Join PrimeGrid
Returning Participants
Community
Leader Boards
Results
Other
drummers-lowrise
|
Message boards :
Generalized Fermat Prime Search :
GFN primes now shown in Prime lists
| Author |
Message |
|---|
 Michael Goetz Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14037
ID: 53948
Credit: 477,161,398
RAC: 289,514
                               
|
|
All of PrimeGrid's GFN primes at N=32768, 65536, 262144, and 524288 will now show up in your personal prime list. This is the list you see when you click on any of the "primes found" numbers on your main account page.
Please note that the decimal length shown is incorrect and the actual length of the prime is substantially longer. This is a known bug and will be fixed. Eventually. :)
The primes will also be reflected in the standings on the "Top Prime Finders" page, although it may take up to an hour until some of the primes show up there.
This includes all GFN primes found at PrimeGrid whether via BOINC or PRPNet.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 | |
|
|
|
All of PrimeGrid's GFN primes at N=32768, 65536, 262144, and 524288 will now show up in your personal prime list. This is the list you see when you click on any of the "primes found" numbers on your main account page.
Please note that the decimal length shown is incorrect and the actual length of the prime is substantially longer. This is a known bug and will be fixed. Eventually. :)
The primes will also be reflected in the standings on the "Top Prime Finders" page, although it may take up to an hour until some of the primes show up there.
This includes all GFN primes found at PrimeGrid whether via BOINC or PRPNet.
This would explain why I was about to be 3 points away from 2nd,
but have overnight dropped to 10th! With the exception of Scott, it's
now a GFN only list; and no longer a CPU-effort measure, instead open
to GPU-only. Just wondering whether that was the intended effect.
-bdodson* | |
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14037
ID: 53948
Credit: 477,161,398
RAC: 289,514
|
All of PrimeGrid's GFN primes at N=32768, 65536, 262144, and 524288 will now show up in your personal prime list. This is the list you see when you click on any of the "primes found" numbers on your main account page.
Please note that the decimal length shown is incorrect and the actual length of the prime is substantially longer. This is a known bug and will be fixed. Eventually. :)
The primes will also be reflected in the standings on the "Top Prime Finders" page, although it may take up to an hour until some of the primes show up there.
This includes all GFN primes found at PrimeGrid whether via BOINC or PRPNet.
This would explain why I was about to be 3 points away from 2nd,
but have overnight dropped to 10th! With the exception of Scott, it's
now a GFN only list; and no longer a CPU-effort measure, instead open
to GPU-only. Just wondering whether that was the intended effect.
-bdodson*
The GFN's are the biggest primes ever found at PrimeGrid. The only reason they weren't on the list all along were technical limitations. CPU, GPU, quantum computer, or any other method isn't relevant to inclusion criteria for the list. The only inequity here is that there was a large delay in putting the three biggest primes onto the list. A "top prime finders list" that excludes the finders and double checkers of the three largest primes we've ever found doesn't really have a lot of credibility.
As for this being a GPU-only game, I wouldn't count CPUs out just yet. Intel's working on a CPU architecture with a whole lot of cores. It may give GPUs a run for their money. For that matter, a multi-core AVX-enabled CPU program could probably be competitive today.
Also, ALL of the the four GFN primes at the top of the list are done on a project that supports both CPU and GPU tasks. Of the seven people with GFN's at the top of the list, two of them did the calculations with CPUs. There's a LOT of people crunching the short GFNs with their CPU.
However, regardless of what type of processor is used to do the calculations, I *do* think that the top of the list will probably be dominated by GFN primes for the foreseeable future. Like Mersenne primes, they're (relatively) easy to test.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 | |
|
|
|
However, regardless of what type of processor is used to do the calculations, I *do* think that the top of the list will probably be dominated by GFN primes for the foreseeable future. Like Mersenne primes, they're (relatively) easy to test.
