20160517, 07:28  #45 
"NOT A TROLL"
Mar 2016
California
197 Posts 
Phew. Thanks for saving me the stress about the time. I am only finding prps up to 200k digits to save even more hassel.

20160517, 08:26  #46 
Jun 2003
3×17×101 Posts 

20160517, 08:29  #47 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr
2^{2}×3×17×19 Posts 

20160517, 14:49  #48  
"Dana Jacobsen"
Feb 2011
Bangkok, TH
3^{2}·101 Posts 
I'm confused where this 8k digit restriction is coming from. It works fine on 140k digit numbers.
Quote:
] 

20160517, 15:00  #49 
"NOT A TROLL"
Mar 2016
California
197 Posts 
200k digits for n/thoery at most?
EDIT: Is it the same for Dana's perl next_prime(x) and random_ndigit_prime(x) functions? Last fiddled with by PawnProver44 on 20160517 at 15:04 
20160517, 15:11  #50  
Sep 2002
Database er0rr
2^{2}×3×17×19 Posts 
Quote:
I guess PawnProver44 can, in a single script file, sieve with one of your perl functions and call PFGW on surviving candidates. Is this right? Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 20160517 at 15:21 

20160517, 15:15  #51 
"Dana Jacobsen"
Feb 2011
Bangkok, TH
3^{2}·101 Posts 
I guess I should try some larger numbers just to say that it's been done.
Even at 10k digits, using PFGW is faster, but not overwhelmingly so. Once you get much larger, I think using PFGW for an initial test, followed by Paul's standalone FU program would give a very good combination. Paul's program uses gwnum, same as PFGW, takes about 3x longer to run, but a much more stringent test so good to use to confirm PFGW's result. It's still a PRP, but passing two Fermat tests and a Lucas test is good. There has been a bit of confusion on the nextprime issue. PFGW has the (AFAIK) fastest available PRP test (albeit just a Fermat test). It also includes an expression evaluator that includes a nextprime command that happens to be very slow. I suspect it was intended for simple things like 'nextprime(50)#+59' where it works great, rather than for huge inputs. 
20160517, 15:22  #52 
"NOT A TROLL"
Mar 2016
California
197 Posts 
So then I can use the text file link like you sugessted earlier, then use the sieve command not listed in the module description, then prp test remaining candidates, then after that preform Paul's BPSW test and verify to make sure it is a Fermat and Lucus PRP? Perfect!
Last fiddled with by PawnProver44 on 20160517 at 15:22 
20160517, 15:25  #53 
"NOT A TROLL"
Mar 2016
California
197 Posts 
Ok, I'll just record the time for a 391 digit prime using pfgw's nextprime(x) and then double each candidate 9 times to get to 200192 digits (close to my aim of 200k digits).

20160517, 15:30  #54  
"Dana Jacobsen"
Feb 2011
Bangkok, TH
3^{2}×101 Posts 
Quote:
Quote:


20160517, 15:48  #55  
"Dana Jacobsen"
Feb 2011
Bangkok, TH
3^{2}·101 Posts 
Quote:


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 