mersenneforum.org PRP test largely on input number
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

2019-03-18, 21:44   #23
lukerichards

"Luke Richards"
Jan 2018
Birmingham, UK

1001000002 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Batalov You will need to recompile the binary. Both static and dynamic pfgw binaries core-dump on some CPUs (but not on most others), because of the way they are compiled. They work for most people though, so the number of complains was not enough for them to reach the maintainer. So roll up your sleeves and build the binary from the source.

I think our posts have crossed.

See here:

https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...4&postcount=21

2019-03-18, 21:45   #24
lukerichards

"Luke Richards"
Jan 2018
Birmingham, UK

25·32 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Batalov Build libgmp too, of course.

Have done - as stated earlier in the thread, I have built libgmp from source inc succesful make, make check and sudo make install.

Have also built libgmp into the 64bit folder of the gmp packages directory within the pfgw source files.

Last fiddled with by lukerichards on 2019-03-18 at 21:47

 2019-03-18, 21:46 #25 paulunderwood     Sep 2002 Database er0rr F1616 Posts Code: g++: error: packages/gmp/64bit/libgmp.a: No such file or directory g++: error: packages/gwnum/64bit/gwnum.a: No such file or directory Grab the file "libgmp.a" from your GMP compilation and put it in " packages/gmp/64bit/". The download and compile the "Prime95/mprime" source and run "make -f make64" in the gwnum directory of the source and copy the file "gwnum.a" to the directory "packages/gwnum/64bit/". Recompile PFGW. Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 2019-03-18 at 22:00
2019-03-18, 21:48   #26
lukerichards

"Luke Richards"
Jan 2018
Birmingham, UK

25·32 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by paulunderwood Grab the file "libgmp.a" from your GMP compilation and put it in " packages/gmp/64bit/".

I don't have a libgmp.a :/

I have a libgmp.la?

 2019-03-18, 21:52 #27 Batalov     "Serge" Mar 2008 Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2 22·3·797 Posts On Ubuntu it is not going to be a smooth sailing. First you will need to build a static lib*.a. Second you will (suddenly) find that Ubuntu doesn't have necessary static system libs... etc etc. So you will have to build those as well from scratch, or try to get them from repo.
2019-03-18, 21:57   #28
paulunderwood

Sep 2002
Database er0rr

2×1,931 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by lukerichards I don't have a libgmp.a :/ I have a libgmp.la?
It is here /usr/local/lib/libgmp.a

2019-03-18, 21:57   #29
lukerichards

"Luke Richards"
Jan 2018
Birmingham, UK

25·32 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by paulunderwood Code: g++: error: packages/gmp/64bit/libgmp.a: No such file or directory g++: error: packages/gwnum/64bit/gwnum.a: No such file or directory Grab the file "libgmp.a" from your GMP compilation and put it in " packages/gmp/64bit/". The download and compile the "Prime/mprime" source and run "make -f make64" in the gwnum directory of the source and copy the file "gwnum.a" to the directory "packages/gwnum/64bit/". Recompile PFGW.

Some success. Thanks so much for your time!

Code:
user1@ubuntu-upstairs:~/openpfgw-code-r646$make make -C pform/pflib make[1]: Entering directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pflib' make[1]: Nothing to be done for 'all'. make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pflib' make -C pform/pfmath make[1]: Entering directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pfmath' make[1]: '.libs/pfmath.a' is up to date. make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pfmath' make -C pform/pfgwlib make[1]: Entering directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pfgwlib' make[1]: Nothing to be done for 'all'. make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pfgwlib' make -C pform/pfoo make[1]: Entering directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pfoo' make[1]: Nothing to be done for 'all'. make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pfoo' make -C pform/pfio make[1]: Entering directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pfio' make[1]: Nothing to be done for 'all'. make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pfio' make -C pform/pfgw make[1]: Entering directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pfgw' make[1]: Nothing to be done for 'all'. make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pfgw' g++ -O3 -m64 -DX86_64 -D_64BIT -I../../packages/gmp/64bit -I../../pfconfig/headers \ pform/pfgw/.libs/pfgw_main.a pform/pfio/.libs/pfio.a pform/pfoo/.libs/pfoo.a pform/pfgwlib/.libs/pfgwlib.a \ pform/pfmath/.libs/pfmath.a pform/pflib/.libs/pflib.a \ packages/gmp/64bit/libgmp.a packages/gwnum/64bit/gwnum.a -Wl,-no_pie -lpthread -lstdc++ -o pfgw64 /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lgcc_s /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lgcc_s collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status makefile:8: recipe for target 'pfgw64' failed make: *** [pfgw64] Error 1 So... no cigar, but a bit closer! 2019-03-18, 21:58 #30 lukerichards "Luke Richards" Jan 2018 Birmingham, UK 12016 Posts Quote:  Originally Posted by Batalov On Ubuntu it is not going to be a smooth sailing. First you will need to build a static lib*.a. Second you will (suddenly) find that Ubuntu doesn't have necessary static system libs... etc etc. So you will have to build those as well from scratch, or try to get them from repo. Do you have an alternative version of linux as a suggestion? I'm not wedded to Ubuntu. 2019-03-18, 22:07 #31 paulunderwood Sep 2002 Database er0rr 74268 Posts Quote:  Originally Posted by lukerichards Some success. Thanks so much for your time! Code: user1@ubuntu-upstairs:~/openpfgw-code-r646$ make make -C pform/pflib make[1]: Entering directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pflib' make[1]: Nothing to be done for 'all'. make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pflib' make -C pform/pfmath make[1]: Entering directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pfmath' make[1]: '.libs/pfmath.a' is up to date. make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pfmath' make -C pform/pfgwlib make[1]: Entering directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pfgwlib' make[1]: Nothing to be done for 'all'. make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pfgwlib' make -C pform/pfoo make[1]: Entering directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pfoo' make[1]: Nothing to be done for 'all'. make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pfoo' make -C pform/pfio make[1]: Entering directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pfio' make[1]: Nothing to be done for 'all'. make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pfio' make -C pform/pfgw make[1]: Entering directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pfgw' make[1]: Nothing to be done for 'all'. make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pfgw' g++ -O3 -m64 -DX86_64 -D_64BIT -I../../packages/gmp/64bit -I../../pfconfig/headers \ pform/pfgw/.libs/pfgw_main.a pform/pfio/.libs/pfio.a pform/pfoo/.libs/pfoo.a pform/pfgwlib/.libs/pfgwlib.a \ pform/pfmath/.libs/pfmath.a pform/pflib/.libs/pflib.a \ packages/gmp/64bit/libgmp.a packages/gwnum/64bit/gwnum.a -Wl,-no_pie -lpthread -lstdc++ -o pfgw64 /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lgcc_s /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lgcc_s collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status makefile:8: recipe for target 'pfgw64' failed make: *** [pfgw64] Error 1 So... no cigar, but a bit closer!
See the part on how to create the link with ln. YMMV