Guess that's why this explanation appears in the GFN thread, rather
than crunching or PPS! -Bruce* (with 4 idle tesla C2030/2050's) | |
|
Scott BrownVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Volunteer tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 17 Oct 05
Posts: 2417
ID: 1178
Credit: 20,022,333,648
RAC: 20,456,197
                                               
|
|
(with 4 idle tesla C2030/2050's)
Are these idle for a reason? or are you having difficulty getting them to get work/work properly with PG?
| |
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14037
ID: 53948
Credit: 477,161,398
RAC: 289,514
|
Guess that's why this explanation appears in the GFN thread, rather
than crunching or PPS! -Bruce* (with 4 idle tesla C2030/2050's)
It's the PRPNet (mostly) and GFN (both BOINC and PRPNet) primes that are being added, so this was posted in the GFN and PSA topics. Those are the two groups who have been asking for this to occur, in some cases for years.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 | |
|
|
|
...the GFN thread, rather
than crunching or PPS! -Bruce* (with 4 idle tesla C2030/2050's)
It's the PRPNet (mostly) and GFN (both BOINC and PRPNet) primes that are being added, so this was posted in the GFN and PSA topics. Those are the two groups who have been asking for this to occur, in some cases for years.
I was just getting ready to congratulate _you_ on your four large
primes; but having checked, virtually all of your score is from the one
GFN, and it is the smallest of your four primes! Could you remind those
of us still toiling away on Proth Primes how the scoring works?
You mention that some of the GFN finders (and/or doublecheckers) used
cpu rather than gpu; so how does a cpu GFN test compare with a
llr for Proth or Sophie/Twin? Hard to imagine that the differential in
scoring is matched by a comparison of computational effort. We are
discussing computation, rather than hardware? Most of my own
Primegrid score comes from when our C2050s were running (not 2030's,
and it's the 2070's that have yet to score a single point, sigh, and Thanks
to Scott for the PM re PSA). I do understand when a GPU score is based
on a computation that runs (way) better than the corresponding cpu
computation; and have compared PPS sieving on the two platforms.
Also, how do the GFN scores compare with the single prime scores
that were in the top10 before the scoring revision? As I was working
my way up the score list from 10th to 2nd (err, I mean, 3rd to 10th to
9th, moving ahead of Lostboy's score for the 2M-digit 321-prime) there
were representatives from several of Primegrid projects. Spinner@ had
a 2M-digit Cullen, Gesker a 1.9M Cullen; and the double-checkers weren't
in the top10. There was also Mumps[MM] 1.8M-digit 321-prime.
I'm not usually in favor of Primegrid visitors to the Contests whining
about scoring, before returning to whatever project they were computing
on aside from contest credits. There is, and has been, sustained interest
by people from computational number theory and crypto in a range of
Primegrid projects. Mersennes hold a special place in the history of
primality testing and in the related factoring problems. Likewise Fermat
numbers. I'm not sure that Primegrid's Admin ought to turn the project
into one focused of finding GFN primes, to the point of questionable
scoring decisions. I'd be reasonably happy to have you remove a few
of the questions; but two years in PSA isn't a very long time frame by
RSA key-braking standards, much less primality and factoring standards.
-Bruce* | |
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14037
ID: 53948
Credit: 477,161,398
RAC: 289,514
|
...but having checked, virtually all of your score is from the one
GFN, and it is the smallest of your four primes!
No, it's not.
You missed the part above (in the very first message in this thread) where I mentioned that the server script that displays the primes doesn't work properly for GFN (or, indeed, any prime with B>2), and the length displayed on the web page is inaccurate.
My GFN prime is about 2.5 million digits long; much, much larger than the other primes I've found. In fact, it's much, much bigger than any primes found by anyone at PrimeGrid except for the three GFN primes that are even larger.
The reason the score is so much higher than that of other primes is not because of something biased or counter-intuitive in the scoring. The scores are correct. It's the length displayed on that page that's wrong.
Could you remind those
of us still toiling away on Proth Primes how the scoring works?
Sure, look at this thread.
The same prime score that's used in challenges is what's used on the primes.
The explanation doesn't deal with primes not of the form k*b^n+/-1, which is why the primorial and factorial primes are not in there yet.
