Insufficient information for accurate CPU credit
 

When I manually send results, sometimes I get this message:
[FONT=Arial]No factor lines found: 0
Mfaktc no factor lines found: 0
Factors found: 1
Processing result: M54744353 has a factor: 1475406631958790482663, AID: 243F2B2FF1B657E8E147224AC94CE71C
[COLOR=Red][B]Insufficient information for accurate CPU credit[/B][/COLOR].
For stats purposes, assuming factor was found using P-1 with B1 = 800000.
[COLOR=Magenta]CPU credit is 2.4586 GHz-days[/COLOR].
P-1 lines found: 0
LL lines found: 0
Mlucas lines found: 0
Glucas (G29) lines found: 0
Glucas lines found: 0
MacLucasFFTW lines found: 0
CUDALucas lines found: 0
ECM lines found: 0[/FONT]
Do I do anything wrong or why CPU credit shows on my account but message says 'insufficient...'

You didn't do anything wrong. The server can't properly pass the bounds given in the results.txt file. Don't worry, the factor will still be recorded and you will get credit for the work done, just not exactly the right amount.

[QUOTE=Yura;263924]Do I do anything wrong or why CPU credit shows on my account but message says 'insufficient...'[/QUOTE]It's a known problem. The solution will require changing the results report sent by the client to the server.

It's also not too far down on the priorities list. We all get it when submitting found factors manually.

Do read the message, carefully: it says
1) "server doesn't know how you found the factor"
2) "server decides that you PROBABLY did P-1 with B1=800000."
3) "server assigns you 2.245 GHz-Days credit because of ASSUMPTION made in 2) above."

[QUOTE=Christenson;263969]It's also not too far down on the priorities list. We all get it when submitting found factors manually.

Do read the message, carefully: it says
1) "server doesn't know how you found the factor"
2) "server decides that you PROBABLY did P-1 with B1=800000."
3) "server assigns you 2.245 GHz-Days credit because of ASSUMPTION made in 2) above."[/QUOTE]

Hmmm.
1. Servers SHOULD know since I was processing what has been assigned to me?! I did not pull results from the hat. I was using Prome95.
2. Yeah, duh. I TOLD server: P-1 found a factor in stage #2, B1=655000, B2=17521250 so it does Not need to 'guess' nor 'look into crystal ball'.

Anyway, no wander people do not like to do P-1 and most go for the 'world record'. No need to justify or argue any further; I would assume this is just one of small imperfections of the whole process. At least I can submit results manually and do not have to wait for the 99.99% done, copy the whole folder to USB, take it home, run prime95 and pray connection will be OK and submit results...

[QUOTE=Yura;264236]Hmmm.
1. Servers SHOULD know since I was processing what has been assigned to me?! I did not pull results from the hat. I was using Prome95.[/quote]When I said earlier that "The solution will require changing the results report sent by the client to the server", I forgot that you had reported results manually.

From the server side: it processes results the same for manual submissions as for client-submitted reports, as far as possible.

Unfortunately, when GIMPS was first being developed, it was not anticipated that crediting each user with the proper amount of CPU time and effort for each reported result would be as important as we now consider that. So, among other shortcuts, the factor-found message sent by the client to the server did not include all the information displayed on the screen. In particular, it didn't specify the factoring method, the pass number, or the B1/B2 bounds. It just reports the exponent and the factor.

[quote]2. Yeah, duh. I TOLD server: P-1 found a factor in stage #2, B1=655000, B2=17521250 so it does Not need to 'guess' nor 'look into crystal ball'.[/quote]

When, later in GIMPS history, the manual submission page was coded and added to the server, there was a similar internal shortcut taken -- only the same two items, exponent and factor, were used in the credit-calculating routine for manual submissions as were used for client submissions.

So, two shortcuts taken in the past led to short-changing the credit given to certain users for factors found. For a long time there were always more serious problems to be fixed, so this one never quite got to the top of the priority list. Now, it's close to the top.

I also note that in general, the credit involved in a found factor is far exceeded by the credit involved when factors are not found....that is, you will fail at factoring many exponents for every one you succeed at...so the resultant error in GHz-Days is pretty small.

[QUOTE=Yura;264236]Hmmm.

<snip>

Anyway, no wander people do not like to do P-1 and most go for the 'world record'. No need to justify or argue any further; [/QUOTE]

Oh? Please explain further. You found a factor. This eliminated a
candidate. The elimination saved a lot of time that would have been
spent doing a spurious LL test. This, I think, is a good thing in itself
and one should feel satisfaction in the result.

CPU time or CPU credits are meaningless. All that they show is that you
used some electricity to run someone else's code. I can not imagine
why anyone intelligent would find satisfaction in that. It is not high on
the list of intellectual achievements.

Finding a factor and eliminating a candidate does have value to the
overall effort. The goal of the project is to find Mersenne primes, and
[b]not[/b] to acquire 'cpu credits'.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;264367]Finding a factor and eliminating a candidate does have value to the overall effort. The goal of the project is to find Mersenne primes, and [b]not[/b] to acquire 'cpu credits'.[/QUOTE]

Dr. Silverman, if I may please ask you... In your (not so very humble) opinion, does finding the next MP (also the next largest known prime) have any real value to mathematics?

[QUOTE=chalsall;264372]Dr. Silverman, if I may please ask you... In your (not so very humble) opinion, does finding the next MP (also the next largest known prime) have any real value to mathematics?[/QUOTE]

It allows us to push the limits of computation. But the actual primes
themselves have very few uses.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;264374]It allows us to push the limits of computation. But the actual primes themselves have very few uses.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for that honest answer.