Sierp base 63 - team drive #5

[gd_barnes]

Originally Posted by Xentar

Ok, group 8 is finished.
I tried to check the FFT sizes. I used PFGW 3.3.5 and 3.3.6, with the -F parameter to store the sizes in a text file. Then I compared both files (actually, I wrote a small python script for all this), and they are exactly the same, so there is no FFT difference.
Could this be possible, or should I check my script?

If this can be correct, I will post the results.

Mark, can you answer this?

Although it seems unlikely, I suppose that it would be possible that there are no FFT differences for 10,000 k's for n=1K-10K.

[gd_barnes]

Originally Posted by Xentar

Attached you find the file with the primes.

Gary, do you need any other files? PFG.out? It's a 54MB zip file..

Thanks for the primes. I typically ask for k's remaining but I can figure that out easily enough.

No, no results (.out) file needed for n<=25K on any huge-conjectured base (ck>~100K) like this. It's much too cumbersome.

[rogue]

Originally Posted by gd_barnes

Mark, can you answer this?

Although it seems unlikely, I suppose that it would be possible that there are no FFT differences for 10,000 k's for n=1K-10K.

It is possible, but if you recall I had incorrectly linked one of those versions of PFGW and had to re-release. I suggest that you use -F for 9238*619^619-1 on both versions. If the FFT sizes are the same, then one of your PFGW's is wrong. If they are different, then I would say that everything is good.

[Xentar]

Originally Posted by cmd

pfgw335.exe -F -q"9238*619^619-1"
PFGW Version 3.3.5.20100910.Win_Stable [GWNUM 25.14]
Special modular reduction using FFT length 768 on 9238*619^619-1

pfgw336.exe -F -q"9238*619^619-1"
PFGW Version 3.3.6.20100908.Win_Stable [GWNUM 25.14]
Special modular reduction using zero-padded FFT length 896 on 9238*619^619-1

This seems to be correct.

But what I don't understand. After rechecking my input file sr_63.pfgw, even 3.3.5 uses "zero-padded FFT".

[rogue]

Originally Posted by Xentar

This seems to be correct.

But what I don't understand. After rechecking my input file sr_63.pfgw, even 3.3.5 uses "zero-padded FFT".

Then the 3.3.5 you had d/l'd was the wrong one. You need to d/l it again.

To save you from doing it again, you can zip up and send me your sieved file of remaining k and I'll run it through a program I wrote that will output the ones that need to be retested. If you no longer have the file, I'll sieve the remaining k to 1e7 or 1e8 and do it.

[rogue]

Originally Posted by kar_bon

First one! Will do more the next weeks.

Do you have an update?

[rogue]

Lennart, what is your status on groups 16-19?

[Lennart]

Originally Posted by rogue

Lennart, what is your status on groups 16-19?

I stoped all when the bug in pfgw,LLR (gwnum) come.

I think I have 16 done but right now i will not start 17-19.

To many subproject in the air now.

so anyone who will do 17-19 feel free to do that.

Lennart

[rogue]

Originally Posted by Lennart

I stoped all when the bug in pfgw,LLR (gwnum) come.

I think I have 16 done but right now i will not start 17-19.

To many subproject in the air now.

so anyone who will do 17-19 feel free to do that.

Lennart

OK. Just post the results for group 16.

Note that I have done retesting for all k for this base for all n < 1000 and found no problems.

[rogue]

Taking groups 20 through 23. I added an option to phrot so that it can do something akin to the number_primes option in pfgw, thus my PPC can handle these ranges now that it is done with what it was working on.

[gd_barnes]

Originally Posted by rogue

OK. Just post the results for group 16.

Note that I have done retesting for all k for this base for all n < 1000 and found no problems.

Lennart,

Do you have the primes for group 16 completed now? If so, could you post them? Thanks.


Gary