mersenne.ca - Page 45

firejuggler · 2020-10-29, 17:23

It need time to get all the info. It is now listed as a TF find

James Heinrich · 2020-10-29, 17:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flaukrotist

I wonder why for M102796261 the found factor is displayed under the factors section but not in the Trial Factoring Results table together with the entry for 75-76 bits like e.g. for M111954527.

It does, you're just not seeing it.

I'll guess that you looked at the exponent page immediately (at least same day) after having found the factor. Newly-discovered factors are added to the database every hour (from the Recently Cleared list), but details about who-did-what-when only get imported overnight (~1-2am UTC). The exponent pages at mersenne.ca are heavily cached, so if you're not seeing it in your browser, try Ctrl-F5 to forcibly-refresh the page and the result should show up for you.

Flaukrotist · 2020-10-29, 18:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Heinrich

It does, you're just not seeing it.

I'll guess that you looked at the exponent page immediately (at least same day) after having found the factor. Newly-discovered factors are added to the database every hour (from the Recently Cleared list), but details about who-did-what-when only get imported overnight (~1-2am UTC). The exponent pages at mersenne.ca are heavily cached, so if you're not seeing it in your browser, try Ctrl-F5 to forcibly-refresh the page and the result should show up for you.

Thanks for the explanation. That might very well have happened in the way you described.

Now it is also displayed for me.

James Heinrich · 2020-11-13, 18:44

mersenne.ca server migration and probable downtime (Nov 2020)

James Heinrich · 2020-11-25, 02:36

There is some unexpected data in the nightly PrimeNet export, waiting for Aaron to fix, stats and such will be delayed.

edit: Fixed now.

James Heinrich · 2020-11-25, 22:28

Putting the site in the short-term suspended state while I apply a database change. Should only be a few minutes (... I think)
edit: and we should be back.

James Heinrich · 2020-11-26, 01:41

For those who use the Worst P-1 tool, the calculations have changed. Previously the P-1 probability was calculated as being done after the TF which has been done on the exponent. The problem with this is that if an exponent has had abnormally-high TF then the apparent probability for the P-1 drops very low, even though it was done to reasonable bounds. The new calculation is done as assuming TF was done to GIMPS-standard, which makes it easier to find P-1 that was actually badly-done and should no longer falsely report an exponent is a candidate for a better P-1 when the first P-1 run was fine but also had very-high TF.

This will mostly affect the lowest exponents that have had considerable factoring effort of all types, but it will also impact the "expected" values for what makes a good P-1 or not. As a rough approximation, where you say 2% before would be a rough analog to 5% in the new system.

firejuggler · 2020-12-01, 23:48

and, another trouble.
the k of my most recent P-1 isn't calculated/displayed correctly

James Heinrich · 2020-12-02, 00:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by firejuggler

and, another trouble.
the k of my most recent P-1 isn't calculated/displayed correctly

Thanks, there's something weird going on with my factorization routine, investigating...

James Heinrich · 2020-12-02, 02:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by firejuggler

the k of my most recent P-1 isn't calculated/displayed correctly

Thanks, that was an important bug to uncover. I had merged two factoring routines that I thought were compatible, but they treated the results slightly differently so basically everything passed to it came back "prime". I believe I have found and fixed the problem, and the upside of the recent downtime is that fixing those values that were incorrectly flagged as prime is pretty straightforward. It took a little time to walk through them all (10231 records), but they should all now be fixed.
edit: fixed another 876 rows that were broken differently.

kruoli · 2020-12-02, 14:16

It is still problematic: http://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/10667659

The first factor's k is unfactored, B1 and B2 are wrong (even if k was prime).

Edit 1: What's up with http://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/23509? Shouldn't it be B1=563 and B2=7⁴=2,401? Or am I misunderstanding P-1 bounds here?

Edit 2: Just did Ctrl+F5. It got worse and removed factorizations of every k. I chose the above two exponents because I was quite sure I have not opened them before, so it's most likely a script that changed?

2020-11-25, 02:36	#489
James Heinrich "James Heinrich" May 2004 ex-Northern Ontario 3238₁₀ Posts	There is some unexpected data in the nightly PrimeNet export, waiting for Aaron to fix, stats and such will be delayed. edit: Fixed now. Last fiddled with by James Heinrich on 2020-11-25 at 03:35

2020-11-25, 22:28	#490
James Heinrich "James Heinrich" May 2004 ex-Northern Ontario 2·1,619 Posts	Putting the site in the short-term suspended state while I apply a database change. Should only be a few minutes (... I think) edit: and we should be back. Last fiddled with by James Heinrich on 2020-11-25 at 22:33

2020-12-01, 23:48	#492
firejuggler Apr 2010 Over the rainbow 5×503 Posts	and, another trouble. the k of my most recent P-1 isn't calculated/displayed correctly Attached Thumbnails

2020-12-02, 14:16	#495
kruoli "Oliver" Sep 2017 Porta Westfalica, DE 196₁₆ Posts	It is still problematic: http://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/10667659 The first factor's k is unfactored, B1 and B2 are wrong (even if k was prime). Edit 1: What's up with http://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/23509? Shouldn't it be B1=563 and B2=7⁴=2,401? Or am I misunderstanding P-1 bounds here? Edit 2: Just did Ctrl+F5. It got worse and removed factorizations of every k. I chose the above two exponents because I was quite sure I have not opened them before, so it's most likely a script that changed? Last fiddled with by kruoli on 2020-12-02 at 14:22 Reason: Another case. Ctrl+F5-addition.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Small inconsistencies between mersenne.org and mersenne.ca factor databases	GP2	mersenne.ca	44	2016-06-19 19:29
mersenne.ca (ex mersenne-aries.sili.net)	LaurV	mersenne.ca	8	2013-11-25 21:01
Gaussian-Mersenne & Eisenstein-Mersenne primes	siegert81	Math	2	2011-09-19 17:36
Mersenne Wiki: Improving the mersenne primes web site by FOSS methods	optim	PrimeNet	13	2004-07-09 13:51

2020-10-29, 17:23	#485
firejuggler Apr 2010 Over the rainbow 100111010011₂ Posts	It need time to get all the info. It is now listed as a TF find

2020-11-13, 18:44	#488
James Heinrich "James Heinrich" May 2004 ex-Northern Ontario 2×1,619 Posts	mersenne.ca server migration and probable downtime (Nov 2020)

2020-11-26, 01:41	#491
James Heinrich "James Heinrich" May 2004 ex-Northern Ontario 110010100110₂ Posts	For those who use the Worst P-1 tool, the calculations have changed. Previously the P-1 probability was calculated as being done after the TF which has been done on the exponent. The problem with this is that if an exponent has had abnormally-high TF then the apparent probability for the P-1 drops very low, even though it was done to reasonable bounds. The new calculation is done as assuming TF was done to GIMPS-standard, which makes it easier to find P-1 that was actually badly-done and should no longer falsely report an exponent is a candidate for a better P-1 when the first P-1 run was fine but also had very-high TF. This will mostly affect the lowest exponents that have had considerable factoring effort of all types, but it will also impact the "expected" values for what makes a good P-1 or not. As a rough approximation, where you say 2% before would be a rough analog to 5% in the new system.