mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Prime Search Projects > Conjectures 'R Us

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2008-10-25, 19:09   #133
michaf
 
michaf's Avatar
 
Jan 2005

1DF16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flatlander View Post
40809266*3^89759+1
Is prime.
It's nice that every prime I find here beats my base 3 record.
Ah... you have more luck then I had on my ranges :)

Way to go!
michaf is offline  
Old 2008-10-25, 19:30   #134
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo
 
mdettweiler's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

3×2,083 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flatlander View Post
86-87 finished.
Taking:
87K-88K
88K-89K
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flatlander View Post
87-88 and 88-89 complete.
Taking 89-90.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flatlander View Post
89-90 complete.
Taking:
90K-91K
Chris, I just noticed something VERY important about these ranges: the results files don't include any residuals whatsoever! Are you forgetting to run Phrot with the -b=3 command line flag so that it records LLR-compatible residuals? (Without the presence of that switch, it simply records no residuals whatsoever.)

Since this is only for a relatively small chunk of n-range, and since your machine is known to be stable, no need to redo these ranges. However, if you could please run Phrot with the -b=3 option on the command line in the future, that would be great.

Edit: It appears that this also holds true for your Phrot-produced Riesel base 3 results. Again, no need to re-do them, but you'll definitely want to watch this in the future.

Last fiddled with by mdettweiler on 2008-10-25 at 19:31
mdettweiler is offline  
Old 2008-10-25, 19:44   #135
Flatlander
I quite division it
 
Flatlander's Avatar
 
"Chris"
Feb 2005
England

31·67 Posts
Default

Okay.
I had no idea what the numbers meant in results.out! I thought the numbers in the brackets was some sort of residue that could be doublechecked. Also, from this post: http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpos...1&postcount=79 I assumed that the LLR residues were invalid anway?
Is that what the *_e executables are for?

I'll add the -b=3 option for future ranges.
Flatlander is offline  
Old 2008-10-25, 20:23   #136
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo
 
mdettweiler's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

3·2,083 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flatlander View Post
Okay.
I had no idea what the numbers meant in results.out! I thought the numbers in the brackets was some sort of residue that could be doublechecked. Also, from this post: http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpos...1&postcount=79 I assumed that the LLR residues were invalid anway?
Is that what the *_e executables are for?

I'll add the -b=3 option for future ranges.
Actually, I have no idea what the numbers in brackets are. I think they may have something to do with some "behind the scenes" stuff related to the PRP test.

As for the validity of the LLR residuals produced by Phrot: no, it seems that that's just an isolated (albeit quite mysterious) circumstance. Most residuals produced by Phrot should exactly match their LLR counterparts--I've confirmed it myself a number of times.

As for the *_e executables: those have some extra error checking functionality enabled, which might help reduce the chance of an invalid LLR residual in those rare cases where one might pop up. Since I haven't heard of any recorded performance drops from using the error-checking version, you may as well use it instead of the "normal" version. (It simply adds an extra section to each results file line, enclosed in parentheses, detailing various error-checking information, though it all seems Greek to me. )
mdettweiler is offline  
Old 2008-10-26, 02:03   #137
Flatlander
I quite division it
 
Flatlander's Avatar
 
"Chris"
Feb 2005
England

31×67 Posts
Default

Taking:
91K-92K
92K-93K
Using the -b=3 option with the error checking version. Which (unless I've jumped an FFT or something) appears about 8% slower.

Last fiddled with by Flatlander on 2008-10-26 at 02:06
Flatlander is offline  
Old 2008-10-26, 02:40   #138
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo
 
mdettweiler's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

3×2,083 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flatlander View Post
Taking:
91K-92K
92K-93K
Using the -b=3 option with the error checking version. Which (unless I've jumped an FFT or something) appears about 8% slower.
Ouch. I actually hadn't checked the timings for the regular vs. error-checking version, so I had no idea that the error-checking one was any slower.

However, from what I can tell, the residual errors are very infrequent and happen mostly on power-of-2 bases (for which it's usually more advisable to use LLR anyway). So, considering the apparent speed difference, you may as well use the regular version after all.
mdettweiler is offline  
Old 2008-10-26, 02:52   #139
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo
 
mdettweiler's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

3·2,083 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdettweiler View Post
Ouch. I actually hadn't checked the timings for the regular vs. error-checking version, so I had no idea that the error-checking one was any slower.

However, from what I can tell, the residual errors are very infrequent and happen mostly on power-of-2 bases (for which it's usually more advisable to use LLR anyway). So, considering the apparent speed difference, you may as well use the regular version after all.
Update: I just checked the difference in timings for myself on some Riesel base 37 candidates that I'm currently doing for CRUS. I confirm the speed difference between the error-checking version and the "regular" one--I'm getting about 7-8% speed difference, as you did.

Okay, it looks like the "regular" version is probably the way to go for most purposes.
mdettweiler is offline  
Old 2008-10-26, 02:54   #140
Flatlander
I quite division it
 
Flatlander's Avatar
 
"Chris"
Feb 2005
England

31·67 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdettweiler View Post
Ouch. I actually hadn't checked the timings for the regular vs. error-checking version, so I had no idea that the error-checking one was any slower.

However, from what I can tell, the residual errors are very infrequent and happen mostly on power-of-2 bases (for which it's usually more advisable to use LLR anyway). So, considering the apparent speed difference, you may as well use the regular version after all.
Okay I'll switch back over.

The lost time was more than made up for by this:
26261252*3^91020+1 is prime.
Flatlander is offline  
Old 2008-10-26, 08:16   #141
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

3·19·179 Posts
Default

The last 2 k's with primes have now been removed from all files. 80 k's remain.

Chris, if you click on the 3 links in your reservation posts here, you can get files with the k's removed for n=90K-93K.
gd_barnes is offline  
Old 2008-10-26, 18:56   #142
Flatlander
I quite division it
 
Flatlander's Avatar
 
"Chris"
Feb 2005
England

40358 Posts
Default

28071866*3^91455+1
48652642*3^92392+1
Are prime.
Flatlander is offline  
Old 2008-10-26, 22:58   #143
Flatlander
I quite division it
 
Flatlander's Avatar
 
"Chris"
Feb 2005
England

31×67 Posts
Default

30440162*3^90938+1 is prime.
Flatlander is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sierp base 16 - team drive #1 gd_barnes Conjectures 'R Us 254 2014-06-10 16:00
Sierp base 3 - mini-drive II gd_barnes Conjectures 'R Us 46 2009-10-26 18:19
Riesel base 3 - mini-drive I gd_barnes Conjectures 'R Us 199 2009-09-30 18:44
Sierp base 3 - mini-drive Ib gd_barnes Conjectures 'R Us 43 2009-03-06 08:41
mini-drive for high-n testing on Sierp base 4 gd_barnes Conjectures 'R Us 43 2008-07-16 10:12

All times are UTC. The time now is 02:27.

Tue Sep 22 02:27:25 UTC 2020 up 11 days, 23:38, 0 users, load averages: 1.21, 1.43, 1.55

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.