I think the rest of your questions are answered by the fact that the GFNs (and GCWs and SR5s) are actually much larger than the size displayed on the web page. All of the primes use the exact same scoring formula, which is based on the size of the prime. (That formula described in John's post incorporates within it the formula for computing the length of a prime, so essentially the score is based on the length of the prime number.)
All the other prime numbers have much lower scores not because they're Proth or Riesel (or whatever) numbers, but rather because they're small. If someone finds an SoB prime here, it will be even larger than any of the GFNs found so far, and will therefore have a higher prime score and move to the top of the list. Where GFNs have an advantage is that it's easier to find a GFN prime of a given length than it is to find a Proth prime.
I understand why you would be upset about a "change of focus" here, but everything you're saying is based upon the erroneous lengths displayed on the webpage. There is, in fact, no bias, nor change of focus. The GFN numbers are simply HUGE numbers.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 | |
|
Scott BrownVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Volunteer tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 17 Oct 05
Posts: 2417
ID: 1178
Credit: 20,022,333,648
RAC: 20,456,197
|
|
And just to add to Mike's post...
GFN are actually being tested in several different sizes at PG. Mike's large one (as well as those of the new leader board toppers) are of the N=524288 variety, 2.5 million or more digits long with a prime score of more than 30,000.
GFNs of N=32768, 65536, and 262144 are also in active testing on PRPnet (in increasing size). The smallest of these (32768) is currently a bit larger than 220,000 digits; the middle (65536) are a bit more than 420,000 digits (prime score between 80 and 90); and the larger (262144) ones are well over 1 million digits (roughly somewhere around 3,000 prime score).
Additionally, there is also the GFN world record (N=4194304) search on PG BOINC with no finds to date. A find on this GFN project would dwarf all other finds, as these would be more than 13 million digits and be the largest known prime number to date! And that would mean that the finder and double checker would top the prime score leader board by far.
GFN's have been easier to find largely because they can be tested for via GPU. However, there is a limited testing range for these where the GPU can be used. For N=32768 and 65536, this limit was passed long ago and most primes found there are CPU finds. We are rapidly approaching the GPU limits for both N=262144 and N=524288 such that these will in the near future be CPU only. When this happens, we will likely be testing GFNs at the N=1048576 and N=2097152 levels with GPU. Both of these ranges will also eventually exhaust the GPU testable range and become CPU only projects.
That said, finds on other projects can still propel one up the leader board in prime score quite well. As Mike noted, an SoB find would get one there quite quickly as would CPU finds on the GFN N=524288 project. So all hope is not lost... :)
Also of note, PG provides several different ways to approach the leader board other than just prime score. For example, one can be at the top of the most primes found (neither of the top two in this have a single mega prime find). Or one could look at the most primary prime finds (ignoring double checks). Obviously, there is also the BOINC score available as well. Hopefully one or more of these can satisfy the thirst for competition that helps drive forward our discoveries. Of course, if there are other suggestions for the leader boards we would be happy to consider them (implementation, of course, subject to how difficult it would be to accomplish or the load it would cause on the servers).
| |
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14037
ID: 53948
Credit: 477,161,398
RAC: 289,514
|
|
Speaking about prime scores, the largest prime score for a single prime found at PrimeGrid is 33,622 for the most recent n=19 GFN.
On the World Record tasks, the leading edge is just past b=7000. 7000^4194304+1 would have a prime score of 5,921,610.
The current largest known prime number, the M47? Mersenne prime found by GIMPS, 2^43112609-1, has a prime score of 3,047,423.
Oh, and we're not searching for 13 million digit primes anymore. The leading edge is over 16 million digits now. :)
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 | |
|
|
|
...but having checked, virtually all of your score is from the one
GFN, and it is the smallest of your four primes!
No, it's not.
You missed the part above (in the very first message in this thread) where I mentioned that the server script that displays the primes doesn't work properly for GFN (or, indeed, any prime with B>2), and the length displayed on the web page is inaccurate.
...
I understand why you would be upset about a "change of focus" here, but everything you're saying is based upon the erroneous lengths displayed on the webpage. There is, in fact, no bias, nor change of focus. The GFN numbers are simply HUGE numbers.
