View Single Post
Old 2020-04-28, 15:55   #37
kriesel
 
kriesel's Avatar
 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

457210 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prime95 View Post
All prime factors will be tested. A small non-deterministic set of composite factors will also be tested.
Hmm.
Is this non-deterministic set of composite factors a problem for Gerbicz' TF proof of work method? https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...7&postcount=30 If for the set of q=2kp+1 that are composite but are not sieved out, one or more of (Mp mod q) mod 2t is 1, it would seem so. Testing in that case that a candidate k for the proof list gives a prime q (finishing the sieving of only those that are candidates to go into the verification list) should handle that. Maybe that's best done on the cpu. The value of the list formed, as a proof of work, is that it is hard to produce, and easy to verify, rather like a found factor. Also it is usable in the most common TF case, no factor found. And depends on doing most of the actual TF work. And can be made reliable yet somewhat compact in size. And does not depend on keeping secrets such as encryption codes secret.

One of the reasons I like the Gerbicz double mod method is something analogous might be usable for P-1 verification of work, which is also not currently present. Some fraction of the code could be reused.

Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2020-04-28 at 16:25
kriesel is offline   Reply With Quote