[QUOTE=chalsall;336949]Frankly, this is obviously futile. You're now on my "ignore" list.[/QUOTE][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5P63qGTm_g][B]QUEEN BITCH[/B][/url]

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;336977]I'm curious about the statement though - with the graph having one line for first times and a second for DCs, I thought it accounted for the amount saved.[/QUOTE]

What George is pointing out is James is [I][U]not[/U][/I] [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=326167&postcount=1797"]taking into account[/URL] that something like ~4% of the time finding a factor will not save 2 LLs (for the first-time LL wave), since a following P-1 run (almost always done) will find a factor.

Knowing James, he's take this into account sometime soon -- it will only slightly affect the optimal cross-over point though.

Upon further reflection, a rough estimate for calculating number of LL tests saved:

P = prob. of P-1 finding a factor = .04
E = LL error rate = .02
C = cost of a P-1 run = .03 * LL cost

A TF factor saves:

C + (1 - P) * (2 + 2 * E) = .03 + .96 * 2.04 = 1.99 LL tests

A DCTF factor saves:

(1 + 2 * E) = 1.04 LL tests

So, ignore my previous post - James' estimated optimal TF levels are pretty darn close. Refining my estimates for P, E, and C shouldn't change the fact that James' chart is within about 1% of optimal.

[QUOTE=swl551;336953]Daviddy, you have the skills and the tenacity of a [B]very[/B] successful car salesman. However, here, your style isn't making the sell. Do you really expect to win the minds any longer? I would've thrown in the towel by now and basically ditched these "fools". I think you enjoy the fight too much for your own entertainment. Thanks for keeping me entertained though.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0DJ8hWgNes]Too late to stop now[/url]

D

[QUOTE=davieddy;336972]Another example which seems to be going over people's heads ATM, is that a 10% advance in the wavefronts per year results in one new prime per 4 years on average[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Prime95;336974]This is irrelevant to GIMPS. We don't have a schedule, we find primes at whatever rate our compute power and luck allow.[/QUOTE]I hope I can provoke you into second thoughts on this one.

By "luck" I presume you are referring to the "Poisson" nature of our quest, (although five more Curtis Coopers turning up on the doorstep would not go amiss).
The Poisson distribution is characterized by a single parameter (e.g. lifetime or half-life etc). I would say that our (interminable) deliberations on optimal TF levels (much as some of us enjoy doing it for its own sake) had the ultimate common goal of minimizing the expected time to the next prime which corresponds directly with the advance of the LL wavefronts.

Now the rate of completion of LLs is coming on very nicely (THX primarily to AVX and GPUs). However, I am not so confident that the allocation of LLs is going to allow this progress to be sustained.
GIGO, and I think you will agree that the allocation is on the garbagy side ATM.
IMO, this is partly down to the effect of interference from TF.
I feel strongly that TF to the feasible level should be completed further ahead of the LL allocation than it is at present. This would also give P-1 more of a chance of being done at something like the desirable rate.

Although Chalsall and I will fight each other over anything, I think this is the root cause of our current disagreement.

David

Small perturbations
 

[QUOTE=davieddy;336956]Note how clearly James' graphs follow my simple rule that the bitlevel should increment when the exponent increases by 1.26 (time on TF remains proportional to time for an LL test).[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;336959]James' graph is a curve. The bottom end maps to 1.25, the top end maps to 1.3. Yes, there is a point on the curve where the 1 bitlevel increment maps to 1.26. We can call that the troll point on the graph. Good try.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=axn;336960]1.26 is a rule-of-thumb. And it is a pretty good ROT. There is a sound mathematical basis for that ROT. I'll take your word that the actual ratio is in the 1.25-1.3 range -- I'd consider that as excellent conformance to the ROT value.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;336963]Maybe it is a reasonable rule of thumb, but we're not exactly working the numbers out in our heads as we walk down the streets. Why would we dogmatically set a line using a rule of thumb for a site that is doing terraflops of calculations? We have the processing power to work out an actual rule.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=davieddy;336972]Speak for yourself. That is exactly the sort of thing I do, giving me an overall view of the situation that won't be too far from a narrower, short term, unjustifiably precise approach, and easy to grasp.

The ROT arises as follows:
1) the time to TF from 73 to 74 is proportional to 1/expo
2) the time to TF from 73 to 74 is double that for 72 to 73 for a given expo.
3) The time for an LL test is proportional to expo[SUP]2[/SUP].

If the exponent increases by 2[SUP]1/3[/SUP] (=1.26) the times for TF and LL are both increased by 2[SUP]2/3[/SUP].[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Prime95;336974]Very close:

FFT = n log n
LL = n FFTs = n[sup]2[/sup] log n
[/QUOTE]
An example of a very important rule of thumb is that the hydrogen spectrum is closely modelled by differences in 1/n[SUP]2[/SUP].
Although there are fine details, these are best considered as small differences from the ROT.

Apart from the log n which George mentions, there is also the probability of finding a factor being 1/73 or 1/74.
Excercise for you: how do these refinements influence the ROT?