Shortly after posting I recalled having read something about the length
on the webpage not being accurate. I ought to have checked the
announcements, in any case. Sorry.
That accounts for the first paragraph of my post; my mistake. I've
read and re-read the reasons why the current "Top Prime Finders"
rankings are consistent with the formulas established before the
recent GFN successes. Perhaps those of us looking for Proth primes
will get used to discounting top20 scores from people with "primes
found" counts in single digits (easy to implement, too).
I'll be interested to see how a World Record set with a GFN will be
viewed. It is of course true that Mersenne primes have been largest
among top10 primes largely due to hardware considerations: that
they're easier to compute. I do recall when
391581*2^216193-1 65,087 1989 Amdahl 1200
briefly replaced the Mersenne's as largest; and the interest more
recently when one of the SoB's broke into the top10 --- ah, looks
like SoB10 is still holding on at 10th. Part of the interest is that each
of these have a history. So far as I can tell, GFN's will be the first record
set by a prime that has no interest other than being largest; and
specifically associated with GPU specific hardware (pending subsequent
cpu GFN World record success, if there is to be one).
Meanwhile, I hope that at least portions of the Primegrid elite (you
know who you are!) make some effort to retain the interest of those
that aren't yet interested in GFN primes. (As in "why did you want
one of those primes?" Yes, they're huge alright.)
-Bruce* | |
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14037
ID: 53948
Credit: 477,161,398
RAC: 289,514
|
|
So, you're saying GFN numbers shouldn't be on the list? If so, what makes them worthy of a unique exclusion?
Or that all primes that aren't Proth numbers shouldn't be on the list? Then we should exclude our Riesel, Woodall, Sierpinski Base 5, Riesel Base 5, Factorial, Primorial, and Generalized Cullen primes?
Or just primes that don't have a scientific or mathematical purpose? That pretty much excludes all the tens of thousands of PPS primes we've found, since their only real purpose is to put people on the top 5000 list.
I'm afraid I still don't get your point, unless that point is "Please don't ignore the other projects." If that's it, rest assured, they're not being ignored. Over the last week, I've added close to ten thousand primes onto the list, and at least 90% are PPS. Hopefully, I'll be able to add in many more (tens of thousands), and almost all of them are from our PPS searches.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 | |
|
|
|
So, you're saying GFN numbers shouldn't be on the list? If so, what makes them worthy of a unique exclusion?
Or that all primes that aren't Proth numbers shouldn't be on the list? Then we should exclude our Riesel, Woodall, Sierpinski Base 5, Riesel Base 5, Factorial, Primorial, and Generalized Cullen primes?
Or just primes that don't have a scientific or mathematical purpose? That pretty much excludes all the tens of thousands of PPS primes we've found, since their only real purpose is to put people on the top 5000 list.
I'm not saying any of these things. Although, for the record, I did
find a Fermat divisor; which pretty much made my year, prime-findingwise.
Congratulations on the GFN with base 75898 and exponent 524288.
Probably your success gave some needed encouragement for the
subsequent finds with the same base and larger exponents. I'd count
that as a plausible purpose for the finding of your GFN; proof-of-concept.
Was this one of the ones just before the Turing Challenge? I'm not able
to find an official statement for these two primes; is the other one still
pending?
I'm afraid I still don't get your point, unless that point is "Please don't ignore the other projects." If that's it, rest assured, they're not being ignored. Over the last week, I've added close to ten thousand primes onto the list, and at least 90% are PPS. Hopefully, I'll be able to add in many more (tens of thousands), and almost all of them are from our PPS searches.
Uhm, most of these don't make the top5000, presumably --- or are they
mostly re-replacing the bottom 100? No that doesn't fit the 72-hour
reports on the Prime Pages. At most 100s there.
Perhaps I'm just lamenting having the top5 placed up in near-inaccessible
range. Scott looks likely to bump you from 4th to 5th, so I'd need to
bump my score up from 12k past 21k --- by which time there'll most likely
be a bunch more pushing all 3 of us down. As in, the next two will move
the top5 scores up past 31k. So that's doubling then tripling 12k, and
inaccessible; outright. So rather than a top20 reflecting successes of
several of Primegrid's projects, it's in line to become a top20 all_GFN list.
