mersenneforum.org New report: Cost per Factor Found...
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2011-12-07, 14:32 #1 chalsall If I May     "Chris Halsall" Sep 2002 Barbados 1057510 Posts New report: Cost per Factor Found... Hey all. In order to be able to make a more informed decision on exactly how deeply we should be trial factoring in the various ranges, I have created a new report: Cost per Factor Found broken down by "bit depth" and 1M ranges. It seems to me that at 53M and above we might want to consider to start going to 73, but only after clearing out everything (or, at least, most everything) below. Thoughts?
 2011-12-07, 14:52 #2 davieddy     "Lucan" Dec 2006 England 2·3·13·83 Posts If you make the data any clearer, you will be in danger of realizing I am talking sense. Last fiddled with by chalsall on 2011-12-07 at 18:25 Reason: Removed unnecessary inflammatory language.
2011-12-07, 15:00   #3
diamonddave

Feb 2004

101000002 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by chalsall Hey all. In order to be able to make a more informed decision on exactly how deeply we should be trial factoring in the various ranges, I have created a new report: Cost per Factor Found broken down by "bit depth" and 1M ranges. It seems to me that at 53M and above we might want to consider to start going to 73, but only after clearing out everything (or, at least, most everything) below. Thoughts?
Sorry for the cross posting, post belong here I think,

I'm really surprised by those results. We are finding way more factor then expected, excepted for the 69 bit level in DC.

Also the Factor found reported here doesn't agree with other report on the site.

LL:
Code:
Bit     Exp.    Factor  Expected
69	1640	61	24
70	9949	250	142
71	6020	192	85
72	4244	112	59
73	78	3	1
DC:
Code:
Bit     Exp.    Factor  Expected
68	1477	32	22
69	5291	50	77
70	83	4	1

Last fiddled with by diamonddave on 2011-12-07 at 15:03

2011-12-07, 15:24   #4
chalsall
If I May

"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002

32·52·47 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by diamonddave Also the Factor found reported here doesn't agree with other report on the site.
Whoops... Stupid programmer error...

Fixed.

2011-12-07, 15:37   #5
diamonddave

Feb 2004

101000002 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by chalsall Whoops... Stupid programmer error... Fixed.
Here are my new report with the new Data.

LL:
Code:
Bit   Exp.  Factor  Expected
69    1640      17        24
70    9951     106	 142
71    6032      68        85
72    4271      38        59
73      78	 1   	   1
230       311
Finding only 73% of the expected number of factor.

DC:
Code:
Bit   Exp.  Factor  Expected
68   1477       20      22
69   5291       45      77
70     83        3       1
68     100
Finding only 68% of the expected number of factor.

Surprising results...

Last fiddled with by diamonddave on 2011-12-07 at 15:45 Reason: Formatting

2011-12-07, 15:50   #6
TheJudger

"Oliver"
Mar 2005
Germany

23×139 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by diamonddave Finding only 68% of the expected number of factor. Surprising results...
Adjust your expectations. Chance for a factor within 2x and 2x+1 is 1/x only if no P-1 was done.

Oliver

Last fiddled with by TheJudger on 2011-12-07 at 15:51

2011-12-07, 15:57   #7
diamonddave

Feb 2004

A016 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by TheJudger Adjust your expectations. Chance for a factor within 2x and 2x+1 is 1/x only if no P-1 was done. Oliver
Can we have clearer data?

2011-12-07, 16:01   #8
chalsall
If I May

"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002

32×52×47 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by diamonddave Can we have clearer data?
Such as?

I could do as I do on the "Available Assignments" page, and give the option of showing statistics with only "with P-1" and "without P-1". Would this be helpful?

Also, I remember back with the original PrimeNet server that some LMHers were TFing in higher ranges. The server would accept "Factors Found", but not "No Factors Found" results. I don't know what ranges and bit-levels were involved, however.

2011-12-07, 16:03   #9
diamonddave

Feb 2004

101000002 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by chalsall Such as? I could do as I do on the "Available Assignments" page, and give the option of showing statistics with only "with P-1" and "without P-1". Would this be helpful? Also, I remember back with the original PrimeNet server that some LMHers were TFing in higher ranges. The server would accept "Factors Found", but not "No Factors Found" results. I don't know what ranges and bit-levels were involved, however.
Yeah the with & without P-1 would give a much clearer picture I think.

2011-12-07, 16:24   #10
davieddy

"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England

2×3×13×83 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by TheJudger Adjust your expectations. Chance for a factor within 2x and 2x+1 is 1/x only if no P-1 was done. Oliver
For some strange reason, I have a feeling in my water that this guy knows what he's talking about.

David

2011-12-07, 16:33   #11
diamonddave

Feb 2004

25·5 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by davieddy See above (#2) Get a brain. (Sorry Dave. Like your posts!)
I was surprised because right now 2/3 of assignment are No P-1 assignment, it would follow that most of the result would also come from that source.

I thought that P-1 was reducing chance from something like 1/69 to 1/80. Seeing anything north of 1/90 was unexpected to me.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post tha Data 65 2020-08-05 21:11 johnadam74 FermatSearch 16 2016-11-03 12:10 ATH PrimeNet 2 2014-09-01 03:42 tha Factoring 4 2007-06-18 19:56 jocelynl Software 6 2004-08-07 01:31

All times are UTC. The time now is 02:17.

Mon Aug 8 02:17:14 UTC 2022 up 31 days, 21:04, 1 user, load averages: 1.44, 1.13, 1.11