[QUOTE=ATH;578089]You can do a Lucas test with LLR ? (For some reason -q does not work for me in LLR 3.8.23)
cllr64.exe -d -oLucasPRPtest=1 input.txt

input.txt:
[CODE]ABC (10^$a-1)/9
8177207[/CODE]

or the BPSW version of Lucas test if you use LLR 3.8.24:
cllr.exe -d -oLucasPRPtest=1 -oBPSW=1 -q"(10^8177207-1)/9"[/QUOTE]
There is a better form, and llr treats it optimally
[CODE]ABC ($a*$b^$c$d)/$e
1 10 8177207 -1 9[/CODE]
LLR ver >= 3.8.24 will indeed create $temp.npg exactly like that, but even with earlier versions you can use the ABC file above.

Thank you.

I was actually responding to your line:
"[I]We are checking SPRP in 3-4 bases first (the best we can do for this PRP.)[/I]"

which I found curious since you can also do Lucas test + Frobenius test with LLR.


Congratulations on this huge PRP! :grin:

[QUOTE=ATH;578109]Thank you.

I was actually responding to your line:
"[I]We are checking SPRP in 3-4 bases first (the best we can do for this PRP.)[/I]"

which I found curious since you can also do Lucas test + Frobenius test with LLR.


Congratulations on this huge PRP! :grin:[/QUOTE]

I'll gladly run it. Starting now.

[QUOTE=ATH;578109]which I found curious since you can also do Lucas test + Frobenius test with LLR.
:[/QUOTE]
But who said that we didn't?

Q: What happens if you simply run a test with llr?
A: it runs PRP, then Lucas and finally Frobenius tests. By default, [I]no special CLI options are needed[/I]
[QUOTE=paulunderwood;578110]I'll gladly run it. Starting now.[/QUOTE]
By all means, sure, - run them. They have already been run, but why not run them once again? :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Batalov;578113]But who said that we didn't?

Q: What happens if you simply run a test with llr?
A: it runs PRP, then Lucas and finally Frobenius tests. By default, [I]no special CLI options are needed[/I]

By all means, sure, - run them. They have already been run, but why not run them once again? :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

Hah. I'll abort my run,

One thing that I didn't know, is that FBase=a=<some base> is honored by llr when set as Fermat base, that is no surprise.
But! -- what follows (i.e. L+F tests) is decoupled from the choice of a, so Lucas test happens to be all the same in all runs, so one is enough.
[CODE]Starting probable prime test of (10^8177207-1)/9
Using AVX-512 FFT length 1600K, Pass1=1K, Pass2=1600, clm=1, 24 threads, a = 23
(10^8177207-1)/9 is base 23-Fermat PRP! (8177207 decimal digits) Time : 25493.017 sec.
Starting Lucas sequence
Using AVX-512 FFT length 1600K, Pass1=1K, Pass2=1600, clm=1, 24 threads, P = 6, Q = 2
_____________...and so on...___________
Using AVX-512 FFT length 1600K, Pass1=1K, Pass2=1600, clm=1, 16 threads, a = 5
10^8177207-1)/9 is base 5-Fermat PRP! (8177207 decimal digits) Time : 25663.426 sec.
Starting Lucas sequence
Using AVX-512 FFT length 1600K, Pass1=1K, Pass2=1600, clm=1, 16 threads, P = 6, Q = 2
_____________...and so on...___________
Starting probable prime test of (10^8177207-1)/9
Using AVX-512 FFT length 1600K, Pass1=1K, Pass2=1600, clm=1, 16 threads, a = 7
(10^8177207-1)/9 is base 7-Fermat PRP! (8177207 decimal digits) Time : 25609.258 sec.
Starting Lucas sequence
Using AVX-512 FFT length 1600K, Pass1=1K, Pass2=1600, clm=1, 16 threads, P = 6, Q = 2
_____________...and so on...___________
Starting probable prime test of (10^8177207-1)/9
Using AVX-512 FFT length 1600K, Pass1=1K, Pass2=1600, clm=1, 16 threads, a = 11
(10^8177207-1)/9 is base 11-Fermat PRP! (8177207 decimal digits) Time : 25643.544 sec.
Starting Lucas sequence
Using AVX-512 FFT length 1600K, Pass1=1K, Pass2=1600, clm=1, 16 threads, P = 6, Q = 2
_____________...and so on...[/CODE]
I'll try to (as Mike likes to say) ...
:all:
...options:
FBase=
PBase=
FermatBase=
LucasBaseP=
isLucasBaseQ=
genLucasBaseQ=
generalLucasBase=
genLucasBaseP=
...
[code]sllr -oLucasBaseP=12 -oLucasPRPtest=1 -oBPSW=1 -d in
Starting Lucas sequence
Using FMA3 FFT length 1600K, Pass1=640, Pass2=2560, clm=1, 24 threads, P = 1, Q = 4 <<< looks like can be controlled
[/code]
P = 1, Q = 4 is good: kronecker(-15,Rn) = -1
P = 6, Q = 2 is good: kronecker(28,Rn) = -1

[QUOTE=Batalov;578113]But who said that we didn't?[/QUOTE]

It was clearly a language communication issue:
"We are checking SPRP in 3-4 bases first (the best we can do for this PRP.)"

I understood "(the best we can do for this PRP.)" as "That is all we can do for this PRP, only SPRP tests and nothing else."

Dear Andreas, yes, it is a language communication issue.
Do you disagree with the phrase: "say anything, - and you will be misinterpreted by at least one"?
Or in other phrasing "A thought, once spoken, is a lie." (Fyodor Tyutchev, translated by Vladimir Nabokov)

At least the thread title, I hope, is unequivocal.

Congratulations. I wonder, in the course of your search are you recording residues and factors for posterity?

[QUOTE=GP2;578221]Congratulations. I wonder, in the course of your search are you recording residues and factors for posterity?[/QUOTE]As previously mentioned in [url=https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=576356&postcount=11]this post[/url], the Details section on [url=https://www.kurtbeschorner.de/#rprimes]this page[/url], which [b][color=blue]Batalov[/color][/b] supplied in [url=https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=576285&postcount=1]this post[/url], has that information.

Discussion of definitions (once again supporting the earlier observation that "A thought, once spoken, is a lie") is moved to [URL="https://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=26793"]a separate thread[/URL].