[QUOTE=davieddy;264537]I'm about to LL M45275047.

TFed to 68. No P-1
I would be interested to P-1 it myself; (will this happen automatically?
Soon find out).[/QUOTE]At that point::direction:Maybe these other posted can be moved to their own thread.

Your lack of perception is getting tiresome Uncle
 

Why do people do LL tests?

They hope to find M48, and arrive at sensible answers to the original
question.

Sure, this raises questions which would also be of interest elsewhere,
but you've got to post somewhere.

And you have been rude enough to suggest that I start too many
new threads.

Please go forth and multiply, and leave us in peace.

David

PS your words are close to incomprehensible,
and the mindless recording of wild guesses has long
outlived its entertainment value.


[QUOTE=Uncwilly;264651]At that point::direction:Maybe these other posted can be moved to their own thread.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=science_man_88;264650][TEX]\sum{k((x-1)/x)} [/TEX] where k is 2^(x-original x) should give the value between any 2 x then no ?[/QUOTE]

Do you mean (x-1)/x * x/(x+1) *.....*(y-1)/y = (x-1)/y
gives the probability of no factor between 2^x and 2^y?

If so, then yes.

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;264654]Do you mean (x-1)/x * x/(x+1) *.....*(y-1)/y = (x-1)/y
gives the probability of no factor between 2^x and 2^y?

If so, then yes.

David[/QUOTE]

I said k = 2^ what I said because the distance between the powers is doubled each time x is increased by 1 I'm not thinking maybe.

[QUOTE=davieddy;264653]
Sure, this raises questions which would also be of interest elsewhere,
but you've got to post somewhere.

And you have been rude enough to suggest that I start too many
new threads.
[/QUOTE]

That said, the digression is rapidly becoming worthy of a new thread.

Title might be "How can GPUs most effectively contribute to
the search for M48 at present?"

David

:explode::drama:

Davieddy:
I certainly thought this was a new thread direction.
I have been spending my day learning how to use the debugger in eclipse on mfaktc.
I suggest a title: Help with TF for small exponents.


You will do a P-1 prior to the LL if it hasn't been done and reported to the server. Mr P-1 encourages people to do a good job; I certainly have been finding factors via P-1 in fewer GHz-days than would be required for two LLs. But it's still a relatively infrequent thing, and, as noted elsewhere, some of my TF finds are reported on the stats pages as P-1 successes. Eventually we still have a lot of LL that has to be done.

From my console a few minutes ago:
no factor for M45705851 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.17 barrett79_mul32]
tf(): total time spent: 5h 25m 16.423s

got assignment: exp=45705851 bit_min=72 bit_max=73
tf(45705851, 72, 73, ...);
k_min = 51660415237200
k_max = 103320830474628
Using GPU kernel "barrett79_mul32"
class | candidates | time | avg. rate | SievePrimes | ETA | avg. wait
0/4620 | 2.25G | 40.489s | 55.58M/s | 54668 | 10h47m | 474us
1/4620 | 2.25G | 40.450s | 55.63M/s | 54668 | 10h45m | 495us

I'll go ahead and ask it for 74 bits, just for fun...

Update, from my console:
[QUOTE]
no factor for M45705851 from 2^72 to 2^73 [mfaktc 0.17 barrett79_mul32]
tf(): time spent since restart: 1h 11m 21.076s
estimated total time spent: 10h 52m 21.266s

got assignment: exp=45705851 bit_min=73 bit_max=74
tf(45705851, 73, 74, ...);
k_min = 103320830474400
k_max = 206641660949257
Using GPU kernel "barrett79_mul32"
.....
class | candidates | time | avg. rate | SievePrimes | ETA | avg. wait
1605/4620 | 4.51G | 84.561s | 53.38M/s | 52693 | 14h40m | 572us
[/QUOTE]
The odds look very good that the LL test won't be wasted on M45705851.

[QUOTE=Christenson;264703]Update, from my console:

The odds look very good that the LL test won't be wasted on M45705851.[/QUOTE]
Or to put it another way, you TFing any more bits starts to look
like a waste of time.

Thanks again,

David

PS 2.8% of LLtest completed in 32 hours.
I ought to pay my 'puter more:smile:

Before we were so rudely interrupted...
 

[QUOTE=science_man_88;264658]I said k = 2^ what I said because the distance between the powers is doubled each time x is increased by 1 I'm not thinking maybe.[/QUOTE]

I have thought the same thing. Twice as many "candidates", yet (slightly)
less chance of any of them being a factor.

The answer is (roughly) that if a potential factor is twice as large
as another, it is half as likely to divide exactly.