Of course hardware details like number of bits in a word will also affect a precise empirical graph for a specific processor.
But the overriding conclusion re TF is that the precise optimal level is irrelevant: we are still firepower-limited ATM, and shouldn't bite off more than we can chew.

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;337012]But the overriding conclusion re TF is that the precise optimal level is irrelevant: we are still firepower-limited ATM, and shouldn't bite off more than we can chew.[/QUOTE]

What you mean "we", paleface? :razz:

[QUOTE=kladner;337016]What you mean "we", paleface? :razz:[/QUOTE]
One of these days, you are going to cop one hell of a scalping mate.

Rules of thumb
 

[QUOTE=davieddy;336972]The time for an LL test is proportional to expo[SUP]2[/SUP].[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Prime95;336974]Very close:

FFT = n log n
LL = n FFTs = n[sup]2[/sup] log n
[/QUOTE]

If you've ever written a sorting program or FFT, or even summed a geometric series, you will realize how important this ROT is.

Think of a chess board.
8 columns each consisting of 8 squares: 8[SUP]2[/SUP] squares.
Now suppose we have four columns containing 8,4,2 and 1.
How many squares?

I must refresh myself on the game of Nim!

D

Chalsall's World
 

I spot a niche in the market, and might even get my name in red:

This Primenet monopoly can be broken.
Who needs a single authoratative database?

Oliver has just written a program which makes GPUs TF 100x faster.

I'll recruit as many GPU owners to a private club as I can, and claim as much credit as possible.

Gee! That worked. Look at the GHz days we are churning out.

Bet that wanker Davieddy wished he had this big iron.
He's a bit old, uppity and too smart for comfort though.
Better get him off my back before he exposes what I'm up to.

[QUOTE=chalsall;337031]For the record, I have grown tired of this game with David.

I have moved all of his recent posts from this thread, and the related replies, to [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=18089"]Davieddy's World[/URL].

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me -- but at least honest, sincere and logical discussion is expected.[/QUOTE]
Enough of this pompous crap.

Just face it: you are a bad loser and a jumped up one at that.

Is your "ignore" button not working or something?

:davieddy:

[QUOTE=davieddy;337033]I spot a niche in the market, and might even get my name in red:

This Primenet monopoly can be broken.
Who needs a single authoratative database?

Oliver has just written a program which makes GPUs TF 100x faster.

I'll recruit as many GPU owners to a private club as I can, and claim as much credit as possible.

Gee! That worked. Look at the GHz days we are churning out.

Bet that wanker Davieddy wished he had this big iron.
He's a bit old, uppity and too smart for comfort though.
Better get him off my back before he exposes what I'm up to.[/QUOTE]
I saw the title and was hoping for something along the lines of Wayne's World, but ended up in an old Odd Couple rerun...

[QUOTE=davieddy;337036]Enough of this pompous crap.

Just face it: you are a bad loser and a jumped up one at that.

Is your "ignore" button not working or something?

:davieddy:[/QUOTE]
I agree, get your pompass crap (mispelling intentional) outta here.

Face it Dave, WE, the users of GPU72 are doing what WE want to do. WE do not tell YOU what to do or how to do it, so give us the same curtesy and butt out.

I don't know why you are blaming Chalsall for setting things up according the wishes of the people using the service he created. He is doing what George either can't (due to programming) or doesn't have the time to do.

Here's a little tidbt for you to sink your teeth into... Due to advances in the software, GPUs no longer tie up 1 or more CPU cores to do their work. Thus your arguement that the CPU cores and GPUs would be better set doing LL than TFing to 74 is so far out in left field that there are polititions wanting you to teach them how to get out that far.

Let's look at a few facts... DC-TF is revisiting areas where we had stopped TF at 69, why? Not cause Chalsall decided to arbitrarily change it, it was changed in response to US, the users, asking for it. Don't bother searching the forum for this, the discussion took place in PMs that I no longer have. I am the DC-TF powerhouse and when I ask for a change, he looks over my suggestions and reasoning and often implements it. Blame: US, the USERS of GPU72.

LMH work... Not something I am interested in, BUT, again, users asked and Chalsall made it work. Blame: US, the USERS of GPU72.

Now on to LL-TF. Yet again, WE the users asked about the bit level changes and it was ecided that yes, we can change them. Yet again, Blame: US, the USERS of GPU72.

Dang, I see a common thread here... Chasall is providing what is asked for after reveiwing the plausibility not laying down the law. Can you get this through your head yet Dave?

You are becoming a TROLL Dave, with nothing productive to add to the conversation, other than some whine about the need to increase computing power to preserve your 4 years between primes theory or some such blather. Go tell AMD and Intel to make better chips and leave those of us working with GPUs to our own devices and stop trying to get us to do things other than what WE want to do. If you feel the project needs more 'firepower' to preserve your theory, you are more than welcome to buy better equipment to help out in that area. Until martial law is decreed and George forbids everything not geared towards finding the next prime, I will do as I dern well please and nothing you do or say will change that.

