20050718, 06:58  #1 
May 2005
Naperville, IL, USA
304_{8} Posts 
Current Factor Depth
Here is an update to the factor depth table.

20050718, 10:16  #2 
Aug 2002
Termonfeckin, IE
11×251 Posts 
HI,
This is very useful. However, there seems to some problem with your table for 33M. Assuming this signifies the range from 3334M, there are more than 6000 numbers at 68 bits. My quick check shows over 16,000 at this level. 
20050718, 13:36  #3 
May 2005
Naperville, IL, USA
2^{2}·7^{2} Posts 
OK, Garo. I did this late last night (very early this morning) in my time zone so I might have goofed somewhere along the line. I started by downloading the 17JUL2005 nofactor.zip file. I extracted all of the data from 25M to 79.3M, loaded it into a database, and wrote a query to generate the tableaux of data. Is the discrepancy that this first effort looks only at nofactor.zip when a true picture would integrate the data from factors.zip as well? Please let me know. Thank you.

20050718, 15:13  #4 
Aug 2002
Termonfeckin, IE
11·251 Posts 
No, your methodology is correct. You do not need factors.zip to generate your table. I cannot say what has caused the problem unless you tell me what query you used. Maybe you should just run it one more time?
I just checked the other rows and the numbers there seem wrong too. Can you be more specific about how you made these tables? Last fiddled with by garo on 20050718 at 15:19 
20050718, 18:03  #5 
Jun 2004
UK
139 Posts 
Just fwiw.
With 17th July file I get: Code:
60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 33000000 0 4291 1258 0 39 1 5 2 16414 0 0 0 0 0 0 22010 
20050718, 22:41  #6 
May 2005
Naperville, IL, USA
2^{2}·7^{2} Posts 
I think this one is better. Please let me know if you find any issues.

20050719, 10:18  #7 
Aug 2003
Upstate NY, USA
506_{8} Posts 
Those numbers look much better (I noticed problems with the earlier one of the 69M line as well)
I used to make these charts at work and host them all on my geocities site, but that (along with all other geocities pages) has since been blocked so I can only do it from home where I tend to forget to do things for a bit. If I get some time I'll upload my latest files either this evening or tomorrow onto that site, or perhaps another place so that I can maintain it from work where I have less to do. 
20050719, 10:46  #8 
Aug 2002
Termonfeckin, IE
2761_{10} Posts 
That looks great! Thanks JHagerson.

20050719, 15:30  #9 
May 2005
Naperville, IL, USA
2^{2}·7^{2} Posts 
Tom11784, my effort was greatly inspired by your Geocities work. I didn't mean to "step on your toes" by taking the initiative.
I think the problem with my first effort was that the calculation to assign an exponent to a "bucket" for reporting purposes rounded rather than truncated. I thought something was fishy when the 79M line showed so may values. However, that alarm did not sound loudly enough to rouse my sleepcraving brain. I have thought about extending the chart with one of two weighting schemes. Would you think either of these (or both) is worth pursuing? 1. Multiply the factor depth by the exponent, sum those, and divide by the sum of the exponents to give the weighted average factoring depth. (Higher numbers take more effort to factor and would therefore be accorded higher weight.) 2. Compare the factor depth of each exponent with the appropriate current Prime95 trial factoring threshold. Then we can compute an indication of "percent complete." Thank you for your feedback. 
20050719, 16:57  #10 
Aug 2002
Termonfeckin, IE
11×251 Posts 
1) does not make sense as it actually takes less time to factor a larger number at the same limit. In any case, the time difference between say 40M and 41M is small enough to be ignored for our purposes.
2), on the other hand, is a very good idea! 
20050719, 18:56  #11  
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA
2^{2}·3·641 Posts 
Quote:
For example, if an Mnumber's been TFed to 2^65 and the appropriate current Prime95 trial factoring threshold is 66 (2^66), then the TF "percent complete" is (100% / 2^[6665]) = 50%, not 100%*(65/66) = ~98.5%. Similarly, if an Mnumber has been TFed so far to 2^63 and the current Prime95 trial factoring threshold is 67 (2^67), the TF "percent complete" would be (100% / 2^[6763]) = 6.25%, not 100%*(63/67) = ~94%. Also, some Mnumbers have been TFed beyond the current threshold (for various reasons). If an Mnumber's been TFed to 2^68 whereas the current threshold for that Mnumber's exponent is 67, then that Mnumber's TF "percent complete" should be (100% / 2^[6768]) = (100% / 0.5 ) = 200%. Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 20050719 at 19:04 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Current recommended TF bit depth?  endless mike  GPU Computing  3  20150807 23:00 
Specifing TF factor depth in "Manual Assignments"?  kracker  PrimeNet  2  20120722 17:49 
Factoring bit depth?  Dubslow  Information & Answers  103  20110904 14:51 
Trial Factor Bit Depth  lavalamp  Operation Billion Digits  8  20100802 18:49 
optimality of ecm depth  mklasson  Msieve  2  20090308 20:18 