around 4.1GHz, the PRP tests run at 1.43msec/bit and the full proving test at 3.4msec/bit. The PRP tests are as quick as OpenPFGW. We were hoping for a bigger speed up, because R*b^n==R*b^m+R (mod b^n-b^m-1) and for smaller "m" I think a quicker special modular reduction is possible, by way of base conversions and an added shift.

One bug is that if "ForcePRP=1" is put llr.ini then I get:
[CODE]Starting probable prime test of 10^257768-1
[/CODE][/QUOTE]

Hi Paul,
Yes, it is a bug and I will fix it!
However, would you excuse me, but I don't understand why you need to use the ForcePRP option...
Regards,
Jean

[QUOTE=Jean Penné;362660]Hi Paul,
Yes, it is a bug and I will fix it!
However, would you excuse me, but I don't understand why you need to use the ForcePRP option...
Regards,
Jean[/QUOTE]

I was going to try it to see if would be quicker.

Is a special mod reduction George's domain?

[QUOTE=paulunderwood;362663]I was going to try it to see if would be quicker.

Is a special mod reduction George's domain?[/QUOTE]

It is not mine... But I think the best is to ask that to him!

LLR 3.8.11
 

Hi,

The bug is now fixed on all released binaries, and on the source.
Regards,
Jean

Seems to be that 3.8.11 is slower than 3.8.9 on LLR for k=5 at n=3.7M.

[QUOTE=pinhodecarlos;362752]Seems to be that 3.8.11 is slower than 3.8.9 on LLR for k=5 at n=3.7M.[/QUOTE]

Have you checked that the FFT length hasn't increased? I have tested hundreds of base 2 tests for a total of 13 different k's and there hasn't been any significant difference in speed, but what you are reporting should of course be investigated, however an explanation could be that you have hit an FFT jump, wich will slow down your testing :smile:

[QUOTE=KEP;362825]Have you checked that the FFT length hasn't increased? I have tested hundreds of base 2 tests for a total of 13 different k's and there hasn't been any significant difference in speed, but what you are reporting should of course be investigated, however an explanation could be that you have hit an FFT jump, wich will slow down your testing :smile:[/QUOTE]

No FFT Jump. Same numbers, more 100 seconds.

[QUOTE=pinhodecarlos;362833]No FFT Jump. Same numbers, more 100 seconds.[/QUOTE]

Is that for a complete test (all the way through from iteration 1 to iteration max) or is it based on timings of each iteration?

[QUOTE=KEP;362849]Is that for a complete test (all the way through from iteration 1 to iteration max) or is it based on timings of each iteration?[/QUOTE]

Complete test on 4 numbers, went back to previous version.