20160518, 04:54  #67 
"NOT A TROLL"
Mar 2016
California
197 Posts 
Here's the truth: I had asked someone for help to organize all the scripts, and they did that for me and showed me the proper output several times. However, they refused to give the prp's decimal expansion until I show them a proper output that I did myself.

20160518, 05:09  #68 
"NOT A TROLL"
Mar 2016
California
197 Posts 
I decided to put my largest found prp in an attachemt for proof that my claim about finding a 6056 digit prp is true. (though I just realized this now.)
If anyone does a proof on it, then becomes my largest found prime. Last fiddled with by PawnProver44 on 20160518 at 05:13 
20160518, 05:15  #69 
"NOT A TROLL"
Mar 2016
California
197_{10} Posts 
Are you talking about my 6056 digit prp or the one that I asked for help on and the people who helped me find it refuse to upload the decimal expansion?
EDIT: What just happened to post #69 I saw a few seconds ago?!?! Last fiddled with by PawnProver44 on 20160518 at 05:18 
20160518, 05:18  #70 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr
7444_{8} Posts 
I tested it with my FU algorithm and it passed. It took about 5 seconds. ECPP would take several hours (??) and would give proof of primality  100%.

20160518, 05:19  #71 
"NOT A TROLL"
Mar 2016
California
197 Posts 
What does your "FU" algorithm stand for?

20160518, 05:20  #72  
Sep 2002
Database er0rr
F24_{16} Posts 
Quote:
Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 20160518 at 05:26 

20160518, 05:25  #73 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr
F24_{16} Posts 
It tests (x+2)^(n+1) == 5+2*a (mod n, x^2a*x+1) where a >= 0 is minimal such that jacobiSymbol(a^24,n)==1. You can find my paper on it here. I have done several implementations: javaScript, Ruby and GWNUM. The latter is quick and is the one I would use to test a 200k digit number

20160518, 05:28  #74  
"NOT A TROLL"
Mar 2016
California
197 Posts 
Quote:
Last fiddled with by PawnProver44 on 20160518 at 05:29 

20160518, 05:46  #75 
Romulan Interpreter
"name field"
Jun 2011
Thailand
97·101 Posts 
The ~6k digit number is either a carmichael or a prime, it passed a random, 50digit, prime bases PRP test. Like in "for(i=1,100,print([b=nextprime(random(10^50)), lift(Mod(b,n)^(n1))]))" (ran in 4 cores, each base runs below 10 seconds on my laptop). Say your number is prime, with a probability of "99.9..(another~800 of nines)..9%". Now next step for you is to extend the ~6000 digits to ~200000 digits...

20160518, 15:25  #76 
"NOT A TROLL"
Mar 2016
California
197 Posts 
For this let me assume that there are 16,814 candidates remaining each sieve (to 2e+10) for 200k digits: Prp test takes (first please what is the time increase by doubling the number of digits?) Looked at a prime 400k digits here and took about 12 min.)

20160518, 15:36  #77 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr
2^{2}·3·17·19 Posts 
That timing was on a 3.5GHz core with AVX using special mod. For Generic mod you can multiply by 4. For nonAVX you can multiply by 2 (??) and I will leave it to you work out the difference for your clock and 3.5GHz. Finally you can divide by 4 for a 200k number. Let's call it 40 minutes on your 2.15 GHz if it does not have AVX. So to find a 200k PRP you will need to do ~7000*40 core minutes i.e. 195 core days plus sieving time
Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 20160518 at 15:55 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Near and quasirepunit PRPs  Batalov  And now for something completely different  10  20190912 13:31 
OEIS  2^n5  LLTlike algorithm for finding PRPs  T.Rex  Miscellaneous Math  13  20150901 13:09 
PRPs not prime  schickel  FactorDB  1  20150803 02:50 
Proven PRPs?  Random Poster  FactorDB  0  20120724 10:53 
PRPs that are composites  gd_barnes  Conjectures 'R Us  57  20110912 12:31 