Team sieve #36: c162 from 4788:i5141 - Page 4

Dubslow · 2013-01-30, 20:30

yoyo, you can look here for a "real" post processing log, for a job that's the equivalent of a GNFS 153 (so a bit easier than this team sieve). Again though, reading the guide above is a great way to get started.

I'll also take 50-58M. Edit: Only 12M left

Edit2: Question for the more experienced: if I accidentally sieved my previous reservations on the rational side, what effect would that have?

akruppa · 2013-01-30, 21:03

The relations you found are still useful relations. The only "problem" is that, usually, sieving sq on one side produces relations faster than on the other side, so people sieve the side where it is faster and sieving on the wrong side is a less efficient use of cpu time.

You should still sieve your assigned range of the algebraic side. The relations you got from sieving that range on the rational side are not duplicates (except maybe a few) of those you'll get on the algebraic side.

RichD · 2013-01-30, 22:23

Looks like I will have time for 2 more.

I'll take 48-50M.

jrk · 2013-01-31, 06:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubslow

Edit2: Question for the more experienced: if I accidentally sieved my previous reservations on the rational side, what effect would that have?

You'd get about half as many relations (I checked). This may necessitate sieving the gaps on the -a side as akruppa suggests.

FYI the relations from my ranges will be posted on Friday afternoon (CST).

Dubslow · 2013-01-31, 06:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrk

You'd get about half as many relations (I checked). This may necessitate sieving the gaps on the -a side as akruppa suggests.

FYI the relations from my ranges will be posted on Friday afternoon (CST).

Okay, how about this:

Using Edh's 80-90M data, I estimate that properly (read: algebraically) sieving the range you provided would get us around 110M rels (and that's the high end of the range, so yield might be better overall). YAFU's minrels estimate for a 30 bit job is 92M rels, and this is on the low end of the 30 bit range, so if we just sieve the remaining gap, that might be enough to get a half decent matrix. So I'll do just that, and when it's all done I'll attempt a filtering, and do any extra sieving that might be necessary in the ranges I screwed up.

(I'd estimate it to be a 3 day matrix, maybe 4 tops.)

So: I'll (properly) do 38-44M.

PS I said I'd move these back to the 4788 thread, but the tradition seems to be to leave these threads intact. Does anyone care either way?

Edit: With 60-90M and 30-36M rels, or 36M out of the 65M range, there are 46,878,979 unique rels out of 50,087,399 raw (6.4% dup rate). That's with my screwed up rational side regions included. Maybe I really will have to resieve those.

Andi_HB · 2013-01-31, 13:54

29-30M ist uploadet.

EdH · 2013-01-31, 15:19

58-60M are on their way - about 15 minutes left...

I've started 46-48M...

If there is something of significance to the main thread, within this Team section, merge it back. Otherwise, follow tradition...

RichD · 2013-01-31, 15:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubslow

... Maybe I really will have to resieve those.

With the high potential of dups during resieving, wouldn't it be better to add more rels from above 90M (if needed)?

Dubslow · 2013-01-31, 20:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichD

With the high potential of dups during resieving, wouldn't it be better to add more rels from above 90M (if needed)?

According to akruppa there won't be many duplicates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdH

If there is something of significance to the main thread, within this Team section, merge it back. Otherwise, follow tradition...

Well, I don't think there's anything of great significance, so I guess I'll just leave it here.

jrk · 2013-01-31, 22:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichD

With the high potential of dups during resieving, wouldn't it be better to add more rels from above 90M (if needed)?

Rational specialq are distinct from algebraic specialq, so there is no re-sieving involved when the same specialq is sieved on both sides.

RichD · 2013-01-31, 22:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrk

Rational specialq are distinct from algebraic specialq, so there is no re-sieving involved when the same specialq is sieved on both sides.

Are the rels still relevant and do they have a value in the original problem?
(Hmm, if so, for over-sieving, would it be worthwhile to perform low-level sieving on the other side instead of high-end sieving on the same side?)

2013-01-30, 20:30	#34
Dubslow Basketry That Evening! "Bunslow the Bold" Jun 2011 40<A<43 -89<O<-88 16065₈ Posts	yoyo, you can look here for a "real" post processing log, for a job that's the equivalent of a GNFS 153 (so a bit easier than this team sieve). Again though, reading the guide above is a great way to get started. I'll also take 50-58M. Edit: Only 12M left Edit2: Question for the more experienced: if I accidentally sieved my previous reservations on the rational side, what effect would that have? Last fiddled with by Dubslow on 2013-01-30 at 20:43

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Team Sieve #28: c162 from 4788:2714	jrk	Aliquot Sequences	27	2011-10-25 08:51
Team sieve #23: c172 from 4788:i2617	schickel	Aliquot Sequences	64	2011-02-19 02:28
Team sieve #21: c162 from 4788:2602	jrk	Aliquot Sequences	31	2010-12-30 21:33
Team sieve #20: c170 from 4788:2549	schickel	Aliquot Sequences	153	2010-11-09 07:39
Team sieve #5: c140 from 4788:2407	10metreh	Aliquot Sequences	77	2009-05-27 20:39

2013-01-30, 21:03	#35
akruppa "Nancy" Aug 2002 Alexandria 2,467 Posts	The relations you found are still useful relations. The only "problem" is that, usually, sieving sq on one side produces relations faster than on the other side, so people sieve the side where it is faster and sieving on the wrong side is a less efficient use of cpu time. You should still sieve your assigned range of the algebraic side. The relations you got from sieving that range on the rational side are not duplicates (except maybe a few) of those you'll get on the algebraic side.

2013-01-30, 22:23	#36
RichD Sep 2008 Kansas 2²·821 Posts	Looks like I will have time for 2 more. I'll take 48-50M.

2013-01-31, 13:54	#39
Andi_HB Mar 2007 Germany 2³×3×11 Posts	29-30M ist uploadet.

2013-01-31, 15:19	#40
EdH "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns 2×23×79 Posts	58-60M are on their way - about 15 minutes left... I've started 46-48M... If there is something of significance to the main thread, within this Team section, merge it back. Otherwise, follow tradition...