mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > PrimeNet

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2019-10-30, 18:27   #1
mnd9
 
Jun 2019
Boston, MA

3×13 Posts
Default ECM probabilities and bit levels

Hi all,

I'm getting into doing more ECM work and I'm wondering -- if the expected number of curves indicated for Prime95 (e.g. 280 curves at B1=50k, 640 curves at B1=250k) are run, and no factor is found, what is the probability that we can exclude a factor in that digit range? In other words, is performing the expected number of curves, the equivalent of a "no factor found" TF result for a specific bit range?

Also does anybody have a rough breakdown of what bit level each B1 level corresponds to? I understand that according to this page https://www.alpertron.com.ar/ECM.HTM that for example B1 of 50000 is the 25 digits, 250000 is 30 digits, so is it just as simple as multiplying these values by ln(10)/ln(2) or ~3.3?

Thanks!
mnd9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-10-30, 18:53   #2
lycorn
 
lycorn's Avatar
 
"GIMFS"
Sep 2002
Oeiras, Portugal

5E816 Posts
Default

If you do the prescribed number of curves for a certain B1 value (say 640 for B1 = 250,000), the chance that you miss a factor smaller than the corresponding number of digits (should it exist, in the first place...) is roughly 1/e ~36%. For B1 = 250,000 that number is 30 digits. So no, getting a NF-ECM result is not the same as a TF "no factor found", as ECM is probabilistic whereas TF is deterministic.

As for your second question yes, it´s as simple as you stated.

PS - Welcome to the ECM tribe...
lycorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-10-30, 19:00   #3
chalsall
If I May
 
chalsall's Avatar
 
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados

26×157 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lycorn View Post
PS - Welcome to the ECM tribe...
Just out of interest... How big are the ECM checkpoint files for the current (reasonable) "wavefront"?

I'm looking at offering Colab / Kaggle TF'ers the option of also doing CPU work in parallel -- some might be interested in doing ECM.

P.S. Just recovering from an unscheduled power failure... Grrr... Now have reestablish several dozen SSH sessions into servers...
chalsall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-10-30, 21:11   #4
Dylan14
 
Dylan14's Avatar
 
"Dylan"
Mar 2017

10010010102 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chalsall View Post
Just out of interest... How big are the ECM checkpoint files for the current (reasonable) "wavefront"?

Not at the current wavefront, but for the two ecm runs that I have (one for M55057 and one for M7777727) the files are 13868 and 1944532 bytes, respectively. There are two backups for each of them. I am not sure if the lengths depend on the B1 or B2 bounds, however.
Dylan14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-10-30, 21:37   #5
Happy5214
 
Happy5214's Avatar
 
"Alexander"
Nov 2008
The Alamo City

23×97 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan14 View Post
Not at the current wavefront, but for the two ecm runs that I have (one for M55057 and one for M7777727) the files are 13868 and 1944532 bytes, respectively. There are two backups for each of them. I am not sure if the lengths depend on the B1 or B2 bounds, however.
For both of those cases, the exponent-to-size ratio is almost exactly 4:1. To be exact, they're 3.97:1 and 3.99979:1, respectively.

Using one of my examples, I have a 51540-byte checkpoint for M205759 (B1=250k), for a ratio of 3.9922:1.

Last fiddled with by Happy5214 on 2019-10-30 at 21:40
Happy5214 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-10-30, 22:55   #6
chalsall
If I May
 
chalsall's Avatar
 
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados

26·157 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan14 View Post
Not at the current wavefront, but for the two ecm runs that I have (one for M55057 and one for M7777727) the files are 13868 and 1944532 bytes, respectively.
Hmmm... So relatively small.

You could put that over HTTP without any problem.
chalsall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-10-30, 23:02   #7
lycorn
 
lycorn's Avatar
 
"GIMFS"
Sep 2002
Oeiras, Portugal

23×33×7 Posts
Default

The size of the save files is related to the size of the exponent under test (which in turn determives the size of the FFT used).
I am currently running curves on exponents in the 29xxxx range (15k FFT) and the save files are 72Kb in size. Two save files (main and backup) are used per test, although you may choose to have two backups.
If you let the server decide, it will currently assign exponents in the 13 08x xxx range (672 K FFT) and the save files will grow to 3.1 MB each.
lycorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-10-30, 23:24   #8
chalsall
If I May
 
chalsall's Avatar
 
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados

274016 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lycorn View Post
I am currently running curves on exponents in the 29xxxx range (15k FFT) and the save files are 72Kb in size. Two save files (main and backup) are used per test, although you may choose to have two backups.
OK. And am I inferring correctly from your statement that this is "non-nominal" work?

With regards to instance design, each save file would get "thrown back" to the server when it first was "noticed". It would then be up to the server to decide how many, and for how long, they would be kept.

Is there an option to set the frequency of the save files?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lycorn View Post
If you let the server decide, it will currently assign exponents in the 13 08x xxx range (672 K FFT) and the save files will grow to 3.1 MB each.
Again I'm inferring you mean asking Primenet for whatever it thinks is best?

Even ~3 MB isn't that big a deal -- we have already established that Colab / Kaggle instances are in no significant way bandwidth constrained.
chalsall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-10-31, 00:28   #9
Dylan14
 
Dylan14's Avatar
 
"Dylan"
Mar 2017

2×293 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chalsall View Post
Is there an option to set the frequency of the save files?

Yes. The option to change is



Code:
DiskWriteTime=30
in prime.txt. The units of time here are minutes. The program will also save when stopped gracefully by the user (via Ctrl+C, for instance).
Dylan14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-10-31, 00:40   #10
mnd9
 
Jun 2019
Boston, MA

3·13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lycorn View Post
If you do the prescribed number of curves for a certain B1 value (say 640 for B1 = 250,000), the chance that you miss a factor smaller than the corresponding number of digits (should it exist, in the first place...) is roughly 1/e ~36%. For B1 = 250,000 that number is 30 digits. So no, getting a NF-ECM result is not the same as a TF "no factor found", as ECM is probabilistic whereas TF is deterministic.

As for your second question yes, it´s as simple as you stated.

PS - Welcome to the ECM tribe...
Just another quick follow up probability question: so say an exponent has the expected B1=50k and B1=250k curves done, is the overall probability of missing a factor less than 30 digits still 1/e or a bit lower? In other words do the 50k curves contribute some additional effort independent of the 250k curves or is the 1/e estimate under the assumption that appropriate curves have been run at lower B1 values as well?
mnd9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-10-31, 00:41   #11
chalsall
If I May
 
chalsall's Avatar
 
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados

26×157 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan14 View Post
...by the user (via Ctrl+C, for instance).
Or by the instance, for instance...

Thanks for the information.
chalsall is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PRP vs LL speed comparison and probabilities JuanTutors Software 6 2019-07-27 03:15
Missing bit levels? NBtarheel_33 Data 6 2016-05-31 15:27
skipped bit levels tha PrimeNet 151 2016-03-17 11:38
Some transition probabilities fivemack Aliquot Sequences 9 2012-03-16 08:49
Recommended TF bit levels for M(>10^8) NBtarheel_33 Math 19 2008-11-03 17:19

All times are UTC. The time now is 14:03.


Sun Dec 5 14:03:06 UTC 2021 up 135 days, 8:32, 1 user, load averages: 0.96, 0.99, 1.14

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.