That's something unique-new to the GFN project, the scoring formula
pre-GFN no longer does what the formula used to do --- giving several
projects a chance to be represented in the top20. I haven't thought
about whether that's worth addressing, but I was wondering whether
the Primegrid Admin had. As I've already mentioned, I'll be interested
to see what happens when we break the World Record, replacing
GIMPS. Maybe a bunch of new contributors, a massive outflow from
mersenne-hunters to GFN-hunters? Server issues here? Interesting.
Thanks for the replies. -Bruce*
| |
|
|
|
|
Bruce,
I was an advocate of adding the GFN primes as they were found on PrimeGrid and even though GPUs can be used, the non-world record ones can be found on CPU (I have a Ruby badge only on CPU). I never found one. As with any type of processing, the newer processors that come out become more optimized for things. They are all Processing Units, and the data is found here, my belief is it should also be shown here.
Actually with the addition of the PPRNet primes in the lists, you still can get a mixture. There are some good scoring projects over there. For example, I was holding somewhere around 100 before the changes. When GFN was added I was back down to over 110. I know I am down further on the scale so it wasn't much of a hit as some of the people closer to the top. Then the PPRNet primes were added and all of a sudden I am in the top 30. I feel proud of my accomplishments, and am happy to help PrimeGrid in their searches. Hopefully some day these numbers will have a huge significance in the world, but it's awesome to see all of us work toward a common goal.
As with any project I crunch, I am there to help the project gain it's goals. I am not out for being #1 on any lists, but some recognition is nice to see once in a while. You still have your beautiful work you did, no one took that away. Higher numbers were found and they were notated.
As you stated, maybe a WR will be found sometime in the future which may bring a boatload of new people to the project, then I will sink lower into the quagmire again. No big deal, we all have ups and downs. It's knowing you are helping the common goal that has me keeping going.
____________
My lucky numbers are 121*2^4553899-1 and 3756801695685*2^666669±1
My movie https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/502242 | |
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14037
ID: 53948
Credit: 477,161,398
RAC: 289,514
|
I'm not saying any of these things. Although, for the record, I did
find a Fermat divisor; which pretty much made my year, prime-findingwise.
Congrats on the Fermat divisor!!!
Congratulations on the GFN with base 75898 and exponent 524288.
Thank you!
Probably your success gave some needed encouragement for the
subsequent finds with the same base and larger exponents. I'd count
that as a plausible purpose for the finding of your GFN; proof-of-concept.
More than that, actually. Finding that prime is directly responsible for moving GFN to BOINC and starting a project to find not just a large prime, but the largest prime ever.
About a year ago, someone on PRPNet found a GFN with N=252144 with GeneferCUDA, and John posted a challenge: "Now lets find one at N=524288!" At the time, no such prime had ever been found; it was unclear if any even existed. After reading that note, I decided "Why not?" and started crunching those.
Less than a week later, on the 18th Work Unit that I crunched, PRPNet spit out a message that it had found a probable prime that was two and a half million digits long, and had switched over to doing a primality proof with PFGW. (Yes, that makes me extremely lucky.)
Stunned, I wrote a note to John asking him if it meant what I thought it meant. It did!
What was amazing was that you could find such a huge prime with only 4.5 hours of computer time. Part of that's due to Shoichiro's excellent CUDA program, and part of it's due to GFN's being easy to crunch.
At this point, I made a remark about if we can find large primes this quickly, perhaps it would be feasible to start a search for primes up there in Mersenne territory. (Mersenne primes are also computationally easy to crunch.) Mersenne's have held a lock on the top of the prime lists for many years, and PrimeGrid has always played second fiddle to the top dogs over at GIMPS. There's no helping that, really, GW did astounding work setting up GIMPS, and it's dreadfully hard to find any other kind of prime number that you can search for as easily as a Mersenne prime.
After doing some testing, it seemed feasible to aim for the 12.9 million digit heights where the current record prime sits, so we started planning for running the large N=4194304 primes on BOINC. Many more people participate in BOINC than PRPNet, so for this to be successful we needed to modify Genefer to run under BOINC.
