![]() |
|
|
#23 | |
|
"/X\(‘-‘)/X\"
Jan 2013
1011011100102 Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
"/X\(‘-‘)/X\"
Jan 2013
2×5×293 Posts |
There is about 9 PHz days of DCTF work. Not all of it is being held by GPU72. Even at 30 THz-d/d, that's still going to take 10 months... but it would be pretty awesome to have that cleared in a year!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 | |
|
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
19×397 Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#26 |
|
"Victor de Hollander"
Aug 2011
the Netherlands
23×3×72 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#27 | |
|
"David"
Jul 2015
Ohio
51710 Posts |
Quote:
I know I'm new here so I don't want to overreach, but I'm just as happy to contribute code and storage when the time comes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 | |
|
"David"
Jul 2015
Ohio
10000001012 Posts |
Quote:
I imagine it would also be easier to quickly flag and quarantine bad actors in that case |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
"David"
Jul 2015
Ohio
11×47 Posts |
Sorry for the triple reply, my thought on waiting was that at some points the residue is going to be much smaller than others, saving storage and bandwidth. Perhaps that is a premature optimization.
Last fiddled with by airsquirrels on 2015-08-20 at 17:17 |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 | |
|
If I May
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados
2·67·73 Posts |
Quote:
This includes everything still to be working, not just that held by GPU72. That being said, it's been interesting watching the Estimated Days to Complete Trial Factoring for all Candidates drop precipitously in the DCTF table the last few days!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#31 | |
|
If I May
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados
2×67×73 Posts |
Quote:
My understanding is the true residue is about as close to true noise as you can get. Read: uncompressable. (Unless, of course, the candidate is a MP, at which point at the very last step it's *very* compressible!) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 | |
|
"/X\(‘-‘)/X\"
Jan 2013
2×5×293 Posts |
http://imgur.com/szouqSx
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
"David"
Jul 2015
Ohio
11·47 Posts |
Well, there is certainly some debate as to how truly chaotic the residue sequence is, but for practical purposes and until we advance the state of the theory there we can treat it as a truly random number between 1 and 2^p-2. Any specific iteration (10,000, etc.) is going to be essentially random, but there will be points in the sequence where the residue is much closer to 1, and thus would take less bits to store. The more I think about this the less it is probably worth the effort to consider optimizing for those opportunities to checkpoint cheaply.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Large Gaps >500,000 | mart_r | Prime Gap Searches | 119 | 2017-08-21 12:48 |
| 48-bit large primes! | jasonp | Msieve | 24 | 2010-06-01 19:14 |
| a^n mod m (with large n) | Romulas | Math | 3 | 2010-05-08 20:11 |
| Is this a relatively large number? | MavsFan | Math | 3 | 2003-12-12 02:23 |
| New Server Hardware and price quotes, Funding the server | Angular | PrimeNet | 32 | 2002-12-09 01:12 |