Ali' reservation "bug" - Page 2

schickel · 2017-09-14, 23:17

As far as Clifford goes, he did not have an account here, but did check messages occasionally. I used to email him with regular status updates, but I stopped after he stopped responding. I will have to check at home to see when he stopped corresponding.

Regarding 700128: I was attached to this one since it has the full 2^9 driver in its history. In fact I had concentrated almost exclusively on any sequences that had the 2^9 driver, continuing after an escape from 2^9 until they hit another driver that was going to be too hard to wait for a break on it.

If anyone wants to tackle the c170 blocker on 700128, feel free. I'll have to either plan on a 7-9 month job by myself or buy more hardware to shave some time off that estimate. Unfortunately, 2^7 * 3 * 5 leaves little room for much hope.....

VBCurtis · 2017-09-15, 03:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by schickel

If anyone wants to tackle the c170 blocker on 700128, feel free. I'll have to either plan on a 7-9 month job by myself or buy more hardware to shave some time off that estimate. Unfortunately, 2^7 * 3 * 5 leaves little room for much hope.....

Give it half a t55 of ECM and submit it to the 14e NFS@home queue. I'll take care of the matrix for you once NFS@home sieves it.

schickel · 2017-09-16, 00:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by VBCurtis

Give it half a t55 of ECM and submit it to the 14e NFS@home queue. I'll take care of the matrix for you once NFS@home sieves it.

I'll definitely look into that. I'm just so used to doing all the work myself. I also was not sure how NFS@home picked numbers to factor.

It'll take a while to get that amount of ECM done, but as I said, it's probably getting to the point where I can put this one on the shelf for a while.

richs · 2017-09-17, 01:58

How much ECM have you done? yoyo@home will help with ECM.

garambois · 2017-09-24, 14:05

Please, I have a problem with sequence 952320 .
I reserved it (here) but somebody (or yafu ?) is calculating the same sequence !

EdH · 2017-09-24, 15:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by garambois

Please, I have a problem with sequence 952320 .
I reserved it (here) but somebody (or yafu ?) is calculating the same sequence !

Edit: After taking a closer look at your sequence and the sizes of any recent composites, I think my below descriptions are probably not valid for this instance, but I've left them in case there is any helpful info.

Are you using ali.pl (or similar), or Aliqueit to perform your work?

If you are using ali.pl or a similar script that interfaces with the db for every assignment, then any factors that you upload will create composites that become available to workers. For example, I currently have machines working on composites in the db that are from 76 to 94 digits in size. They will eventually include 96 and so on. Anything within that region could be worked by my machines. Others are working similarly. Unfortunately, if you upload a factor and receive back a composite that is also available to others, it might be factored ahead of you.

If you are using Aliqueit, you can hold back a sequence upload until your current work line includes a large composite. That should be somewhat of a block to db workers, although there is always a random worker chance for a hit.

Of course, any time a larger composite from a sequence is factored, the db advances the sequence as far as it can, handling any small (<70d) composites by itself.

My descriptions above don't preclude the possibility of someone else actively working your sequence, but they might offer a possible explanation for what might be happening.

garambois · 2017-09-24, 17:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdH

Edit: After taking a closer look at your sequence and the sizes of any recent composites, I think my below descriptions are probably not valid for this instance, but I've left them in case there is any helpful info.

Are you using ali.pl (or similar), or Aliqueit to perform your work?

If you are using ali.pl or a similar script that interfaces with the db for every assignment, then any factors that you upload will create composites that become available to workers. For example, I currently have machines working on composites in the db that are from 76 to 94 digits in size. They will eventually include 96 and so on. Anything within that region could be worked by my machines. Others are working similarly. Unfortunately, if you upload a factor and receive back a composite that is also available to others, it might be factored ahead of you.

If you are using Aliqueit, you can hold back a sequence upload until your current work line includes a large composite. That should be somewhat of a block to db workers, although there is always a random worker chance for a hit.

Of course, any time a larger composite from a sequence is factored, the db advances the sequence as far as it can, handling any small (<70d) composites by itself.

My descriptions above don't preclude the possibility of someone else actively working your sequence, but they might offer a possible explanation for what might be happening.

No, I'm not using ali.pl (or similar), or Aliqueit to perform my work.