I started modifying GeneferCUDA to be a native BOINC application, and Rytis, Lennart, and John started setting up the server to handle GFN numbers.
At some point Iain came along and combined all of the Genefer variants together, which gave us the ability to offer CPU versions as well as the CUDA program.
A decision was made at that time to offer a smaller GFN, in addition to the huge World Record tasks, so people would also have something to crunch on a CPU.
That turns out to have been a very, very wise decision, and I'm grateful for the people who pushed hard for that.
As it turns out, those "small" GFNs that are small enough to crunch on a CPU are the ones that are currently on top of the prime list. "Small" is a relative term. :)
No other 524288 GFN was found for a while, although we did find a few at 262144. Then, just *before* the very first GFN challenge, not one, but TWO 524288 GFN primes were found, literally only a day or two before the challenge. In rapid succession, the record for the largest GFN prime was broken twice. No more primes were found during the challenge, but yet another was found after the challenge.
Was this one of the ones just before the Turing Challenge? I'm not able
to find an official statement for these two primes; is the other one still
pending?
Not mine. As mentioned above, the ones just before the challenge were two new primes. My (then-record) GFN prime was found last fall.
Here's the announcements:
75898^524288+1
341112^524288+1
356936^524288+1
475856^524288+1
Hopefully, I'll be able to add in many more (tens of thousands), and almost all of them are from our PPS searches.
Uhm, most of these don't make the top5000, presumably --- or are they
mostly re-replacing the bottom 100? No that doesn't fit the 72-hour
reports on the Prime Pages. At most 100s there.
People have literally been asking for years to get the PRPNET primes in there. Of course, the older the primes are, the smaller they are, but it's still nice to see the primes you've found.
Perhaps I'm just lamenting having the top5 placed up in near-inaccessible
range. Scott looks likely to bump you from 4th to 5th, so I'd need to
bump my score up from 12k past 21k --- by which time there'll most likely
be a bunch more pushing all 3 of us down. As in, the next two will move
the top5 scores up past 31k. So that's doubling then tripling 12k, and
inaccessible; outright. So rather than a top20 reflecting successes of
several of Primegrid's projects, it's in line to become a top20 all_GFN list.
PrimeGrid's purpose is to find primes. Without exception we do this with types of primes that are easy to compute. That's why most of them are of the form k*b^n+/-1. Those primes are MUCH simpler to compute than anything else.
It would be ridiculous to pass up an opportunity to find bigger primes faster. We're constantly changing and improving software to improve that goal.
That's something unique-new to the GFN project, the scoring formula
pre-GFN no longer does what the formula used to do --- giving several
projects a chance to be represented in the top20.
Here we'll just have to agree to disagree. The scoring system is designed to represent primes -- of whatever type -- based on their size, with the score increasing exponentially with size since larger primes are MUCH harder to find.
For the last two years, PrimeGrid has been using better tools to find numbers. We're just now beginning to really see those tools pay off.
I haven't thought
about whether that's worth addressing, but I was wondering whether
the Primegrid Admin had. As I've already mentioned, I'll be interested
to see what happens when we break the World Record, replacing
GIMPS. Maybe a bunch of new contributors, a massive outflow from
mersenne-hunters to GFN-hunters? Server issues here? Interesting.
Don't hold your breath. We *may* break the world record, but it's not a certainty. There's no proof that there's any primes at N=4194304, and if there are, there's no guarantee that they are within the processing range of our GPU software. Even if there is a prime within the range of GeneferCUDA, these WUs take a long time to crunch, and at the current rate it's going to take 50 years to crunch them all.
It may be comparatively easy to crunch GFNs, but these are REALLY huge numbers, and even an "easy" calculation is pretty hard.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 | |
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14037
ID: 53948
Credit: 477,161,398
RAC: 289,514
|
|
By the way, so far I've added 8980 PRPNet primes with a cumulative prime score of 55702.0483942064.
