mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > New To GIMPS? Start Here! > Information & Answers

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2011-10-15, 00:21   #1
Dubslow
Basketry That Evening!
 
Dubslow's Avatar
 
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88

3×29×83 Posts
Default Factors for unique exponents?

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.
Dubslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-10-15, 00:51   #2
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

26×131 Posts
Default

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.
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-10-15, 02:16   #3
Dubslow
Basketry That Evening!
 
Dubslow's Avatar
 
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88

1C3516 Posts
Default

Is it practical in any way to reduce TF work?
Dubslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-10-15, 03:33   #4
Mini-Geek
Account Deleted
 
Mini-Geek's Avatar
 
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA

17×251 Posts
Default

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
Mini-Geek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-10-15, 06:43   #5
Dubslow
Basketry That Evening!
 
Dubslow's Avatar
 
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88

3·29·83 Posts
Default

Cool, thanks guys.
Dubslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-10-15, 14:28   #6
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

22·5·373 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubslow View Post
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.
I suggest that you study how TF is done now. Many of the trial factors
that are tested are not even prime. Think about why that is.
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-10-15, 22:39   #7
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

26·131 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
I suggest that you study how TF is done now. Many of the trial factors
that are tested are not even prime. Think about why that is.
I was thinking about something about why but it didn't make sense.
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-10-15, 23:00   #8
Dubslow
Basketry That Evening!
 
Dubslow's Avatar
 
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88

722110 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
I suggest that you study how TF is done now. Many of the trial factors
that are tested are not even prime. Think about why that is.
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
Dubslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-10-15, 23:49   #9
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

100000110000002 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubslow View Post
Because a massive prime lookup table would be as bad as a massive "already a factor" table. (Right?)
I was thinking composite = p*p etc. would allow a faster mod but that soon failed the logical test in my brain.
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-10-16, 18:07   #10
Mr. P-1
 
Mr. P-1's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

7·167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by science_man_88 View Post
I was thinking composite = p*p etc. would allow a faster mod but that soon failed the logical test in my brain.
Testing with composites is a waste of time. If Mp is divisable by a composite f, then it is divisable by the prime factors of f, and these will already have been found.

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.
Mr. P-1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-10-16, 18:20   #11
TheJudger
 
TheJudger's Avatar
 
"Oliver"
Mar 2005
Germany

11·101 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubslow View Post
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.
For a given M[COLOR="Red"]p[/COLOR], how many of the 1-1.5 million known factors can be written as 2kp+1? For a p at the current TF wavefront (~54.000.000) I would say that the number is something near zero.

Oliver
TheJudger is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



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

All times are UTC. The time now is 18:09.


Fri Jul 16 18:09:54 UTC 2021 up 49 days, 15:57, 1 user, load averages: 2.34, 2.08, 1.80

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.