- **Software**
(*https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=10*)

- - **Prime95 v30.4/30.5/30.6**
(*https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=26376*)

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;576604]I ran some P+1 and when submitting a result I see PrimeNet error 13: [C]Server database full or broken.[/C]
P+1 found a composite factor for [M]123031[/M] 120815644174984431693267614423021994991[/QUOTE] This might be because I did some very small (B1=100000) PP1 test for this exponent already yesterday. Started at exponents above 123000 and moved on a few exponents. Does anyone know which B1 is optimal to choose? I would assume something like B1 is 10 times larger than the largest ECM curve run on it? I'm doing it on my gut feeling right now, but if somebody can give some guidance, that would be better... One remark: I would suggest that prime95 always includes "p" as factor, like in P-1 testing? Otherwise, if a PP1 test happens to turn out to be actually a slow P-1 test (50% chance), than it will never find any factors if B1 < p holds, even if a P-1 test would have found it with the same bounds. Obviously, this is more important for large p... |

[QUOTE=ixfd64;576607]That's a product of the previously known factors 2214559 and 54555170656995109045759275062449.[/QUOTE]
Thus my use of the word composite in my original post.:blahblahblah: [QUOTE=gLauss;576609]This might be because I did some very small (B1=100000) PP1 test for this exponent already yesterday. Started at exponents above 123000 and moved on a few exponents.[/QUOTE]I went through the 1230xx numbers (the ones you ran) doing P+1 with higher bounds. Prime95 found a number of factors. For several it did not even attempt to report them. The last one of the batch it did successfully report a NF-PP1. :chappy: |

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;576604]I ran some P+1 and when submitting a result I see PrimeNet error 13: [C]Server database full or broken.[/C]
P+1 found a composite factor for [M]123031[/M] 120815644174984431693267614423021994991[/QUOTE] Please email the results.json.txt. Thanks. |

This is probably way down the road, but will we get a [URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_factoring_effort/?exp_lo=14070000&exp_hi=14079999"]status page like this[/URL] for the P+1 effort at some point?
Is there a convenient way to see what has been done over a range of exponents and generate a csv or xml file? No rush, just curious. |

[QUOTE=masser;576621]This is probably way down the road, but will we get a [URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_factoring_effort/?exp_lo=14070000&exp_hi=14079999"]status page like this[/URL] for the P+1 effort at some point?
Is there a convenient way to see what has been done over a range of exponents and generate a csv or xml file? No rush, just curious.[/QUOTE] Or P+1 relevant columns, added to that page, that already has TF and P-1 combined concisely? What would that look like; separate B1 and B2 columns for each of 2/7, 6/5, and random, 6 columns added? A seventh column as count of random runs? |

[QUOTE=kriesel;576626]Or P+1 relevant columns, added to that page, that already has TF and P-1 combined concisely?
What would that look like; separate B1 and B2 columns for each of 2/7, 6/5, and random, 6 columns added? A seventh column as count of random runs?[/QUOTE] It may be more useful to add an ECM "stage estimator" that indicates what level of ECM has been performed. At some point, it might be good to lump the P+1 runs in with the ECM runs; we could view P+1 as just a few special ECM cases that happen to run a lot faster. |

[QUOTE=masser;576621]This is probably way down the road, but will we get a [URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_factoring_effort/?exp_lo=14070000&exp_hi=14079999"]status page like this[/URL] for the P+1 effort at some point?[/QUOTE]The placeholder report is already in place at [url]https://www.mersenne.org/report_pplus1/[/url]
It still needs to be refined. |

That showed 6 factors found, in 1104 attempts. (1 per 184 attempts) All factors found were from start 2/7.
Start etc. breakdown is: [CODE]nth_run start-value count percentage 1 2/7 1068 96.74% 2 6/5 22 1.99% 3 other ("random") 14 1.27%[/CODE] I think a more balanced / optimal mix would have counts for nth_run=1 and nth_run=2 about equal, and count for nth_run=3 somewhat less than nth_run=1 count because of random start values' lower probability of finding factors than the special 2/7 or 6/5 start values. ([URL]https://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=575865&postcount=7[/URL] [URL]https://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=575892&postcount=15[/URL]) |

[QUOTE=kriesel;576642]That showed 6 factors found, in 1104 attempts. (1 per 184 attempts) All factors found were from start 2/7. Start breakdown is ...[/QUOTE]
And my understanding that there are only two "slices" through this P+1 space, so "other" really means either 2/7 or 6/5. Do I understand that correctly? A question just hit me... Is the space explored with P+1 different as a function of the B1 and B2 values? |

[QUOTE=chalsall;576646]And my understanding that there are only two "slices" through this P+1 space, so "other" really means either 2/7 or 6/5. Do I understand that correctly?[/QUOTE]My understanding (blind leading the blind here) was that the start values can be pretty much anything, but those two particular combinations have a [i]slightly[/i] higher chance of finding a factor than any other two start values.
The [c]nth_run[/c] parameter sets the the start values to 1=(2/7), 2=(6/5), 3=(random/random) |

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;576647]My understanding (blind leading the blind here) was that the start values can be pretty much anything, but those two particular combinations have a [i]slightly[/i] higher chance of finding a factor than any other two start values.
The [c]nth_run[/c] parameter sets the the start values to 1=(2/7), 2=(6/5), 3=(random/random)[/QUOTE] That is my understanding of P+1 too. |

All times are UTC. The time now is 00:51. |

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11

Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.