llrnet on base exponent of 2
 

hello,

i work on the conjecture are us project ...

we actually work on the base 16 sierpinski part

so we test number like 31347*16^36249+1


i got these timings (same numbers tested):
LLRNET: 31347*16^36249+1 is not prime. RES64: C9DDFFA46F2BB6FB Time: 490.180 sec.
LLR 3.7.1C : 31347*2^144996+1 is not prime. Proth RES64: F25ECE59387BB41F Time: 138.144 sec.

the llrnet version is the on from rieselbase 5 modified to accept something else than k*2^n+1

LLR is almost 4 time faster than LLRnet (probably due to the fact that 2^4=16 and that llr test in base 2 and llrnet test in base 16)

is there a way to modify it or to find a trick to do the job in the fast way ?

thanks

[QUOTE=tnerual;122233]hello,

i work on the conjecture are us project ...

we actually work on the base 16 sierpinski part

so we test number like 31347*16^36249+1


i got these timings (same numbers tested):
LLRNET: 31347*16^36249+1 is not prime. RES64: C9DDFFA46F2BB6FB Time: 490.180 sec.
LLR 3.7.1C : 31347*2^144996+1 is not prime. Proth RES64: F25ECE59387BB41F Time: 138.144 sec.

the llrnet version is the on from rieselbase 5 modified to accept something else than k*2^n+1

LLR is almost 4 time faster than LLRnet (probably due to the fact that 2^4=16 and that llr test in base 2 and llrnet test in base 16)

is there a way to modify it or to find a trick to do the job in the fast way ?

thanks[/QUOTE]

31347*16^36249+1 = 31347*2^(36249*4)+1 ?

Luigi

[QUOTE=ET_;122239]31347*16^36249+1 = 31347*2^(36249*4)+1 ?

Luigi[/QUOTE]

yes i know ... i'm testing exactly the same number but LLrnet is 4 times slower ...

[QUOTE=tnerual;122255]yes i know ... i'm testing exactly the same number but LLrnet is 4 times slower ...[/QUOTE]

:blush:

I think that Jean Penne' used optimized assembly routines in his LLR.

Luigi

[QUOTE=ET_;122257]:blush:

I think that Jean Penne' used optimized assembly routines in his LLR.

Luigi[/QUOTE]

I think what he is saying that the newer LLR can automatically recognize that a power-of-two base can be tested as a base-2 number, thus using the more efficient base-2 FFTs rather than the generic PRP FFT. Thus, if the LLRNet (which uses older LLR 3.5) can be patched to do automatic conversion, it can gain from this principle.

[QUOTE=axn1;122268]I think what he is saying that the newer LLR can automatically recognize that a power-of-two base can be tested as a base-2 number, thus using the more efficient base-2 FFTs rather than the generic PRP FFT. Thus, if the LLRNet (which uses older LLR 3.5) can be patched to do automatic conversion, it can gain from this principle.[/QUOTE]

thanks axn for translating what i was trying to explain ...

at this moment, i just convert base 16 exponent to base 2 exponent with excel ... it's not too difficult (for small amount of pairs), but it would be more user friendly if it was done "automagically"

it's not really a bug but something really annoying (4 times slower)

I have a patched LLRNet which can fudge base and n before calling the prp test. However, I can't attach it here, since the zip file is around 640KB (forum limit is 244KB). If you PM me your email, I can send it to you by mail.

If you prefer to build your own LLRNet, I have attached the modified file that needs to be inserted into the LLRNet source code.

[quote=axn1;122297]I have a patched LLRNet which can fudge base and n before calling the prp test. However, I can't attach it here, since the zip file is around 640KB (forum limit is 244KB). If you PM me your email, I can send it to you by mail.

If you prefer to build your own LLRNet, I have attached the modified file that needs to be inserted into the LLRNet source code.[/quote]
Does it do an LLR or Proth test, rather than a PRP test, after it's fudged the base and n? The newer versions of manual LLR will do an LLR/Proth test after converting the numbers to base 2, as long as they can be converted to base 2.