[QUOTE=Prime95;336969]P-1: ~5% of the time a factor only saves ~3% of an LL test? Attention P-1ers, are the 5% and 3% accurate estimates?[/QUOTE]

mprime reports that my chance of P-1 success is about 3.88%. That's lower than it used to be, presumably because of the impact of deeper TF. Since I resumed P-1 on my new computer a couple of months ago, I've returned 216 P-1 results, of which 8 were successful, which is exactly what a 3.88% success probability would have predicted.

I'm not sure how useful this kind of info could be to you. Dedicated P-1ers like myself are not representative of the P-1 effort of the project as a whole. You could probably obtain better statistics from the server.

I couldn't tell you how the time to do P-1 compares with LL since I don't do LLs.

TF to 73+ for the last week ~ 1750 or 250 per day.

Well below the asking rate of 300+ per day.

No surprise that Chalsall is pissed off with me.

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;337068]TF to 73+ for the last week ~ 1750 or 250 per day.

Well below the asking rate of 300+ per day.

No surprise that Chalsall is [I][B]pissed off[/B][/I] with me. [emphasis mine]

David[/QUOTE]

I believe that the description for most of us would be better stated as "bored".

[QUOTE=kladner;337071]I believe that the description for most of us would be better stated as "bored".[/QUOTE]

:tu:


[SIZE=1][COLOR=silver](Remember kids, don't feed the trolls! :D)[/COLOR][/SIZE]

[QUOTE=bcp19;337055]I am the DC-TF powerhouse[/QUOTE]

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBecM3CQVD8]Pleased to meet you:smile:[/url].

From Chalsall's excellent data tables:
Last week:

3000 DCs TFed to 70.
600 DCs completed.

1150 LLs TFed to 74. 600 to 73.
2200 LLs completed.

I rest my case.

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;337075]I rest my case.[/QUOTE]

So you'll shut up now? Good.

[QUOTE=BigBrother;337077]So you'll shut up now? Good.[/QUOTE]

He will (or at least, should) after he sees tomorrow's report...

Something which should always be kept in mind is some Workers only submit every week or so....

[QUOTE=chalsall;337094]He will (or at least, should) after he sees tomorrow's report...

Something which should always be kept in mind is some Workers only submit every week or so....[/QUOTE]

Really? :grin:
Keep in mind that some people have a highly varying firepower, too. :sad:

Oliver
P.S. I did most of my TF assignments to 2[SUP]73[/SUP] this week but I didn't do the math, just followed my feeling.

[QUOTE=TheJudger;337102]I did most of my TF assignments to 2[SUP]73[/SUP] this week but I didn't do the math, just followed my feeling.[/QUOTE]I would say that you of all folk are entitled to do whatever you feel like!

As it happens, half of you doing 73 bits and the other half doing 74 enables the current fire power to keep pace with the rate of LL completions, as can be readily seen from Chalsall's excellent tables.

If I were doing any TF, I would have stopped by now THX to Chalsall's incessant bullying. I find his recruitment style leaves much to be desired.

3/4 through LL testing 59.5M ATM

Keep up the good work!

David

I was nicely asked by Chalsall in January 2012 to join GPU72.
I checked it out, had a question that was adequately answered, so I joined GPU72.

No bullying happened, and I don't think Chalsall is going to come after me if he really wanted to bully me.
For the price it costs to get where I live, he can buy 1 or 2 nice GPU(s) and have them running for a long time.

[QUOTE=bcp19;337055]I suggest you read this post again [U](follow the link, I've removed the text)[/U].[/QUOTE]
It clearly tells you to stop harrass Chalsall, as he implements what users ask (when they make enough sense).
You'd have Chalsall modify GPU72 so it only does what [B]you want[/B].

[B]NEWSFLASH[/B]: The world (nor this forum) does not revolve around you.
Be happy, you've received a thread that revolves around you.:smile:

[QUOTE=davieddy;337033]
This Primenet monopoly can be broken.
Who needs a single authoratative database?[/QUOTE]

Every single result is returned to PrimeNet's database, including those of GPUto7x team members. There is no subversion of the database going on.

[QUOTE=davieddy;337033]I'll recruit as many GPU owners to a private club as I can, and claim as much credit as possible.[/QUOTE]

Not a "club" and not "private". You, or I, or my brother's uncle's dog is welcome to sign up at the GPUto7x site and begin crunching assignments. Moreover, GPUto7x is registered as a team on PrimeNet. And the only people claiming credit would be the individual participants. Indivisible, personally indistinguishable team credit went the way of the dodo along with PrimeNet v4, some 4-1/2 years ago.

[QUOTE=davieddy;337033]Gee! That worked. Look at the GHz days we are churning out.[/QUOTE]

Yes...and the GHz-days that they are saving, which in turn, brings us closer to the next prime...

[QUOTE=davieddy;337033]Bet that wanker Davieddy wished he had this big iron.
He's a bit old, uppity and too smart for comfort though.
Better get him off my back before he exposes what I'm up to.[/QUOTE]

If GPUto7x were up to anything nefarious, for how long do you seriously believe that George would let the time, money, and energy that he has invested in his project (and 105,000+ users) go down the drain, before pulling Chalsall aside and shutting down GPUto7x?

