mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Data > mersenne.ca

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2020-10-01, 12:10   #452
De Wandelaar
 
De Wandelaar's Avatar
 
"Yves"
Jul 2017
Belgium

3·17 Posts
Default

Thanks for the check and the solution !
De Wandelaar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-10-01, 13:26   #453
James Heinrich
 
James Heinrich's Avatar
 
"James Heinrich"
May 2004
ex-Northern Ontario

31·103 Posts
Default

Data has finished re-importing.
James Heinrich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-10-04, 10:45   #454
lycorn
 
lycorn's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Oeiras, Portugal

101100100002 Posts
Default

No data as of 04/10/2020 11:45 GMT.
lycorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-10-04, 11:54   #455
James Heinrich
 
James Heinrich's Avatar
 
"James Heinrich"
May 2004
ex-Northern Ontario

1100011110012 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lycorn View Post
No data as of 04/10/2020 11:45 GMT.
Should be back to normal now.
James Heinrich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-10-04, 12:59   #456
lycorn
 
lycorn's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Oeiras, Portugal

24·89 Posts
Default

It is, indeed.
lycorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-10-08, 22:14   #457
Ensigm
 
Aug 2020

3×5×7 Posts
Default Interpretation of min. TF on mersenne.ca

Minimal TF effort aka "min. TF" as shown in the factor entry seems to be quite different from the efforts shown in the TF history entry. For example, for M113317913 the "min. TF" shows 8.4409 GHz.d, whereas the total effort up to 273 is already roughly 8.4409*2, and the TF effort in 73-74 bits is greater than 8.4409GHz-days too, considering the fact that the factor is close to 2^74.
This couldn't be correct, unless the GHz-days in the factor entry and in the TF history are calibrated differently (which is also confusing).

Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 2020-10-09 at 00:10
Ensigm is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-10-08, 22:28   #458
Ensigm
 
Aug 2020

10510 Posts
Default

Also there‘s another thing in the TF history of M113317913 that perplexes me. Its factor 18823632331491929056447 is so close to 74 bits (73.995), but the GHz-days shown is much less than the TF effort of the whole 73-74 bits range, which should be 2 times the TF effort of 72-73 bits.
Ensigm is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-10-09, 00:09   #459
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

449910 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ensigm View Post
Minimal TF effort aka "min. TF" as shown in the factor....
This couldn't be correct, unless the GHz-days in the factor entry and in the TF history are calibrated differently (which is also confusing).
What is confusing about doing more than "minimal"? Minimal != recommended.
VBCurtis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-10-09, 01:12   #460
James Heinrich
 
James Heinrich's Avatar
 
"James Heinrich"
May 2004
ex-Northern Ontario

31·103 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ensigm View Post
Also there‘s another thing in the TF history of M113317913 that perplexes me. Its factor 18823632331491929056447 is so close to 74 bits (73.995), but the GHz-days shown is much less than the TF effort of the whole 73-74 bits range, which should be 2 times the TF effort of 72-73 bits.
One thing that may be not immediately obvious is that TF is not done linearly from bitA to bitB, the work is divided into classes (by default mfaktx uses 4620 classes) and my calculations for how much effort is spent actually looking for a given factor take that into account. That particular factor is found in class 3651, so should be found about 79% through the factoring process from 73-74.

That said, the 8.44 number does look suspiciously low, I will take deeper look at it in the morning and check if the calculations are correct or not.
James Heinrich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-10-09, 08:46   #461
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
Jun 2011
Thailand

22×2,239 Posts
Default

Numbers look right for me. That's a tinny factor for a large exponent.
LaurV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-10-09, 09:19   #462
Ensigm
 
Aug 2020

3·5·7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Heinrich View Post
One thing that may be not immediately obvious is that TF is not done linearly from bitA to bitB, the work is divided into classes (by default mfaktx uses 4620 classes) and my calculations for how much effort is spent actually looking for a given factor take that into account. That particular factor is found in class 3651, so should be found about 79% through the factoring process from 73-74.

Thanks for explaining it, I really didn't know that.
Ensigm is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Small inconsistencies between mersenne.org and mersenne.ca factor databases GP2 mersenne.ca 44 2016-06-19 19:29
mersenne.ca (ex mersenne-aries.sili.net) LaurV mersenne.ca 8 2013-11-25 21:01
Gaussian-Mersenne & Eisenstein-Mersenne primes siegert81 Math 2 2011-09-19 17:36
Mersenne Wiki: Improving the mersenne primes web site by FOSS methods optim PrimeNet 13 2004-07-09 13:51

All times are UTC. The time now is 07:19.

Wed Dec 2 07:19:07 UTC 2020 up 83 days, 4:30, 1 user, load averages: 1.11, 1.35, 1.43

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.