These PRPNet primes are for the following projects:
Project | Count | Score
121 | 1 | 3122.46614216305
27 | 1 | 1873.22724710602
ESP | 23 | 1353.42089333476
GCW | 5 | 1168.62989462173
GFN | 48 | 35809.2722188204
MEGA | 1 | 1220.79381036069
PPS | 8725 | 6810.17399382707
SGS | 134 | 1144.41837558478
SR5 | 42 | 3199.64581838829
I guess you can say, "Size matters."
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 | |
|
|
|
|
Thanks Michael,
That is a really interesting potted history of GFN. We lowly crunchers normally see only the end result and have little idea of the story behind the sub-projects.
Perhaps, with a little editing it could be put into WIKI.
____________
Member team AUSTRALIA
My lucky number is 9291*2^1085585+1 | |
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14037
ID: 53948
Credit: 477,161,398
RAC: 289,514
|
|
To put things in perspective about just how huge the numbers we're searching really are...
The largest prime currently in the prime list -- the largest prime ever found at PrimeGrid -- has a prime score of 33,622.
If we find a "short task" prime at the current leading edge, it would have a prime score of 151,188.
If we find a prime on the World Record search at the current leading edge, it would have a prime score of 6,246,499.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 | |
|
Scott BrownVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Volunteer tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 17 Oct 05
Posts: 2417
ID: 1178
Credit: 20,022,333,648
RAC: 20,456,197
|
|
Whew! It took just a bit less than 3 months, but I managed to catch Mike for fourth place in overall prime score. :)
Now just 10,000 or so more prime score points for those next three places. Maybe I can get lucky during the challenge! :P
In any case, I am without doubt king of the double checkers!
____________
141941*2^4299438-1 is prime!
| |
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14037
ID: 53948
Credit: 477,161,398
RAC: 289,514
|
Whew! It took just a bit less than 3 months, but I managed to catch Mike for fourth place in overall prime score. :)
Now just 10,000 or so more prime score points for those next three places. Maybe I can get lucky during the challenge! :P
In any case, I am without doubt king of the double checkers!
That's impressive! Seriously. I was just lucky. You got there the hard way.
By the way, any prime found during the challenge will likely come in around 150K. The double checker will be in second place. They'd also put a tiny dent in GIMPS' stranglehold on the top 10. :)
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 | |
|
HonzaVolunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 15 Aug 05
Posts: 1963
ID: 352
Credit: 6,403,694,756
RAC: 2,566,409
                                
|
Now just 10,000 or so more prime score points for those next three places. Maybe I can get lucky during the challenge! :P
Well done, Scott.
I need a little push to reach 10,0000 prime score - now 9,980.57
Since there appears to be all PPSELow primes counted, I would need extra SGS or PPR hit.
Of course, getting lucky on GFN - anyone getting lucky - would be great accomplishement.
EDIT: Still a little to go: 9,996.98
____________
My stats | |
|
Scott BrownVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Volunteer tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 17 Oct 05
Posts: 2417
ID: 1178
Credit: 20,022,333,648
RAC: 20,456,197
|
|
A belated thanks to both of you. And looks like you broke over that 10,000 primescore hump, Honza. Nicely done! Keep it up and you'll be in the top 10 ranking soon.
Too bad we didn't find a big GFN during the challenge. That would have been a really nice addition to the prime list. Maybe we'll get lucky in the clean-up.
| |
|
Scott BrownVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Volunteer tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 17 Oct 05
Posts: 2417
ID: 1178
Credit: 20,022,333,648
RAC: 20,456,197
|
|
Well...13 months to pass all the GFN entries and overtake what would have been the 1st place position. With the addition of Randy to the list, that puts me in 2nd overall on the prime list. I guess now it is time for us to find some more big GFNs! :)
| |
|
|
|
Well...13 months to pass all the GFN entries and overtake what would have been the 1st place position. With the addition of Randy to the list, that puts me in 2nd overall on the prime list. I guess now it is time for us to find some more big GFNs! :)
Congratulations Scott!
It's a great achievement. It also shows that brutal computing force beats luck. | |
|
Message boards :
Generalized Fermat Prime Search :
GFN primes now shown in Prime lists |