[QUOTE=chalsall;337094]He will (or at least, should) after he sees tomorrow's report...

Something which should always be kept in mind is some Workers only submit every week or so....[/QUOTE]
Indeed.
A week is a good time to choose as our sampling period, since the submission rate fluctuates during it.

Allow me to cast my trained eye over last week's figures:

2300 LLs completed.
2300 TFed to 73+, [B]of which ~1000 were taken to 73 bits exactly. [/B]

A good week's work all round, and as I have been saying all week:
[B]IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT.[/B]

Cheers,
David

[QUOTE=davieddy;337166]2300 LLs completed.
2300 TFed to 73+, [B]of which ~1000 were taken to 73 bits exactly. [/B]

A good week's work all round, and as I have been saying all week:
[B]IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT.[/B][/QUOTE]
How many of those that were taken to 73 were done so outside of GPUto72?
Remember that Chris in his day job manages networks, etc. Watching for trends is part of what he does.

If 1000 were taken to 73, what about the other 1300, were they taken to 74?
If so, that would be ~31 LL tests saved, beyond those saved upto 73.
Taking them to 73 saved ~32 LL's, beyond those saved taking to 72.
Taking them to 72 saved ~33 LL's, beyond those saved taking to 71.
Taking them to 71 saved ~33 LL's, beyond those saved taking to 70 (the default PrimeNet level.)
This represent a speed up of the LL testing of ~5% (extra tests not needing being done). This also benefits the DC's that will happen in that range. This also frees up the P-1'ers do look for factors even higher (if I understand P-1 correctly, the 'floor' can get pushed up by selecting the right B1 value.)

Seems like GPUto 72 is a great thing. Chris is keeping it tuned for maximum effect, based upon available power.

[QUOTE=TheJudger;337102]Keep in mind that some people have a highly varying firepower, too. :sad:[/QUOTE]
Enough of this innuendo already.
Stop giving me a hard time.

:razz:

[QUOTE=sonjohan;337160]
[B]NEWSFLASH[/B]: The world (nor this forum) does not revolve around you.
Be happy, you've received a thread that revolves around you.:smile:[/QUOTE]
This reminds me of Mach's Principle.

I'm sure Chris' motive was to encourage me to become more involved in the forum, and invite a lot of complimentary posts to crawl out of the woodwork.

DAVIDDY any interest in getting a new computer with Gpu? If u have a Paypal account I'll kick-in the first donation. I'm sure others will step up.

[QUOTE=swl551;337250]DAVIDDY any interest in getting a new computer with Gpu? If u have a Paypal account I'll kick-in the first donation. I'm sure others will step up.[/QUOTE]

A few weeks ago I started a thread entitled "GIMPS demographics".
I suggested that the world hardware ownership made it slightly surprising that turning in 700 GHzdays/year got me into the top 1500 LL producers.

Plenty of scope for a discussion, and the theme would be narrowed down by the first responder.
That was Chalsall:
"How much money have you got? My GPU does 200 GHzdays per day.
[B]ARE YOU SLOW OR STUPID?"[/B]

Having been involved in all aspects of IT for half my life (=32 years) I considered this a somewhat less than constructive reply. Others described it as uncalled for and out of order.

You decide [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMME87Iv1Go"]Mr Big Stuff[/URL]

[QUOTE=swl551;337250]DAVIDDY any interest in getting a new computer with Gpu? If u have a Paypal account I'll kick-in the first donation. I'm sure others will step up.[/QUOTE]

I would throw in a little.

[QUOTE=davieddy;337258]Having been involved in all aspects of IT for half my life (=32 years)...[/QUOTE]

You got into it late then...

I've been "in the game" for 34 years; I'm 46.

[QUOTE=chalsall;337292]You got into it late then...

I've been "in the game" for 34 years; I'm 46.[/QUOTE]
By 1966/7 I had discovered better things to suck on than dummies.

Here's looking at you kid...

[QUOTE=davieddy;337296]By 1966/7 I had discovered better things to suck on than dummies.

Here's looking at you kid...[/QUOTE]


I'm not sure what you were trying to say, but it sounds disgusting.

[QUOTE=davieddy;337296]Here's looking at you kid...[/QUOTE]

Right back at you....

[QUOTE=swl551;337297]I'm not sure what you were trying to say, but it sounds disgusting.[/QUOTE]

Consider this a bit like a modern version of street theatre....

[QUOTE=swl551;337297]I'm not sure what you were trying to say, but it sounds disgusting.[/QUOTE]
More than likely he is referring to Dum Dums, a lolipop from that era, tho some places refer to pacifers as such.

[QUOTE=bcp19;337312]More than likely he is referring to Dum Dums, a lolipop from that era, tho some places refer to pacifers as such.[/QUOTE]Almost certainly the latter. It's still the standard term in the UK.

[QUOTE=xilman;337314]Almost certainly the latter. It's still the standard term in the UK.[/QUOTE]
So true... forgot Dave was a bloke.

