mersenneforum.org  

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2017-08-14, 01:01   #2663
rudy235
 
rudy235's Avatar
 
Jun 2015
Vallejo, CA/.

3C716 Posts
Default

They have merged in the past. I remember vaguely when what is now the line up to 35'100,000 was divided.

Last fiddled with by rudy235 on 2017-08-14 at 01:01
rudy235 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-08-14, 06:24   #2664
Madpoo
Serpentine Vermin Jar
 
Madpoo's Avatar
 
Jul 2014

29×113 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rudy235 View Post
They have merged in the past. I remember vaguely when what is now the line up to 35'100,000 was divided.
Oh, hmm... looks like that's the case.

Okay, I merged it and made a few minor layout tweaks.
Madpoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-08-14, 09:58   #2665
S485122
 
S485122's Avatar
 
Sep 2006
Brussels, Belgium

30748 Posts
Default

While you are busy with layout tweaks on that page, the column "TwoLL" needs to accommodate one digit more, it should have the same width as the column "Facored" or "Numbers".

Jacob

Last fiddled with by S485122 on 2017-08-14 at 09:59 Reason: number / digit
S485122 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-08-14, 15:12   #2666
rudy235
 
rudy235's Avatar
 
Jun 2015
Vallejo, CA/.

967 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by S485122 View Post
While you are busy with layout tweaks on that page, the column "TwoLL" needs to accommodate one digit more, it should have the same width as the column "Facored" or "Numbers".

Jacob
I see no reason why they can't fix both issues simultaneously.
rudy235 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-08-15, 18:14   #2667
NBtarheel_33
 
NBtarheel_33's Avatar
 
"Nathan"
Jul 2008
Maryland, USA

45916 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madpoo View Post
I'm not sure what the original thinking was of those breakpoints in the chart. I thought maybe it was based on the average FFT size used for those exponents or something like that (except for the large 0-35.1M section).
That is exactly how it was: one line for each FFT size, going back to the days of low seven-figure exponents. As each FFT size bracket was "eliminated" (i.e. all of the exponents requiring a given FFT size were double-checked), they were merged together into the larger line at the top of the report, and the FFT size for all of the merged exponents was recorded as "Many" or "Various".

Historically, the rationale likely was that each larger FFT size meant an increase in the number of P90 CPU years required to test a given group of exponents, and since this report gives the number of P90 CPU years left in each interval, it made sense to break the exponents down by FFT size.

Incidentally, imagine testing exponents near 79.3M on a P90! The fact that we are completing this table (though completing the double-check stage is still probably 10+ years off) is a testament to both the massive increases in computing power that we have witnessed in the last 20 years, and the amazing effort that both administrators and users bring to GIMPS day after day, year after year (and now, decade after decade!).
NBtarheel_33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-08-15, 19:01   #2668
NBtarheel_33
 
NBtarheel_33's Avatar
 
"Nathan"
Jul 2008
Maryland, USA

3·7·53 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madpoo View Post
Oh, hmm... looks like that's the case.

Okay, I merged it and made a few minor layout tweaks.
The TwoLL column does not add up at the bottom; it looks as though the top cell in that column is not being added into the total.
NBtarheel_33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-08-18, 22:46   #2669
Madpoo
Serpentine Vermin Jar
 
Madpoo's Avatar
 
Jul 2014

29×113 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NBtarheel_33 View Post
The TwoLL column does not add up at the bottom; it looks as though the top cell in that column is not being added into the total.
Whoops, yeah. Fixed.
Madpoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-08-22, 16:10   #2670
Madpoo
Serpentine Vermin Jar
 
Madpoo's Avatar
 
Jul 2014

63158 Posts
Default changes to milestone page

I was making some tweaks to the milestone page.

First off was removing the "ETA" since they're wildly inaccurate. I kept in the "unassigned" count but gave it a friendlier moniker: "available"

Next up was re-wording past milestones... I wanted to remove some ambiguity, especially around "proving" the past Mersenne primes in regards to the official order of them when all below have been double-checked.

And speaking of "double checking", that's also a misnomer because it may be more than double-checked... the proper term, to me, is "verified" so I've adjusted everything accordingly.

Plus, rather than talk about verifying all "exponents" below XYZ I opted for the phrase "verified all tests below XYZ" because that's really what's being verified/double-checked... the test, not the exponent.

Anyway, it probably matters to nobody here since we all know, but when primes are found or bigger milestones reached like those that "prove" the order of a known prime, we don't want to be confusing to anyone on the outside.

The wording changes can be found on the mockup page...they're not live yet since I thought it'd be good to get people's input:
Milestone page -
test
Madpoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-08-22, 19:33   #2671
retina
Undefined
 
retina's Avatar
 
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair

2×2,939 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madpoo View Post
There are still many place where the word "double" appears.

Plus, since you are making everything consistent then the three different discovered texts could be altered: "discovered!!", "discovered!" and "is discovered!"
retina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-08-23, 01:48   #2672
axn
 
axn's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

17·281 Posts
Default

Ugh! It is a mess ... of "exponents tested" and "tests verified". Never noticed how much of a mess it was.

While we're at it, why the two different notations, one using exponent and one using Mersenne number?
Countdown to verifying all tests below 41M
Countdown to verifying all tests below M(42643801)

Last fiddled with by axn on 2017-08-23 at 01:59 Reason: Removed "earlier" -- that is also apparently a mess
axn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-08-23, 07:02   #2673
rudy235
 
rudy235's Avatar
 
Jun 2015
Vallejo, CA/.

967 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by axn View Post
Ugh! It is a mess ... of "exponents tested" and "tests verified". Never noticed how much of a mess it was.

While we're at it, why the two different notations, one using exponent and one using Mersenne number?
Countdown to verifying all tests below 41M
Countdown to verifying all tests below M(42643801)
Because while 42643801 is an exponent of a proven Mersenne prime, the 41M only reflects "a round number" which it is only to represent a symbolic milestone.
AFAIK
rudy235 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Newer X64 build needed Googulator Msieve 73 2020-08-30 07:47
Performance of cuda-ecm on newer hardware? fivemack GMP-ECM 14 2015-02-12 20:10
Cause this don't belong in the milestone thread bcp19 Data 30 2012-09-08 15:09
Newer msieves are slow on Core i7 mklasson Msieve 9 2009-02-18 12:58
Use of large memory pages possible with newer linux kernels Dresdenboy Software 3 2003-12-08 14:47

All times are UTC. The time now is 17:24.

Wed Nov 25 17:24:52 UTC 2020 up 76 days, 14:35, 3 users, load averages: 1.89, 2.08, 1.98

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.