Alternatively, see the solution in this mersenneforum thread.

Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 2019-03-18 at 22:46

2019-03-21, 16:10   #32
GP2

Sep 2003

5×11×47 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by lukerichards Do you have an alternative version of linux as a suggestion? I'm not wedded to Ubuntu.
The binary executable straight from the zip file worked for me on Amazon Linux.

Amazon Linux was originally derived from Centos / Red Hat. For instance, it uses yum rather than apt-get.

So perhaps you could try Centos. But it seems like a lot of trouble to install a new distribution and then cross your fingers and hope the program will work.

2019-04-02, 16:21   #33
wblipp

"William"
May 2003
New Haven

236810 Posts
The Luke Richards Hobby Project

Quote:
 Originally Posted by lukerichards having discovered last March that 3504206+2 is a PRP.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by lukerichards My aim is to factor 3504206+1 and 3504205+1 sufficiently in my lifetime to provide a primality proof of 3504206+2. As intractable a goal as that might be,
Quote:
 Originally Posted by GP2 Not before the heat death of the universe..
Quote:
 Originally Posted by lukerichards nobody knows what will happen in the next 50 years in terms of advances in computing power and algorithm research. ... .Everyone needs a hobby!
I was tickled by the idea of a 50 year hobby project and curious about whether continuing trends for 50 years might by sufficient or if algorithmic improvements would be needed to beat the heat death of the universe. I figured one path without algorithmic improvements would be to hope for larger ECM to leave large PRPs, prove the PRPs with ECPP, and make a 26% CHG proof.

Presently we know about 415 digits of factors. 26% would require over 62,500 digits of factors, so we need need over 62,000 more digits of factorization.

I looked at the ECMNET annual records, took the fifth largest factor each year, and projected out to 2069. That projection says you could find 137 digit factors by ECM in 2069.

Then I looked at ECPP records from the Primo pages and Caldwell's Prime pages. A similar projection indicates you might do 130,000 digit ECPP proofs by 2069.

Then look at the remaining composites:
C1996
C2329
C3664
C10253
C14795
C44396
C177395
C225698

The two largest ones aren't much help because even if we get a PRP residual, the PRP would still be outside of ECPP range. So we need to hope to get both the C14795 and the C44396 to factor. We would need the second largest factor of the C14795 to not exceed 137 digits. That's about G(0.003), which looks like less than half a percent, and the C44396 is even less likely. So 50 years without algorithmic improvements isn't likely.

On the other hand, heat death of the universe seems overly pessimistic. ECPP should be big enough to handle the whole number by 2130.

I'm not sufficiently interested, but if this were my long term hobby project I would redo the regressions using logs instead of digit counts, then forecast out five years. Check if trend lines are holding and re-forecast every five years. I would try a few other methods to see if you can beat the 2130. I would experiment with some William's terms such as n^2+n+1 and n^2-n+1 to be sure the special form of the prime didn't lead to more algebraic factorizations. When I got bored with waiting for these forecasts to mature I would think about how to forecast algorithmic improvements.

Just in case anyone cares in five years, the trend lines used in this post indicate that in 2024 we should see ECM at 80 digits and ECPP at 49K digits. Yes, I know that the record ECM is already larger than that, but we need a number people can expect to reach on a composite of their choice, not the largest luckiest factor anybody has ever found.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post mersenne1588 Information & Answers 6 2019-02-12 22:13 Kalli Hofmann Information & Answers 1 2018-01-08 12:24 Welton Information & Answers 7 2016-07-29 12:07 Bundu Programming 20 2012-02-19 18:09 Capone GMP-ECM 17 2007-06-17 09:19

All times are UTC. The time now is 13:25.

Tue Oct 19 13:25:03 UTC 2021 up 88 days, 7:54, 0 users, load averages: 1.16, 1.22, 1.27