mersenneforum.org Team sieve #36: c162 from 4788:i5141
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2013-01-30, 20:30 #34 Dubslow Basketry That Evening!     "Bunslow the Bold" Jun 2011 40
 2013-01-30, 21:03 #35 akruppa     "Nancy" Aug 2002 Alexandria 9A316 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 3×5×13×17 Posts Looks like I will have time for 2 more. I'll take 48-50M.
2013-01-31, 06:21   #37
jrk

May 2008

3×5×73 Posts

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).

2013-01-31, 06:51   #38
Dubslow

"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88

3·29·83 Posts

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).

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.

Last fiddled with by Dubslow on 2013-01-31 at 07:26

 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 367710 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...
2013-01-31, 15:52   #41
RichD

Sep 2008
Kansas

63638 Posts

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)?

2013-01-31, 20:22   #42
Dubslow

"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88

3·29·83 Posts

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.

Last fiddled with by Dubslow on 2013-01-31 at 20:23

2013-01-31, 22:11   #43
jrk

May 2008

3·5·73 Posts

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.

2013-01-31, 22:23   #44
RichD

Sep 2008
Kansas

3×5×13×17 Posts

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?)

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post jrk Aliquot Sequences 27 2011-10-25 08:51 schickel Aliquot Sequences 64 2011-02-19 02:28 jrk Aliquot Sequences 31 2010-12-30 21:33 schickel Aliquot Sequences 153 2010-11-09 07:39 10metreh Aliquot Sequences 77 2009-05-27 20:39

All times are UTC. The time now is 07:43.

Mon Apr 12 07:43:26 UTC 2021 up 4 days, 2:24, 1 user, load averages: 2.31, 2.26, 2.24