[QUOTE=bcp19;337312]More than likely he is referring to Dum Dums, a lolipop from that era, tho some places refer to pacifers as such.[/QUOTE]
Dummy = imitation (in this case teat) = pacifier.
Any implication of being dumb was a Freudian slip.

I can assure that guy who thought I meant something disgusting, that sucking the real thing can be both pleasurable and beautiful, although I would advise a certain amount of discretion even though 1967 was the "Summer of Love".

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rYoRaxgOE0]Lollipop[/url]

And we've officially breached the low-water mark here at the Mersenne Forum...

:direction:

nope, we're still in davieddy's world

Anything can happen here, it's a forum thread of joy and anguish, free love and bitterness, sarcasm and shame. Maybe we'll even do fan fiction!

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;337324]Anything can happen here, it's a forum thread of joy and anguish, free love and bitterness, sarcasm and shame. Maybe we'll even do fan fiction![/QUOTE]Yep.
Most of us seem to be entering into the spirit of the thread.
I hope it stays in this subforum, because although we seem to veer towards the Soapbox genre from time to time, we also get heated about Primenet and GPUto72 occasionally.

To restore a more highbrow tone, I have thought about the exercise I set you re my ROT (up the bitlevel by one when the expo goes up by 1.26).
I invited you to estimate the effect of two things:

1) time for LL is n[SUP]2[/SUP]logn rather than n[SUP]2[/SUP]
2) probability of finding a factor is 1/bitlevel

I reckon they both affect my ROT by ~1/75 in opposite directions in our current region of interest.

Ain't that cute?

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;337319]Dummy = imitation (in this case teat) = pacifier.
Any implication of being dumb was a Freudian slip.

I can assure that guy who thought I meant something disgusting, that sucking the real thing can be both pleasurable and beautiful, although I would advise a certain amount of discretion even though 1967 was the "Summer of Love".

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rYoRaxgOE0"]Lollipop[/URL][/QUOTE]

The first writing was just wide open to interpretation and it bordered on [U]sounding[/U] disgusting.

However, what you wrote above did away with any innuendo. :sick:

[QUOTE=swl551;337335]The first writing was just wide open to interpretation and it bordered on [U]sounding[/U] disgusting.

However, what you wrote above did away with any innuendo. :sick:[/QUOTE]

You were just gagging for me to ram it down your throat.

[QUOTE=swl551;337335]The first writing was just wide open to interpretation and it bordered on [U]sounding[/U] disgusting.

However, what you wrote above did away with any innuendo. :sick:[/QUOTE]Who deleted my reply to this post?

(PM me for it, assuming you are over 18.)

[QUOTE=davieddy;337344]Who deleted my reply to this post?

(PM me for it, assuming you are over 18.)[/QUOTE]

...
Go to another forum for that.


This thread has REALLY...
:direction:

[QUOTE=kracker;337345]...
Go to another forum for that.
[/QUOTE]
Where and for what exactly?
Surely you can't be talking about [spoiler]"it"[/spoiler], can you?

:tts::weirdo::drama::ban:

I concur. This thread is about the closest that this forum has ever come to being "non-family-friendly". I dearly hope that this is not to become a trend.

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;337354]I concur. This thread is about the closest that this forum has ever come to being "non-family-friendly". I dearly hope that this is not to become a trend.[/QUOTE]
I think that it has crossed the line. I think the Davie needs to be sat in the corner for a couple of weeks.
:offensive:
:ban::ban::ban:

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;337324]Anything can happen here, it's a forum thread of joy and anguish, free love and bitterness, sarcasm and shame. Maybe we'll even do fan fiction![/QUOTE][QUOTE=davieddy;337326]Yep.
Most of us seem to be entering into the spirit of the thread.
I hope it stays in this subforum, because although we seem to veer towards the Soapbox genre from time to time, we also get heated about Primenet and GPUto72 occasionally.

To restore a more highbrow tone...[/QUOTE]
I spoke too soon:cry:
[QUOTE=Uncwilly;337355]I think that it has crossed the line. I think the Davie needs to be sat in the corner for a couple of weeks.
:offensive:
:ban::ban::ban:[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2cnRCCHR1k"]Remedial courses are available for the culturally deprived[/URL], [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRQvxf6fNIE"]bad boy[/URL]

[QUOTE=davieddy;337365]I spoke too soon:cry:

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2cnRCCHR1k"]Remedial courses are available for the culturally deprived[/URL], [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRQvxf6fNIE"]bad boy[/URL][/QUOTE]

"This video contains content from EMI, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."
:bump2:

[QUOTE=davieddy;337166]Indeed.
A week is a good time to choose as our sampling period, since the submission rate fluctuates during it.

Allow me to cast my trained eye over last week's figures:

2300 LLs completed.
2300 TFed to 73+, [B]of which ~1000 were taken to 73 bits exactly. [/B]

A good week's work all round, and as I have been saying all week:
[B]IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT.[/B]

Cheers,
David[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;337186]How many of those that were taken to 73 were done so outside of GPUto72?
Remember that Chris in his day job manages networks, etc. Watching for trends is part of what he does.

