![]() |
![]() |
#1 |
Nov 2008
Rosenheim, Germany
1816 Posts |
![]()
Why is a double check LL test about twice as fast than a first run LL test?
As far as I understood LL testing the number of iterations has to be the same for both kinds of LL tests. Is it because a first run LL test does some intermediate error detecting, which a double check leaves out? What else could it be to make a double check faster then a first run check? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
Jun 2003
2×7×17×23 Posts |
![]() Quote:
However, at any given point in time, the exponents given out for first time testing will be much bigger than the ones handed out for doublecheck. Does that answer your question? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA
11110000011002 Posts |
![]() Quote:
If what you're comparing is the elapsed time taken by a DC now to the elapsed time taken for the first LL test back when it was first tested, consider that the average computer used by GIMPS participants has gotten faster over time. So the (perhaps) 2.66 GHz system that does the DC may do so in half the time needed by the (perhaps) 1200 MHz system that did the first test. Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2008-12-01 at 01:16 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
"GIMFS"
Sep 2002
Oeiras, Portugal
3·232 Posts |
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A (new) old, (faster) slower mersenne-(primality) PRP test | boldi | Miscellaneous Math | 74 | 2014-04-17 07:16 |
LL test successfully completes Double-Check of M53137907 | TheMawn | PrimeNet | 12 | 2013-11-17 12:51 |
Faster LL-test Bounty Questions | __HRB__ | Information & Answers | 6 | 2009-10-04 19:37 |
A primality test for Fermat numbers faster than Pépin's test ? | T.Rex | Math | 0 | 2004-10-26 21:37 |
will searching for factors sometimes be faster than LL test? | ixfd64 | Math | 3 | 2003-10-16 22:15 |