[QUOTE=Anonymous;122302]Does it do an LLR or Proth test, rather than a PRP test, after it's fudged the base and n? The newer versions of manual LLR will do an LLR/Proth test after converting the numbers to base 2, as long as they can be converted to base 2.[/QUOTE]

It should. However, I haven't tested it yet, so I don't even know whether it works at all :unsure:

Any volunteers? :whistle:

[quote=axn1;122304]It should. However, I haven't tested it yet, so I don't even know whether it works at all :unsure:

Any volunteers? :whistle:[/quote]
I'll try. (It shouldn't even need to be set up to communicate with a server--all I'll need to do is drop one or two sierp. base 16 candidates in the workfile.txt file.) My email is bugmesticky *at* googlemail *dot* com.

BTW, since it would appear that you've been at least able to build LLRnet successfully on your machine, could you possibly try building a copy of LLRnet with the LLR 3.7.1c source dropped in for me? I was going to try it myself, but for some reason the gcc on my machine (Ubuntu 7.10) couldn't find all the required files to build LUA (which is apparently part of LLRnet). I could send you my copy of the LLRnet source files that already have the 3.7.1c source code dropped in (in place of the 3.5.1 code), if you want.

[QUOTE=Anonymous;122335]I'll try. (It shouldn't even need to be set up to communicate with a server--all I'll need to do is drop one or two sierp. base 16 candidates in the workfile.txt file.) My email is bugmesticky *at* googlemail *dot* com.[/QUOTE]

YGM.

I'll try to build it with LLR 3.7, but my past attempts with 3.6 has not been very successful so I am not very hopeful.

[quote=axn1;122343]YGM.

I'll try to build it with LLR 3.7, but my past attempts with 3.6 has not been very successful so I am not very hopeful.[/quote]
Okay, thanks. One quick note though: You will probably want to [i]not[/i] use your modified code that fudges the base and n when compiling with 3.7, since LLR 3.7 automatically converts to base 2 on its own.

[quote=axn1;122343]YGM.

I'll try to build it with LLR 3.7, but my past attempts with 3.6 has not been very successful so I am not very hopeful.[/quote]
Hmm...didn't get the message somehow. I checked in the spam folder too, not there. Did you get the email address right?

[QUOTE=Anonymous;122361]Hmm...didn't get the message somehow. I checked in the spam folder too, not there. Did you get the email address right?[/QUOTE]

googlemail.com or gmail.com? :unsure:

[quote=axn1;122363]googlemail.com or gmail.com? :unsure:[/quote]
googlemail.com. For some reason, some gmail invites (I got it through a gmail invite spooler web site, before it was made available without an invite) will give you a googlemail.com email rather than gmail.com. Heaven knows why! :smile:

[QUOTE=Anonymous;122365]googlemail.com. For some reason, some gmail invites (I got it through a gmail invite spooler web site, before it was made available without an invite) will give you a googlemail.com email rather than gmail.com. Heaven knows why! :smile:[/QUOTE]

I got a mail delivery failure - [B]illegal[/B] attachment. YIKES! I'll upload it to some file share and post the link here.

EDIT:- [url]http://www.mediafire.com/?fx0bt3zdt2z[/url]

[quote=axn1;122432]I got a mail delivery failure - [B]illegal[/B] attachment. YIKES! I'll upload it to some file share and post the link here.[/quote]

Rename the extension to pdf, gmail blocks exe files.

[QUOTE=em99010pepe;122433]Rename the extension to pdf, gmail blocks exe files.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm.... I had zipped the file -- does gmail look [B]inside[/B] zip files?:furious:

[quote]Hmmm.... I had zipped the file -- does gmail look [B]inside[/B] zip files?:furious:[/quote]
Yes, but not tarred files. Or gzipped and tarred files.