If 1000 were taken to 73, what about the other 1300, were they taken to 74?
If so, that would be ~31 LL tests saved, beyond those saved upto 73.
Taking them to 73 saved ~32 LL's, beyond those saved taking to 72.
Taking them to 72 saved ~33 LL's, beyond those saved taking to 71.
Taking them to 71 saved ~33 LL's, beyond those saved taking to 70 (the default PrimeNet level.)
This represent a speed up of the LL testing of ~5% (extra tests not needing being done). This also benefits the DC's that will happen in that range. This also frees up the P-1'ers do look for factors even higher (if I understand P-1 correctly, the 'floor' can get pushed up by selecting the right B1 value.)

Seems like GPUto 72 is a great thing. Chris is keeping it tuned for maximum effect, based upon available power.[/QUOTE]To revert to the serious side of Davieddy's mad, bad and dangerous to know world:

It is desirable and feasible for each LL completion to be replenished with a new LL test TFed by GPU to at least 73 bits, and Chris has assured me (ad nauseam) that this is and will continue to be the case. This minimum bit level can be upped to 74 as soon as GPU firepower allows.

Let us suppose that a GPU is going to take an exponent from 71 to 73+.
If the time for 71 to 72 is T, then it will take 3T to go to 73, 7T to 74 and 15T to 75.
So TFing two exponents to 74 will save 50% more work in less than the time it takes to TF one exponent to 75.

So in answer to "Were the remaining 1300 TFed to exactly 74?", I am pleased to say "YES".

I think Chris and I just like a fight, even when we agree with each other 99%.

D

[QUOTE=davieddy;337372]So TFing two exponents to 74 will save 50% more work in less than the time it takes to TF one exponent to 75.

So in answer to "Were the remaining 1300 TFed to exactly 74?", I am pleased to say "YES".
[/QUOTE]

Technically, it would be 44% more work in 93% of the time. But you could say the same for factoring two of them from 69 to 70 instead of taking them from 69 to 71. There are always diminishing returns going up a bitlevel, but we try to get as close as we can to optimal with the firepower we have.

I have come in for a lot of nasty stick because people deliberately suggest that:
1) I advocate what I do because it's what I want.
2) They intentionally misinterpret what I am advocating for effect.

I advocate what I do because
A) It is possible
B) Minimizes the expected time to the next prime discovery.

If there were a choice of options fulfilling these two criteria, I would say so, and let people do whatever they want. There isn't.

Primenet has TFed everything up to 90M to ~70 bits. Useless, but at least you might think comparatively harmless. But there is a backlog between 60M and 62.5M which is a hangover from this strategy, interfering with both GPUto73 and the allocation of new LLs. Also most GPUers would rather take an exponent from 69 to 74 than 72 to 73 or 74 (from studying Chris's tables), for obvious reasons.

ATM we could TF to 73 and exceed the LL completion rate, thereby increasing the the lead TF has over LL allocation (which [B]IMO [/B](note) is desirable). Then we can take as many to 74 as we can while keeping up with (or preferably slightly exceeding) the LL completion rate, which is increasing nicely, THX mostly to the uptake of AVX.

Glancing through the range of a billion, the only significant source of extra GPU fire power is from the grossly excessive DC-TF of which the self-styled "king" BCP19 is so proud (3000/week to 70 bits I ASK YOU). But enlisting this still wouldn't make taking everything to 74 sustainable, anymore than the generous offer to club together and buy me a GPU would. I do have several ideas about how we could recruit more firepower (or at least not deter it) however. More anon.

David

I used to TF from 69 to 74. It is my favorite way to TF as far as satisfaction goes, because you get the low bitlevels that feel like basically free factors, and yet every number you release is either ready for release to primenet or only missing the p-1. I'd get tired of grinding them from 73 to 74 all day long, with other people skimming along the 69-70 range and racking up millions of hours saved.

Thing is though, I only thought that was a good idea because I thought primenet had a basic fitness function; that having a number (say 63,000,000) tf'd to 73 and another one (63,000,001) tf'd to 74 and p-1'd it would release the second number and any other similar numbers before it released the first one so that the first one would have more time to get factored. It doesn't - it releases from the bottom up. At that point I switched back to just factoring the lowest to 74, personal satisfaction be damned, because that was the only way to get the best factored numbers out to the LL'ers.

Personally, I'd love to see a fitness function alter the primenet distribution, but I don't see that happening.

What sounds like the worst case though, even worse than the rather poor case of doing what I used to do as described in the first paragraph, is to simply not do what factoring we can for the sake of increasing our lead time. Honestly I can't fathom any gain from increasing the lead time unless we are not currently covering the range of numbers being assigned. I'm not closed to that, I just don't see any upside.

I'm not really arguing anything there (except maybe to promote a fitness test to primenet, heh!) just my :two cents:

I have good news though! We'll have more gpu power working on factoring in just a few weeks when the DCTF runs out. Currently My and Chuck's daily output on DCTF is higher even than Pete's (though we'll never catch up to the work he did) and then that should all go to LLTF.

