mersenneforum.org  

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-06-15, 09:09   #1
NBtarheel_33
 
NBtarheel_33's Avatar
 
"Nathan"
Jul 2008
Maryland, USA

5·223 Posts
Question Successful TF worth more than unsuccessful TF?!

I'm working on bringing the whole 930-931M range to 2^64, reporting results manually. Just now, I uploaded a bunch of results, and observed that M930137627 (which had a factor, namely 9440785022214022409) has been credited 0.0032 GHz-days, despite the fact that thousands of assignments in this range that have been unsuccessful have all been credited 0.0021 GHz-days. Obviously, if we find a factor, we do less work and spend less CPU time than if we have to go all the way to 2^64. So how can a successful TF be worth 1.5 times an unsuccessful TF on the same range?

Note that every other time I've found factors, the CPU credit (as expected) has been less than 0.0021 GHz-days (indeed, one quick kill actually was below the 4-decimal threshold: reported credit was 0.0000).

One other note that might be important - I accidentally sent the latest batch of results (including this factor) without signing in, so everything went to ANONYMOUS. But since I had assignment keys, I went ahead and signed in and resubmitted everything - the system kicked the results out as "not needed" but I got the proper credit. I can't imagine why this would cause the higher-than-max-credit anomaly, though.

BTW this range has a decent vein of factors - from M930000000 to M930137627, I've found 65 factors out of 3,327 tries. That's 1 in 51.185, when we expect 1 in 64.
NBtarheel_33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-15, 12:07   #2
TimSorbet
Account Deleted
 
TimSorbet's Avatar
 
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA

11×389 Posts
Default

According to http://mersenne-aries.sili.net/credi...tton=Calculate, the credit for that factor should be 0.001456 GHz-days, (which is more like what you'd expect) and the credit for an unsuccessful TF of 2^63 to 2^64 is 0.002111 (matching the 0.0021 that you see).
I don't know why it would give 0.0032 GHz-days instead. If it was exactly double the calculated value, I'd guess double-crediting due to the unusual circumstances, but how it is I really don't know.

Last fiddled with by TimSorbet on 2010-06-15 at 12:08
TimSorbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-15, 15:17   #3
garo
 
garo's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Termonfeckin, IE

276810 Posts
Default

I think there was a 2.3 times bonus for factors found in Primenet v4. I thought it had been removed for v5.
garo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-15, 15:37   #4
TimSorbet
Account Deleted
 
TimSorbet's Avatar
 
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA

11×389 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by garo View Post
I think there was a 2.3 times bonus for factors found in Primenet v4. I thought it had been removed for v5.
I don't think such a bonus exists now, since otherwise factors having more credit than their ranges would be quite commonplace. Besides, 0.001456*2.3=0.0033488 which would round to 0.0033, not 0.0032.

Last fiddled with by TimSorbet on 2010-06-15 at 15:37
TimSorbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-15, 22:55   #5
NBtarheel_33
 
NBtarheel_33's Avatar
 
"Nathan"
Jul 2008
Maryland, USA

5×223 Posts
Default There can't be a bonus...

...or else it seems like I would have other factors with credit above 0.0021, and there have been none. One came close at 0.0020, but nothing above 0.0021 except this lone guy. I wonder if something may have gone amiss since the factor got reported once by ANONYMOUS, and then once by myself with the proper assignment key. Maybe PrimeNet thinks that the factor is in the 64-65 range instead of 63-64? That would account for what is basically a doubling in the expected credit.
NBtarheel_33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-17, 00:17   #6
NBtarheel_33
 
NBtarheel_33's Avatar
 
"Nathan"
Jul 2008
Maryland, USA

5·223 Posts
Default M930163667 gives max credit, as expected

M930163667 has the factor 15205068979981957919 = 119 (mod 120), which is the last residue class that Prime95 checks in the TF process. Hence you'd expect to receive nearly the same credit as an unsuccessful TF, which I did - namely 0.0021.

Note that the problem child, M930137627, had the factor 9440785022214022409 = 89 (mod 120), which is towards, but not at the end of the TF process. So this isn't even at the max credit level, let alone above it. Something weird definitely happened there.
NBtarheel_33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is it worth persisting with this machine? stebbo Hardware 6 2017-05-27 04:05
Is it worth keeping the relations? fivemack Factoring 2 2013-05-19 18:40
just finished the biggest (successful) LL test joblack Lounge 35 2011-02-13 02:00
Does it worth it? victor Lounge 30 2009-05-30 21:53
What makes a team successful? eepiccolo Teams 5 2003-05-24 23:50

All times are UTC. The time now is 03:39.


Sun Jan 29 03:39:01 UTC 2023 up 164 days, 1:07, 0 users, load averages: 1.09, 1.00, 0.94

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, 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.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