PFGW 3.8.3 (with gwnum v28.7) Released - Page 22

WMHalsdorf · 2015-08-15, 05:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogue

I've posted pfgw 3.710 (Windows only right now, Mac to soon follow). This fixes the trial division error that I reported a couple of weeks ago.

Note that I am considering discontinuing the distribution of 32-bit executables of pfgw. I'll be able to build them. I just appears that almost nobody is using them.

I use it occasionally on my old XP machine, not much works with 512M of ram.

wombatman · 2015-09-13, 14:51

Testing 89350*297^4659-1 with

Code:

pfgw64.exe -f0 -tp -q"89350*297^4659-1"

returns that it is composite. Testing it with "-tc", however, returns that it is prime. Same for 104014*297^4844-1. Could someone confirm whether these are prime or not?

Edit: This is with 3.7.10 64-bit.

paulunderwood · 2015-09-13, 15:52

Code:

./pfgw64 -i -V -tp -q"89350*297^4659-1" -a3
PFGW Version 3.7.7.64BIT.20130722.x86_Dev [GWNUM 27.11]


CPU Information (From Woltman v26 library code)
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4770K CPU @ 3.50GHz
CPU speed: 3537.23 MHz, 4 cores
CPU features: RDTSC, CMOV, Prefetch, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE4.1, SSE4.2
L1 cache size: 32 KB
L2 cache size: 256 KB, L3 cache size: 8 MB
L1 cache line size: 64 bytes
L2 cache line size: 64 bytes
TLBS: 64
                                    
Primality testing 89350*297^4659-1 [N+1, Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge]                                    
Running N+1 test using discriminant 2, base 2+sqrt(2)                                    
Special modular reduction using generic reduction AVX FFT length 12K, Pass1=256, Pass2=48 on 89350*297^4659-1                                    
89350*297^4659-1 is prime! (1252.1987s+0.0154s)

I tried "-a2" but it failed. I will leave it up to you to do 104014*297^4844-1.

(I also ran my own program with a "Likely prime!" result

)

wombatman · 2015-09-13, 18:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulunderwood

Code:

./pfgw64 -i -V -tp -q"89350*297^4659-1" -a3
PFGW Version 3.7.7.64BIT.20130722.x86_Dev [GWNUM 27.11]


CPU Information (From Woltman v26 library code)
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4770K CPU @ 3.50GHz
CPU speed: 3537.23 MHz, 4 cores
CPU features: RDTSC, CMOV, Prefetch, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE4.1, SSE4.2
L1 cache size: 32 KB
L2 cache size: 256 KB, L3 cache size: 8 MB
L1 cache line size: 64 bytes
L2 cache line size: 64 bytes
TLBS: 64
                                    
Primality testing 89350*297^4659-1 [N+1, Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge]                                    
Running N+1 test using discriminant 2, base 2+sqrt(2)                                    
Special modular reduction using generic reduction AVX FFT length 12K, Pass1=256, Pass2=48 on 89350*297^4659-1                                    
89350*297^4659-1 is prime! (1252.1987s+0.0154s)

I tried "-a2" but it failed. I will leave it up to you to do 104014*297^4844-1.

(I also ran my own program with a "Likely prime!" result

)

Much obliged!

rogue · 2015-11-08, 18:36

I have updated pfgw to 3.8.0. There are only two changes:

1) Add Smarandache-Wellin functions (SmW and SmWp).
2) If using -od and -k options together, only output the decimal expansion to the log file and not to the console. There is a corresponding change to PRPNet that will use this for generic searches.

Cruelty · 2015-11-18, 14:49

How does "validate factors" work? When I type,

Code:

pfgw factors.txt

I get the following output:

Code:

***WARNING! file factors.txt may have already been fully processed.

(4421*10^1007110-1)%6099704613355511 is Zero (0)
(4421*10^1008910-1)%3223703693683777 is Zero (0)
(4421*10^1023676-1)%566041625595317 is Zero (0)

What does it mean "is Zero (0)"

BTW: where can I get version 3.8.0? There is still 3.7.10 available for download @ Sourceforge.

rogue · 2015-11-18, 14:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cruelty

How does "validate factors" work? When I type,

Code:

pfgw factors.txt

I get the following output:

Code:

***WARNING! file factors.txt may have already been fully processed.

(4421*10^1007110-1)%6099704613355511 is Zero (0)
(4421*10^1008910-1)%3223703693683777 is Zero (0)
(4421*10^1023676-1)%566041625595317 is Zero (0)

What does it mean "is Zero (0)"

BTW: where can I get version 3.8.0? There is still 3.7.10 available for download @ Sourceforge.

"is Zero" means that it has verified the factor. If you get any other result, then it is not a valid factor.

I have not posted it yet.

rogue · 2016-05-27, 22:29

I reposted 3.8.0 with a change to support longer input lines, from 5000 characters to 5000000 characters. A 32-bit build is not included in what I have posted at source forge. If you absolutely need a 32-bit build, please let me know.

This version also supports the CE() function for Copeland-Erdos numbers. This combined with pixsieve should help anyone extend my search (if they desire).

ATH · 2016-06-02, 21:03

When you run a N+1 test using "-tp" on a PRP and there is no factorization of N+1 it performs a Lucas PRP test:
(2^3464473-1)/604874508299177 is Lucas PRP!

In the documentation for -tp it says:

Code:

If the factorisation is less then 33.33%, an F-strong test will be performed.

A.3.4 F-Strong test
 This test is used when you use the -t option, and your factors don't reach
 the magic 33.33%. It is a strong-primality test, and gives more certainty
 than a Fermat test, but still is NOT a proof!

