mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Prime Search Projects > Prime Sierpinski Project

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-02-09, 17:15   #12
opyrt
 
opyrt's Avatar
 
Apr 2008
Oslo, Norway

7·31 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue View Post
The problem could be with gwnum. There are issues with gwnum for some numbers.
From what I understand, there are no *known* issues with numbers of the formula k*n^2+1, right? I've tested the two smallest prime numbers from the PSP project (they are detected as prime), and I've also verified that equal residues are produced by LLR 3.7.1c and 3.8.0 on the newer candidates (N=8M). The reason I ask is that I want to know if we should remove LLR 3.8.0 from our PRPclient package for now or if it's safe to run. :)

All input is appreciated!
opyrt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-02-09, 19:30   #13
rogue
 
rogue's Avatar
 
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the

11×577 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opyrt View Post
From what I understand, there are no *known* issues with numbers of the formula k*n^2+1, right? I've tested the two smallest prime numbers from the PSP project (they are detected as prime), and I've also verified that equal residues are produced by LLR 3.7.1c and 3.8.0 on the newer candidates (N=8M). The reason I ask is that I want to know if we should remove LLR 3.8.0 from our PRPclient package for now or if it's safe to run. :)

All input is appreciated!
Did you mean k*2^n+1? I have not seen the issue with PRP tests. Has anyone tried this with LLR 3.8.0 with the ForcePRP switch turned on?
rogue is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-02-09, 21:52   #14
opyrt
 
opyrt's Avatar
 
Apr 2008
Oslo, Norway

21710 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue View Post
Did you mean k*2^n+1?
Yes, I did...
opyrt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-02-10, 09:05   #15
runesk
 
runesk's Avatar
 
Oct 2008
Trondheim, Norway

19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue View Post
Did you mean k*2^n+1? I have not seen the issue with PRP tests. Has anyone tried this with LLR 3.8.0 with the ForcePRP switch turned on?
I tried:
Code:
$ uname -a; ./llr -v; for INI in ForcePRP LucasPRPtest; do echo $INI=1 > llr.ini; cat llr.ini; ./llr -d -q"2072644824759*2^33333+5"; done
Linux lyng 2.6.24-26-server #1 SMP Tue Dec 1 19:19:20 UTC 2009 i686 GNU/Linux
Primality Testing of k*b^n+/-1 Program - Version 3.8.0
ForcePRP=1
Starting probable prime test of 2072644824759*2^33333+5
2072644824759*2^33333+5 is not prime.  RES64: 20A5CD45B0850A08.  OLD64: 61F167D1118F1E15  Time : 3.262 sec.
LucasPRPtest=1
Starting Lucas sequence
2072644824759*2^33333+5 is not prime(P = 4, Q = 2), Lucas RES64: 83B19B6B999E8557  Time : 8.281 sec.
.R
runesk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-02-10, 09:09   #16
runesk
 
runesk's Avatar
 
Oct 2008
Trondheim, Norway

238 Posts
Default

The 2072644824759*2^33333+1 yields:

Code:
ForcePRP=1
Starting probable prime test of 2072644824759*2^33333+1
2072644824759*2^33333+1 is base 3-Strong Fermat PRP!  Time : 3.846 sec.
Starting Lucas sequence
2072644824759*2^33333+1 is Lucas PRP, Starting Frobenius test sequence
2072644824759*2^33333+1 is Frobenius PRP! (P = 5, Q = 2, D = 17)  Time : 11.418 sec.
LucasPRPtest=1
Starting Proth prime test of 2072644824759*2^33333+1
2072644824759*2^33333+1 is prime!  Time : 3.239 sec.
runesk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-02-10, 09:37   #17
opyrt
 
opyrt's Avatar
 
Apr 2008
Oslo, Norway

7·31 Posts
Default

I've verified all these using LLR 3.8.0:
Code:
87743*2^212565+1 is prime!
224027*2^273967+1 is prime!
203761*2^384628+1 is prime!
122149*2^578806+1 is prime!
247099*2^484190+1 is prime!
172127*2^448743+1 is prime!
159503*2^540945+1 is prime!
263927*2^639599+1 is prime!
261917*2^704227+1 is prime!
161957*2^727995+1 is prime!
216751*2^903792+1 is prime!
I feel confident that LLR 3.8.0 is doing its job with k*2^n+1. :)
opyrt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-02-10, 09:45   #18
runesk
 
runesk's Avatar
 
Oct 2008
Trondheim, Norway

19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mini-Geek View Post
I don't know of a good way to independently (i.e. without GWNUM), and in reasonable time, verify which is correct, but it would appear that LLR 3.8.0 has the problem.
GNU MP has the function mpz_probab_prime_p and using the demo applications in the 5.0.1 source, I did the following test:

Code:
$ echo -n "2072644824759*2^33333+5 "; ./expr/run-expr "2072644824759*2**33333+5" | cut -d\  -f5- | xargs ./isprime | cut -d\  -f2-
2072644824759*2^33333+5 is a probable prime
GMP did this test in about 37 seconds.

Last fiddled with by runesk on 2010-02-10 at 09:51 Reason: more fish
runesk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-02-17, 10:45   #19
opyrt
 
opyrt's Avatar
 
Apr 2008
Oslo, Norway

7·31 Posts
Default

Tested the rest of the primes from the PSP project aswell:

Code:
241489*2^1365062+1 is prime!  Time : 4385.144 sec.
149183*2^1666957+1 is prime!  Time : 7932.972 sec.
214519*2^1929114+1 is prime!  Time : 9513.151 sec.
222361*2^2854840+1 is prime!  Time : 25216.852 sec.
265711*2^4858008+1 is prime!  Time : 69579.428 sec.
258317*2^5450519+1 is prime!  Time : 101601.551 sec.
So far, so good. I still don't know if it proves anything.
opyrt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-02-17, 11:12   #20
Jean Penné
 
Jean Penné's Avatar
 
May 2004
FRANCE

24416 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opyrt View Post
Tested the rest of the primes from the PSP project aswell:

Code:
241489*2^1365062+1 is prime!  Time : 4385.144 sec.
149183*2^1666957+1 is prime!  Time : 7932.972 sec.
214519*2^1929114+1 is prime!  Time : 9513.151 sec.
222361*2^2854840+1 is prime!  Time : 25216.852 sec.
265711*2^4858008+1 is prime!  Time : 69579.428 sec.
258317*2^5450519+1 is prime!  Time : 101601.551 sec.
So far, so good. I still don't know if it proves anything.
Perhaps you did not see my last post about the |c| !=1 bug in LLR 3.8.0 :

http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=13072

Regards,
Jean
Jean Penné is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-02-17, 12:29   #21
Sloth
 
Sloth's Avatar
 
Mar 2006

9410 Posts
Default

so in english that means we are fine but other projects not using +/- 1 have problems?


S.
Sloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-02-17, 12:46   #22
Joe O
 
Joe O's Avatar
 
Aug 2002

3·52·7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean Penné View Post
Hi,

Users who are testing k*b^n+c numbers with |c| !=1 can now download the
fixed development version from my development directory :

http://jpenne.free.fr/Development/

Please, let me know if any problem is remaining...

Best Regards,
Jean
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth View Post
so in english that means we are fine but other projects not using +/- 1 have problems?
S.
It looks like the problem has been solved!
Joe O is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tired of all the prpclient console windows? opyrt Prime Sierpinski Project 4 2010-05-31 08:42

All times are UTC. The time now is 16:29.


Fri Jul 16 16:29:12 UTC 2021 up 49 days, 14:16, 1 user, load averages: 1.17, 1.39, 1.55

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.