EDIT: You may be surprised to discover, Davieddy, that bcp19 does twice as much LLTF work as he does DCTF work, despite still doing more DCTF than anyone else.

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;337389]Technically, it would be 44% more work in 93% of the time. But you could say the same for factoring two of them from 69 to 70 instead of taking them from 69 to 71. There are always diminishing returns going up a bitlevel, but we try to get as close as we can to optimal
with the firepower we have.[/QUOTE]
Expected LL work saved TFing 1 expo from 71 to 75 is 4/75
Expected LL work saved TFing 2 expos from 71 to 74 is 6/74 (over 50% more).

Don't miss the wood for the trees. Don't miss simple points of principle by being over-pedantic with precision. One of the faults of many folk here in my world.

D

D

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;337394]
I have good news though! We'll have more gpu power working on factoring in just a few weeks when the DCTF runs out. Currently My and Chuck's daily output on DCTF is higher even than Pete's (though we'll never catch up to the work he did) and then that should all go to LLTF.[/QUOTE]

I did the DCTF work the past few days just for a lark — I normally don't work that range but rather the "let GPU72 decide". I have just added a second GTX690 obtained used from a member of this forum.

Expected LL work saved TFing 1 expo from 71 to 75 is 1/72+1/73+1/74+1/75 = .054
Expected LL work saved TFing 2 expos from 71 to 74 is 2*(1/72+1/73+1/74) = .082 (44% more).

I have no real need to be imprecise when [I]I'm sitting in front of a computer.[/I] I thought the difference between 50% (now even more) and 44% was worth clarifying since I was, you know, parked in front of a giant calculator and using it to post on the forum.

I was not arguing though, just clarifying. There are diminishing returns either way.

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;337417]Expected LL work saved TFing 1 expo from 71 to 75 is 1/72+1/73+1/74+1/75 = .054
Expected LL work saved TFing 2 expos from 71 to 74 is 2*(1/72+1/73+1/74) = .082 (44% more).

[/QUOTE]

WRONG!

Why do I say wrong? I will offer a hint in the form of a question:
Is the probability of finding a factor between 71 and 72 bits
INDEPENDENT of the probability of finding one less than 71 bits???

Further hint: Among those number that have a factor between 71 and 72
bits are some who have a factor smaller than 71 bits.

This entire thread is full of nonsense from many parties. It is devoid
of information content and has a number of posters behaving like
spoiled and ignorant school children. Tis. Tis'nt. Tis. Tis'nt........

And anyone who thinks that increasing TF from (say) 73 to 74 bits
is actually going to increase the rate at which GIMPS finds primes, I say
you are deluded.

These attempts at "optimization" are simply lost in the noise of the overall
process. And it really [b]DOESN'T MATTER[/b]. GIMPS moves along
regardless. And whether the next prime is found in (say) 15 months or
whether it takes 16 months is UNIMPORTANT.

Unless of course one is an anal-retentive member of the IGG.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;337422]WRONG!


Further hint: Among those number that have a factor between 71 and 72
bits are some who have a factor smaller than 71 bits.

[/QUOTE]

yes but those exponent which have a factor below 71 bit WON'T be taken to 73 or 74 bit; and won't be LL'ed.

[QUOTE=firejuggler;337423]yes but those exponent which have a factor below 71 bit WON'T be taken to 73 or 74 bit; and won't be LL'ed.[/QUOTE]

Sigh.

When is it legitimate to add the probabilities????

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;337429]Sigh.

When is it legitimate to add the probabilities????[/QUOTE]

In horseshoes and hand grenades?

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;337417]Expected LL work saved TFing 1 expo from 71 to 75 is 1/72+1/73+1/74+1/75 = .054
Expected LL work saved TFing 2 expos from 71 to 74 is 2*(1/72+1/73+1/74) = .082 (44% more).

I have no real need to be imprecise when [I]I'm sitting in front of a computer.[/I][/QUOTE]Your computer is drunk: .082/.054 = 1.52
You are drunk: the probability of one [B]or more[/B] factors between 71 and 74 (assuming independence) is 1 - (71/72)*(72/73)*(73/74) = 3/74

(6/74)/(4/75) = 1.52

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;337422]And anyone who thinks that increasing TF from (say) 73 to 74 bits is actually going to increase the rate at which GIMPS finds primes, I say you are deluded.[/QUOTE]
Ah yes I see it now: 74 LL tests will take the same time as 73.

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;337441] the probability of one [B]or more[/B] factors between 71 and 74 (assuming independence) is 1 - (71/72)*(72/73)*(73/74) = 3/74
[/QUOTE]

see I don't see how we can have independence since k=1 being eliminated eliminates k=2p+2 for example.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;337429]Sigh.

When is it legitimate to add the probabilities????[/QUOTE]
When you want the probability of one of a number of mutually exclusive possible outcomes occurring?
Archery is a classic example.
Or probability distributions in general.
Apart from these esoteric examples, addition would seem to be not worth learning about.

