![]() |
|
|
#1 |
|
Basketry That Evening!
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88
3×29×83 Posts |
I get the feeling there's a really simple answer to this, hence the forum. But, apparently if 2kp+1 is a factor of 2^p-1, it cannot be a factor of any other 2^q-1, q prime. I realize there are a ton of factors we know of, is there any way to automatically eliminate those in TF sieves? Just some database with all known factors. I also realize it would be hard to update clients, but a once a month check in could keep the files relatively up to date. (The speed up would be really really really small for each factor, so updates are not required often. On the other hand, between 0-50M, we know ~1-1.5 million factors...)
Mostly I just want a reality check, be I suspect this won't help. But best make sure. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville
26×131 Posts |
http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=16019
it has been discussed before. 2*k*p+1 (2*k*p+1) mod 8= 1 or 7 (2*k*p+1) is prime ( aka if above 3, either 1 or 5 mod 6) using this we can put conditions on k for a specific property of p. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Basketry That Evening!
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88
1C3516 Posts |
Is it practical in any way to reduce TF work?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Account Deleted
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA
17×251 Posts |
I seriously doubt it would provide a practical speedup. The cost of looking up whether a certain potential factor is a factor of any other Mersenne number, even if you were to store those ~1-1.5 million factors in memory, (or - to make it much better - only keep in memory the ones from the current bit level, or even a smaller portion. That would at least make the memory requirement closer to manageable) would probably be much higher than simply checking that factor. Then factor in that only primes of the form 2kpq+1 are possibilities for elimination, and it's looking even worse.
According to the Math page, the numbers are only sieved to about 40,000. I'd think it'd be quicker to sieve the numbers higher than to do a lookup in a huge table. Last fiddled with by Mini-Geek on 2011-10-15 at 03:35 |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Basketry That Evening!
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88
3·29·83 Posts |
Cool, thanks guys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 | |
|
Nov 2003
22·5·373 Posts |
Quote:
that are tested are not even prime. Think about why that is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville
26·131 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Basketry That Evening!
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88
722110 Posts |
Because a massive prime lookup table would be as bad as a massive "already a factor" table. (Right?)
Last fiddled with by Dubslow on 2011-10-15 at 23:00 |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville
100000110000002 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 | |
|
Jun 2003
7·167 Posts |
Quote:
We nevertheless test some composites, because testing them to see if they are composite would take longer than testing to see if they divide Mp. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 | |
|
"Oliver"
Mar 2005
Germany
11·101 Posts |
Quote:
Oliver |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Composite P-1 factors not showing up under recently cleared exponents? | ixfd64 | PrimeNet | 2 | 2018-02-28 07:54 |
| some exponents show duplicate factors | ixfd64 | PrimeNet | 1 | 2015-01-20 23:45 |
| RDS's unique pedagogic ways | R.D. Silverman | Soap Box | 137 | 2012-01-07 07:52 |
| A unique bug probably never before seen | fivemack | Msieve | 1 | 2009-08-19 19:59 |
| Exponents Factored Vs Factors Found | CCol | PrimeNet | 1 | 2008-05-21 13:32 |