Is an F-strong test the same as a Lucas PRP test? Is this a "normal", strong or extra strong Lucas test?

When you run this test just for the Lucas PRP test, I assume it "wastes" time trying the N+1 test first? If yes, is there a way to force it to just do the Lucas test immediately?

When you run a N-1 test using "-tm" on a PRP and there is no factorization of N-1 it returns:
(2^4187251-1)/72234342371519 is PRP!

Is this a Fermat PRP test or Strong PRP and for which base?

rogue · 2016-06-02, 22:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATH

When you run a N+1 test using "-tp" on a PRP and there is no factorization of N+1 it performs a Lucas PRP test:
(2^3464473-1)/604874508299177 is Lucas PRP!

In the documentation for -tp it says:

Code:

If the factorisation is less then 33.33%, an F-strong test will be performed.

A.3.4 F-Strong test
 This test is used when you use the -t option, and your factors don't reach
 the magic 33.33%. It is a strong-primality test, and gives more certainty
 than a Fermat test, but still is NOT a proof!

Is an F-strong test the same as a Lucas PRP test? Is this a "normal", strong or extra strong Lucas test?

When you run this test just for the Lucas PRP test, I assume it "wastes" time trying the N+1 test first? If yes, is there a way to force it to just do the Lucas test immediately?

When you run a N-1 test using "-tm" on a PRP and there is no factorization of N-1 it returns:
(2^4187251-1)/72234342371519 is PRP!

Is this a Fermat PRP test or Strong PRP and for which base?

Based upon the code, you need to use "-tc".

ATH · 2016-06-02, 22:44

The "-tc" options gives:

Code:

is Fermat and Lucas PRP!

which means the N-1 options I was wondering about has to be Fermat PRP, I guess base 3?

2015-09-13, 14:51	#233
wombatman I moo ablest echo power! May 2013 3365₈ Posts	Testing 89350297^4659-1 with Code: pfgw64.exe -f0 -tp -q"89350297^4659-1" returns that it is composite. Testing it with "-tc", however, returns that it is prime. Same for 104014297^4844-1. Could someone confirm whether these are prime or not? Edit: This is with 3.7.10 64-bit. Last fiddled with by wombatman on 2015-09-13 at 14:52*

2015-11-18, 14:49	#237
Cruelty May 2005 2³·7·29 Posts	How does "validate factors" work? When I type, Code: pfgw factors.txt I get the following output: Code: **WARNING! file factors.txt may have already been fully processed. (442110^1007110-1)%6099704613355511 is Zero (0) (442110^1008910-1)%3223703693683777 is Zero (0) (442110^1023676-1)%566041625595317 is Zero (0) What does it mean "is Zero (0)" BTW: where can I get version 3.8.0? There is still 3.7.10 available for download @ Sourceforge.

2016-06-02, 21:03	#240
ATH Einyen Dec 2003 Denmark 110001010110₂ Posts	When you run a N+1 test using "-tp" on a PRP and there is no factorization of N+1 it performs a Lucas PRP test: (2^3464473-1)/604874508299177 is Lucas PRP! In the documentation for -tp it says: Code: If the factorisation is less then 33.33%, an F-strong test will be performed. A.3.4 F-Strong test This test is used when you use the -t option, and your factors don't reach the magic 33.33%. It is a strong-primality test, and gives more certainty than a Fermat test, but still is NOT a proof! Is an F-strong test the same as a Lucas PRP test? Is this a "normal", strong or extra strong Lucas test? When you run this test just for the Lucas PRP test, I assume it "wastes" time trying the N+1 test first? If yes, is there a way to force it to just do the Lucas test immediately? When you run a N-1 test using "-tm" on a PRP and there is no factorization of N-1 it returns: (2^4187251-1)/72234342371519 is PRP! Is this a Fermat PRP test or Strong PRP and for which base? Last fiddled with by ATH on 2016-06-02 at 21:11

2016-06-02, 22:44	#242
ATH Einyen Dec 2003 Denmark 2×1,579 Posts	The "-tc" options gives: Code: is Fermat and Lucas PRP! which means the N-1 options I was wondering about has to be Fermat PRP, I guess base 3?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A possible bug in LLR/PFGW while using GWNUM (no bug in P95)	Batalov	Software	77	2015-04-14 09:01
PFGW 3.2.0 has been Released	rogue	Software	94	2010-09-14 21:39
PFGW 3.2.3 has been Released	rogue	Software	10	2009-10-28 07:07
PFGW 3.2.2 has been Released	rogue	Software	20	2009-08-23 12:14
PFGW 3.2.1 has been released	rogue	Software	5	2009-08-10 01:43

2015-11-08, 18:36	#236
rogue "Mark" Apr 2003 Between here and the 14322₈ Posts	I have updated pfgw to 3.8.0. There are only two changes: 1) Add Smarandache-Wellin functions (SmW and SmWp). 2) If using -od and -k options together, only output the decimal expansion to the log file and not to the console. There is a corresponding change to PRPNet that will use this for generic searches.

2016-05-27, 22:29	#239
rogue "Mark" Apr 2003 Between here and the 2×3²×353 Posts	I reposted 3.8.0 with a change to support longer input lines, from 5000 characters to 5000000 characters. A 32-bit build is not included in what I have posted at source forge. If you absolutely need a 32-bit build, please let me know. This version also supports the CE() function for Copeland-Erdos numbers. This combined with pixsieve should help anyone extend my search (if they desire).