David

It's official: TF has reached beyond a point of diminishing returns:
no factor for M45705851 from 2^68 to 2^69 [mfaktc 0.17 barrett79_mul32]
no factor for M45705851 from 2^69 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.17 barrett79_mul32]
no factor for M45705851 from 2^70 to 2^71 [mfaktc 0.17 barrett79_mul32]
no factor for M45705851 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.17 barrett79_mul32]
no factor for M45705851 from 2^72 to 2^73 [mfaktc 0.17 barrett79_mul32]
no factor for M45705851 from 2^73 to 2^74 [mfaktc 0.17 barrett79_mul32]

From the server:[FONT=monospace]
[/FONT]Processing result: no factor for M45705851 from 2^68 to 2^69 [mfaktc 0.17 barrett79_mul32][FONT=monospace]
[/FONT]CPU credit is 1.3080 GHz-days.[FONT=monospace]
[/FONT]Processing result: no factor for M45705851 from 2^69 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.17 barrett79_mul32]
CPU credit is 2.6159 GHz-days.[FONT=monospace]
[/FONT]Processing result: no factor for M45705851 from 2^70 to 2^71 [mfaktc 0.17 barrett79_mul32][FONT=monospace]
[/FONT]CPU credit is 5.2319 GHz-days.[FONT=monospace]
[/FONT]Processing result: no factor for M45705851 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.17 barrett79_mul32][FONT=monospace]
[/FONT]CPU credit is 10.4638 GHz-days.[FONT=monospace]
[/FONT]Processing result: no factor for M45705851 from 2^72 to 2^73 [mfaktc 0.17 barrett79_mul32]
CPU credit is 20.9275 GHz-days.[FONT=monospace]
[/FONT]Processing result: no factor for M45705851 from 2^73 to 2^74 [mfaktc 0.17 barrett79_mul32][FONT=monospace]
[/FONT]CPU credit is 41.8551 GHz-days

Back to the regular TF work.....which I would normally carry to just 70 bits on an exponent this size.

in general, TF should search breadth-first, as this maximises the number of exponents that won't have to be LL'ed for a given amount of work, since each new bit level costs twice the preceding bit level. But I'm willing to do special favors now and then....

[QUOTE=Christenson;264739]It's official: TF has reached beyond a point of diminishing returns:
no factor for M45705851 from 2^68 to 2^69 [mfaktc 0.17 barrett79_mul32]
no factor for M45705851 from 2^69 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.17 barrett79_mul32]
no factor for M45705851 from 2^70 to 2^71 [mfaktc 0.17 barrett79_mul32]
no factor for M45705851 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.17 barrett79_mul32]
no factor for M45705851 from 2^72 to 2^73 [mfaktc 0.17 barrett79_mul32]
no factor for M45705851 from 2^73 to 2^74 [mfaktc 0.17 barrett79_mul32]

From the server:[FONT=monospace]
[/FONT]Processing result: no factor for M45705851 from 2^68 to 2^69 [mfaktc 0.17 barrett79_mul32][FONT=monospace]
[/FONT]CPU credit is 1.3080 GHz-days.[FONT=monospace]
[/FONT]Processing result: no factor for M45705851 from 2^69 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.17 barrett79_mul32]
CPU credit is 2.6159 GHz-days.[FONT=monospace]
[/FONT]Processing result: no factor for M45705851 from 2^70 to 2^71 [mfaktc 0.17 barrett79_mul32][FONT=monospace]
[/FONT]CPU credit is 5.2319 GHz-days.[FONT=monospace]
[/FONT]Processing result: no factor for M45705851 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.17 barrett79_mul32][FONT=monospace]
[/FONT]CPU credit is 10.4638 GHz-days.[FONT=monospace]
[/FONT]Processing result: no factor for M45705851 from 2^72 to 2^73 [mfaktc 0.17 barrett79_mul32]
CPU credit is 20.9275 GHz-days.[FONT=monospace]
[/FONT]Processing result: no factor for M45705851 from 2^73 to 2^74 [mfaktc 0.17 barrett79_mul32][FONT=monospace]
[/FONT]CPU credit is 41.8551 GHz-days

Back to the regular TF work.....which I would normally carry to just 70 bits on an exponent this size.

in general, TF should search breadth-first, as this maximises the number of exponents that won't have to be LL'ed for a given amount of work, since each new bit level costs twice the preceding bit level. But I'm willing to do special favors now and then....[/QUOTE]

Please note that there is no need to do [b]both[/b] trial division [b]and[/b]
P-1 because running P-1 to limit B2 in step 2 will find any factors that
trial division would find up to 2 B2 p + 1.