Musing on TF limits
 

Suppose TFing one more bit has a 1/N chance of finding a factor.

Conventional wisdom says that if an LL test on the same processor takes the same time as N TFs, you toss a coin to decide whether or not to do the extra bit.

I say that doing the extra bit is clearly best.

Not only is finding a factor better than "proving" composite, but every exponent for which no factor is found has its probability of being prime boosted by a factor of (1+1/N).

D

Ok, I agree.
You do the first hundred expos.
From 73 to 74 bits.
Then we talk...
:razz:

We are already doing that. Have you looked at James's optimal GPU TF limits page? Get with the program!

[QUOTE=LaurV;320225]Then we talk...[/QUOTE][QUOTE=garo;320227]Get with the program![/QUOTE]
:dnftt:
[URL="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wrestle_with_a_pig"]Quote 2[/URL]

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;320230]"wrestling with a pig"[/QUOTE]
Exactly that I was thinking about, but I did not know the English expression. Thanks for the link. David is doing only LL anyhow, and is in his best interest to get exponents TF-done as high as possible, 200 bits if someone else would do the work. This increases his chances to find a prime, without doing any "dirty" work as TF-ing, and meantime we "waste" our time and chances, because we use the resources to TF instead of LL (which in turn, increase his chances more, of course! :smile:). We have a saying, "let the stupids beat (skim?) the milk, I eat the cream", or something like that, can't translate it exactly. It is indeed very "trollish" from him to come with that proposal, especially when everybody knows he is only doing LL (he said it many times). Therefore the "you do the first hundred, then we talk". I did not try to feed any trolls, but to scare them off... :razz:

This [URL="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Teaching%20a%20pig%20to%20sing"]Heinleinism[/URL] might be useful as well.:deadhorse:

How about the one about lipstick?

Sticks, stones and enemas
 

Will someone please engage their brain and grasp the point I was making in my OP.

FWIW 73 bits is the appropriate limit ATM because TF is doing ~350 expos a day between 60 and 61M. If the LL wave keeps pace (AND I'LL TELL YOU HOW THIS CAN BE ACHIEVED), the expected time to the next prime will be 4 years. This requires the wave to advance by 10% per year,
and so the increased computing required should be forthcoming.

David (who CAN see the wood for the trees).

The only association between the pigs and lipstick I can think about is a very old (and very good) article of Gary North, titled "Lipstick on Bernanke's Pig", there must be some free copies around (I am subscribed to his daily reckon).

edit: [URL="http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north661.html"]found a link[/URL]

Is it really [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipstick_on_a_pig"]that hard[/URL]?

Not to mention, of course:
[YOUTUBE]Sq7kBcA5q1w[/YOUTUBE]

[QUOTE=garo;320227]We are already doing that. Have you looked at James's optimal GPU TF limits page? Get with the program![/QUOTE]
What is it that you are immediately:smile: doing?

I have been well ahead of the "program" for years.

Get my post restriction lifted and I will be able to respond more promptly and clearly.

D