I was factoring an integer of 133 digits when this happened.
This integer was :
2460496462827132396002711595082385227859817318068126886419478593 * 2129899422618561397392146213027957778616507349542713868684671627764197
Iteration 1913 here.

According to your explanations, it would seem rather that someone else also calculates the same sequence.

Thank you for your help.

EdH · 2017-09-24, 19:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by garambois

No, I'm not using ali.pl (or similar), or Aliqueit to perform my work.

I was factoring an integer of 133 digits when this happened.
This integer was :
2460496462827132396002711595082385227859817318068126886419478593 * 2129899422618561397392146213027957778616507349542713868684671627764197
Iteration 1913 here.

According to your explanations, it would seem rather that someone else also calculates the same sequence.

Thank you for your help.

You're certainly welcome. I hope I am helpful. The 133 digit composite should have been a secure block against db work, but I would probably let the 125 digit composite sit a little while and see if it is factored as well. If not, perhaps you have pointed out your reservation to someone who had missed it, or it was a random work from somewhere. If it does become factored soon, and a c125 shouldn't take long these days, this would certainly point to deliberate work.

garambois · 2017-09-24, 19:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdH

You're certainly welcome. I hope I am helpful. The 133 digit composite should have been a secure block against db work, but I would probably let the 125 digit composite sit a little while and see if it is factored as well. If not, perhaps you have pointed out your reservation to someone who had missed it, or it was a random work from somewhere. If it does become factored soon, and a c125 shouldn't take long these days, this would certainly point to deliberate work.

Yes I will wait a while to see if the C125 will be factorized "alone".
My reservation has been registered here.

Thanks for your advices.

ChristianB · 2017-09-26, 09:49

I just dropped the sequences from people that didn't respond.

garambois · 2017-09-27, 20:00

Exactly the same problem with the aliquot sequence which start on integer 383082.
Iteration 2945, cofactor C133 was
295690814014562100094847329404118543688510317221491 * 26396437879042907816673937937223839918103499469384477009804097110653142969633782939.
This integer was not factorized by me even if this sequence has been reserved by me !

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Stockfish game: "Move 8 poll", not "move 3.14159 discussion"	MooMoo2	Other Chess Games	5	2016-10-22 01:55
"Honey, I think our son's autistic." "Okay, I'll buy him some crayons."	jasong	jasong	10	2015-12-14 06:38
Aouessare-El Haddouchi-Essaaidi "test": "if Mp has no factor, it is prime!"	wildrabbitt	Miscellaneous Math	11	2015-03-06 08:17
Would Minimizing "iterations between results file" may reveal "is not prime" earlier?	nitai1999	Software	7	2004-08-26 18:12

2017-09-14, 23:17	#12
schickel "Frank <^>" Dec 2004 CDP Janesville 2·1,061 Posts	As far as Clifford goes, he did not have an account here, but did check messages occasionally. I used to email him with regular status updates, but I stopped after he stopped responding. I will have to check at home to see when he stopped corresponding. Regarding 700128: I was attached to this one since it has the full 2^9 driver in its history. In fact I had concentrated almost exclusively on any sequences that had the 2^9 driver, continuing after an escape from 2^9 until they hit another driver that was going to be too hard to wait for a break on it. If anyone wants to tackle the c170 blocker on 700128, feel free. I'll have to either plan on a 7-9 month job by myself or buy more hardware to shave some time off that estimate. Unfortunately, 2^7 * 3 * 5 leaves little room for much hope.....

2017-09-17, 01:58	#15
richs "Rich" Aug 2002 Benicia, California 10010100110₂ Posts	How much ECM have you done? yoyo@home will help with ECM.

2017-09-24, 14:05	#16
garambois Oct 2011 17C₁₆ Posts	Please, I have a problem with sequence 952320 . I reserved it (here) but somebody (or yafu ?) is calculating the same sequence !

2017-09-26, 09:49	#21
ChristianB Apr 2013 Germany 465₈ Posts	I just dropped the sequences from people that didn't respond.

2017-09-27, 20:00	#22
garambois Oct 2011 2²×5×19 Posts	Exactly the same problem with the aliquot sequence which start on integer 383082. Iteration 2945, cofactor C133 was 295690814014562100094847329404118543688510317221491 * 26396437879042907816673937937223839918103499469384477009804097110653142969633782939. This integer was not factorized by me even if this sequence has been reserved by me !