mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Math

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2011-08-20, 19:51   #1
aymanmikhail
 
Aug 2011
nowhere

C16 Posts
Default Theoretical Model

It seems the problem of finding larger and larger primes is that computer power is the limiting factor. Is it not possible to develop a theoretical model to find and verify larger and larger primes without extensive computation?
aymanmikhail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-21, 01:54   #2
Christenson
 
Christenson's Avatar
 
Dec 2010
Monticello

5·359 Posts
Default

For any theoretical model you care to create (and we'd love to have new ones), the problem is that the amount of computation involved is going to be enormous, because the numbers themselves are enormous. And, even if you did find a model that caused the work to get 10 or 100 times as small, we computational number theorists would simply go out and find larger numbers to work on....

Now, if you want to talk about what that theory might be, I'd point out that the LL test is pretty straightforward. MPQS isn't too bad, but there's only a few here that understand SNFS or GNFS. But I will warn you that you need to do some serious studying, and be smart, even to understand the existing tools. I think some may be game, but I found helping the programming effort to be a lot easier, and even that is slow work for me.
Christenson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-21, 13:47   #3
jasong
 
jasong's Avatar
 
"Jason Goatcher"
Mar 2005

3·7·167 Posts
Default

Another problem for anyone trying to improve the theory is that they decide to present their theory on Mersenne Forum first, which is likely to illicit flames from some of the better educated/unrefined users. I happen to keep in touch with someone who's actively trying to improve the art of number theory in general, and while he might search the forum for help in various things he's working on, he hasn't actually signed in in a very long time.

As it's been said before, while a lesser man may make a lot of mistakes, a greater man will make even more mistakes simply because he continues to try.

Last fiddled with by jasong on 2011-08-21 at 13:48
jasong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-21, 14:05   #4
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

2×4,787 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aymanmikhail View Post
It seems the problem of finding larger and larger primes is that computer power is the limiting factor.
Do you have a true understanding of the size of the numbers we are talking about? They have no real connection to the numbers found in the physical universe. 13,000,000 digits long. The physical universe typically needs less than 100 digits to describe it.
Uncwilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-21, 14:19   #5
Christenson
 
Christenson's Avatar
 
Dec 2010
Monticello

34038 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasong View Post
Another problem for anyone trying to improve the theory is that they decide to present their theory on Mersenne Forum first, which is likely to illicit flames from some of the better educated/unrefined users. I happen to keep in touch with someone who's actively trying to improve the art of number theory in general, and while he might search the forum for help in various things he's working on, he hasn't actually signed in in a very long time.

As it's been said before, while a lesser man may make a lot of mistakes, a greater man will make even more mistakes simply because he continues to try.
Indeed, it's time to remind that certain flamer to tell us why he said a certain paper, after corrections, was still unpublishable....remind me to get in touch when I start studying number theory again.

http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=13600

Don't let him get to you.

Last fiddled with by Christenson on 2011-08-21 at 14:23 Reason: Added link
Christenson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-21, 17:26   #6
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22·3·641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aymanmikhail View Post
Is it not possible to develop a theoretical model to find and verify larger and larger primes without extensive computation?
We'd welcome such a model!!

No one has yet come up with one that's more streamlined (asymptotically faster) than Lucas-Lehmer, but there's no proof that a better digital algorithm is impossible. (There is wide skepticism that one is possible, yes, but not proof of impossibility.)

Of course, many think that quantum computing should eventually be able to find and verify large primes faster than digital computing can.
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-21, 19:12   #7
davieddy
 
davieddy's Avatar
 
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England

2×3×13×83 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesehead View Post
Of course, many think that quantum computing should eventually be able to find and verify large primes faster than digital computing can.
If by "many" you mean UncWilly and Chalsall, I will endorse that

But then again, as Feynman, Bohr, Einstein, Born, Borg...
have said before:
If you think you understand QM, you don't.

Or was that the 60s?
I've forgotten.

David

Last fiddled with by davieddy on 2011-08-21 at 19:28
davieddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-21, 19:18   #8
aymanmikhail
 
Aug 2011
nowhere

22×3 Posts
Default

No; I do not have such a model. I apologize for the implication by stating the obvious.


Yes; we are dealing with infinity. I would argue that these numbers do exist in the physical universe just as gravitational singularity at the center of a black hole exists.


Within the current state of human knowledge/technology, the persons with the most computing power will find the next largest prime. The human mind is slow but it possesses imagination/creativity and the ability to think about the infinite.
aymanmikhail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-21, 19:22   #9
jasong
 
jasong's Avatar
 
"Jason Goatcher"
Mar 2005

DB316 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davieddy View Post
If by "many" you mean UncWilly and Chalsall, I will endorse that
The fun thing about quantum computing is that they're managing to add a qubit to what's already working about once every year or 2. So, basically, qubits are advancing at about the rate of Moore's Law, which means they'll be pretty much useless for another 30 years or so. Of course, things might begin to speed up. But, for the moment they're like the science of fusion, it's a future technology, and will be a future technology for a long time.
jasong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-22, 09:06   #10
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"𒉺𒌌𒇷𒆷𒀭"
May 2003
Down not across

2×72×109 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aymanmikhail View Post
Yes; we are dealing with infinity. I would argue that these numbers do exist in the physical universe just as gravitational singularity at the center of a black hole exists.
Now that is an interesting statement.

Could you give us some pointers to any literature which contains any experimental or observational evidence to support your claim about the existence of singularities please?


Paul

Last fiddled with by xilman on 2011-08-22 at 09:07 Reason: Add a singular clarification.
xilman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-22, 14:24   #11
aymanmikhail
 
Aug 2011
nowhere

22×3 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xilman View Post
Now that is an interesting statement.

Could you give us some pointers to any literature which contains any experimental or observational evidence to support your claim about the existence of singularities please?

Paul
Mathematics is a natural science of which infinity is not a part of?

The Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems are a set of results in general relativity which attempt to answer the question of when gravitation produces singularities.
http://www.ias.ac.in/jarch/jaa/17/213-231.pdf
aymanmikhail is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Theoretical Experiment Design c10ck3r Homework Help 7 2015-02-03 08:54
Theoretical Evaluation of a GPU tapion64 PrimeNet 10 2014-04-09 22:21
maximum theoretical speed of LL test w/o bandwidth limitations? ixfd64 Hardware 30 2012-03-05 06:16
Maximum theoretical MPG Mini-Geek Lounge 9 2008-07-14 22:45
Theoretical dream farm Lumly Hardware 25 2003-11-03 01:12

All times are UTC. The time now is 11:20.

Fri May 14 11:20:45 UTC 2021 up 36 days, 6:01, 0 users, load averages: 1.48, 1.56, 1.58

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.