mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Prime Search Projects > Riesel Prime Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2018-10-26, 04:11   #1
chunsonnn
 
Oct 2018

1 Posts
Default Does NewPGen have a bug?

I was sieving k=173 from n=1M to n=2M, and I found this message by NewPGen:

p=2215115304221 divides n=1798220.

However 2,215,115,304,221 is composite (that number is 8627 * 256765423), so that message should not have popped up. Why didn't NewPGen remove n=1798220 when it was at p=8627 or at p=256765423?

In case anyone's wondering, I was using NewPGen version 2.82 on a Pentium 4 computer. The problem also appears on another Pentium 4 machine, so I'm pretty sure it's not a hardware problem.

Thank
Cristiano
chunsonnn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-10-26, 04:31   #2
axn
 
axn's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

110778 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chunsonnn View Post
I was sieving k=173 from n=1M to n=2M, and I found this message by NewPGen:

p=2215115304221 divides n=1798220.

However 2,215,115,304,221 is composite (that number is 8627 * 256765423), so that message should not have popped up. Why didn't NewPGen remove n=1798220 when it was at p=8627 or at p=256765423?

In case anyone's wondering, I was using NewPGen version 2.82 on a Pentium 4 computer. The problem also appears on another Pentium 4 machine, so I'm pretty sure it's not a hardware problem.

Thank
Cristiano
p=2215115304211 divides 173*2^1798220-1
axn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-10-26, 06:28   #3
paulunderwood
 
paulunderwood's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr

32·7·53 Posts
Default

Isn't k=173 already sieved very deeply by PrimeGrid?
paulunderwood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-10-26, 12:01   #4
ATH
Einyen
 
ATH's Avatar
 
Dec 2003
Denmark

11×263 Posts
Default

Neither 8627 nor 256765423 is a factor of 173*2^1798220-1, so it must have been p=2215115304211 as axn pointed out.
ATH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-10-26, 12:08   #5
pinhodecarlos
 
pinhodecarlos's Avatar
 
"Carlos Pinho"
Oct 2011
Milton Keynes, UK

110408 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paulunderwood View Post
Isn't k=173 already sieved very deeply by PrimeGrid?
Yes and tested up to n=2.04M by RPS.
pinhodecarlos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-10-26, 13:26   #6
rogue
 
rogue's Avatar
 
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the

25·3·61 Posts
Default

Why are you using newpgen for this form? Use srsieve/sr1sieve. They are much, much faster than newpgen for this form.
rogue is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-03-11, 12:13   #7
storm5510
Random Account
 
storm5510's Avatar
 
Aug 2009
U.S.A.

23·59 Posts
Default

Does NewPGen have a bug? Possibly. I noticed for any given range of n's, NewPGen will remove more n's, and at lower values of p, than the srXsieve family.

Either NewPGen is removing n's it should not or srXsieve family is not removing n's it should. A combination of both is also possible. I have no way to determine which case it may be.
storm5510 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-03-11, 16:54   #8
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

10000100100112 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by storm5510 View Post
Does NewPGen have a bug? Possibly. I noticed for any given range of n's, NewPGen will remove more n's, and at lower values of p, than the srXsieve family.

Either NewPGen is removing n's it should not or srXsieve family is not removing n's it should. A combination of both is also possible. I have no way to determine which case it may be.
Please elaborate, with example files. The OP's post is surely a typo, while yours is a serious allegation.
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-03-15, 13:46   #9
storm5510
Random Account
 
storm5510's Avatar
 
Aug 2009
U.S.A.

23×59 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
Please elaborate, with example files. The OP's post is surely a typo, while yours is a serious allegation.
"Serious allegation." I do not consider it as being such. I am not condemning either. Just a simple comparison.

I can provide example files. It may take a couple of days. I am running a wide-range sieve on my HP to 1.5-trillion. I can replicate this with NewPGen on my laptop. My i7 is running a double-instance of LLR so I cannot use it.


Edit: I will allow the srXsieve on the HP to finish, and then run the NewPGen test after it. sr1sieve estimates completion on March 17 at around 19:00 UTC.

Last fiddled with by storm5510 on 2020-03-15 at 14:04 Reason: Append
storm5510 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-03-15, 17:18   #10
pepi37
 
pepi37's Avatar
 
Dec 2011
After milion nines:)

2·5·131 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by storm5510 View Post
"Serious allegation." I do not consider it as being such. I am not condemning either. Just a simple comparison.

I can provide example files. It may take a couple of days. I am running a wide-range sieve on my HP to 1.5-trillion. I can replicate this with NewPGen on my laptop. My i7 is running a double-instance of LLR so I cannot use it.


Edit: I will allow the srXsieve on the HP to finish, and then run the NewPGen test after it. sr1sieve estimates completion on March 17 at around 19:00 UTC.

Why is needed to wait so many days: take sequence you know produce "problems" runn it on NewPgen few minutes, and run it under srxsieve few minutes ( to reach same depth)
So all work can be done in 10 minutes.
Or tell us what sequence have problem and I would like to comparison for you,
For that you can only need seconds to write reply on my post
pepi37 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-03-17, 01:51   #11
storm5510
Random Account
 
storm5510's Avatar
 
Aug 2009
U.S.A.

23×59 Posts
Default

I scaled this test down dramatically. The parameters are:

Series: 7*2^n-1
n: 350,000
N: 650,000
p: (default)
P: 50e9

It took srsieve/sr1sieve about 30 minutes to run this. NewPGen, over four hours. NewPGen does not start storing factors until it p passes 2^32. So, I set the ceiling for srsieve to this value. The staring p for sr1sieve was the same.

During the sieve NewPGen pulled out 5,603 factors, sr1sieve pulled out 840.
Yet, the compete files for LLR were exactly the same. 7,092 elements each. Some may be familiar with fc, short for file compare. I compared both LLR files. The only difference was in the header line at the very top.

All the files are stored in the attached zip file. There is also an image attachment with NewPGen set into a PowerShell window where I ran srsieve and sr1sieve.

Q: How is it possible for NewPGen to flag so many more factors than sr1sieve and both results files be virtually identical?
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Sieve Test.JPG
Views:	34
Size:	121.7 KB
ID:	21890  
Attached Files
File Type: zip sieve.zip (90.9 KB, 34 views)
storm5510 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NewPgen Cybertronic Factoring 0 2014-03-22 10:07
Does NewPGen have a bug? MooooMoo Riesel Prime Search 16 2008-12-11 11:46
NewPGen k value problem roger Information & Answers 0 2007-04-04 22:38
NewPGen reliability Cruelty Riesel Prime Search 3 2006-02-15 05:15
Problem with Newpgen Zenmastur Software 4 2003-08-02 19:43

All times are UTC. The time now is 03:08.

Fri Aug 14 03:08:41 UTC 2020 up 23:44, 1 user, load averages: 1.34, 1.57, 1.51

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.