[QUOTE=davieddy;337445]When you want the probability of one of a number of mutually exclusive possible outcomes occurring?
Archery is a classic example.
Or probability distributions in general.
Apart from these esoteric examples, addition would seem to be not worth learning about.[/QUOTE]

Clueless.
He ADDED four probabilities. But they were NOT independent!

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;337417]Expected LL work saved TFing 1 expo from 71 to 75 is 1/72+1/73+1/74+1/75 = .054[/QUOTE]This is a mistake which is extremely easy to make, and sorting it out is highly instructive.

Your sum is not giving the probability of anything. It is giving the "expected" number of factors. Extending the sum up to 1/N, we can integrate 1/x from 71 to N and estimate the sum as ln (N/71). If N > 71e, the sum is >1.
We can use the Poisson distribution to get the probabilities of no factors, precisely one factor and one or more factors from the expected number E:

P(x) = E[SUP]x[/SUP]*e[SUP]-E[/SUP]/x!
Note that the sum from x=0 to infinity is 1.

P(0) = e[SUP]-E[/SUP]
P(1) = E*e[SUP]-E[/SUP]
P(>0) = 1 - e[SUP]-E[/SUP]

Now when E<<1, P(1) and P(>0) --> E.
This makes estimating things very easy. So easy that many fall into the trap you did. Note that
1 - e[SUP]-E[/SUP] = .054 - .0015....
so the error in this case is neither very obvious nor serious.


David

In the case where I'm doing trial factoring, and I think in general everyone in the gpu to 72 group whose sub-forum we are posting in, numbers with factors are not factored.

In an objective sense, what I said (Expected LL work saved TFing 1 expo from 71 to 75 is 1/72+1/73+1/74+1/75 = .054) is certainly wrong. But when you consider our context as declared in my first paragraph above, these variables are not independant: 1 and only 1 can occur, and there can be no factors below bitdepth 72.
[quote=R.D. Silverman] When is it legitimate to add the probabilities? [quote=davieddy] When you want the probability of one of a number of mutually exclusive possible outcomes occurring[/quote][/quote]

David is correct in his response to R.D. Silverman above, though goes off a bit after that by somehow assuming these events are independent, or that it's even possible for events to be both independant AND mutually exclusive.

[quote=davieddy]1 - e-E = .054 - .0015...[/quote]
Subtracting the chance of them overlapping would make sense if they were independant, but they are not. They are mutually exclusive for the purpose of GPUto72 TF work.

Independence of probabilities
 

x and y are primes between 2[SUP]71[/SUP] and 2[SUP]75[/SUP].
Choose a random number N between 2[SUP]60,000,000[/SUP] and 2[SUP]65,000,000[/SUP].
The probability that N is a multiple of x is 1/x.

Suppose x is a factor of N.
Does this affect the probability that N is a multiple of y being 1/y?
If so how and why?

David

Edit: I'll answer this.

The probability of N being a multiple of (xy) is 1/(xy) = (1/x) * (1/y).
The probabitities are independent.

In davieddie's world, where no factoring actually gets done, I suppose it's fair to treat them as independant even if for practical purposes they are mutually exclusive. Home field advantage. :smile:

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;337551]In davieddie's world, where no factoring actually gets done, I suppose it's fair to treat them as independant even if for practical purposes they are mutually exclusive. Home field advantage. :smile:[/QUOTE]I didn't realize that Chalsall was altering the factorization of composites at will.
That guy really is the Devil incarnate!

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;337551]In davieddie's world, where no factoring actually gets done, I suppose it's fair to treat them as independant even if for practical purposes they are mutually exclusive. Home field advantage. :smile:[/QUOTE]

These guys are theorists... Rarely even worth the carbon.

[QUOTE=Isacc Asimov]The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;337492]Clueless.
He ADDED four probabilities. But they were NOT independent![/QUOTE]
As I explained to Aramis, your mistake is very easy to make.
He added four probabilities to obtain the expected number of factors.
They ARE independent, and being <<1, approximate the expected number. Hence the confusion.

To spell it out, expected factors between 2[SUP]71[/SUP] and 2[SUP]75[/SUP] is the integral of 1/(xlnx) = ln(75/71).
Probability of no factors is e[SUP]-ln(75/71)[/SUP] = 71/75

Can you explain why this applies to Mersenne numbers, as well as random ones?

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;337556]Can you explain why this applies to Mersenne numbers, as well as random ones?[/QUOTE]

I don't really know why it is this way and the following text it not a proof, but at least it makes sense to myself:
The chance for a factor between 2[SUP]n-1[/SUP] and 2[SUP]n[/SUP] is 1/n, so the chance for a (roughly) n-bit factor is 1/n, but this is only a (good) estimate.
The product of all prime factors of a number is equal to the number itself.
For a number m there are log[SUB]2[/SUB](m) [I]bitlevels[/I], so summing all products of factor sizes multiplied by the chance for a factor of this size: 1*1/1 + 2*1/2 + 3*1/3 + ... + log[SUB]2[/SUB](m)*1/log[SUB]2[/SUB](m) = 1 + 1 + 1 + ... + 1 = log[SUB]2[/SUB](m)


Oliver

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;337417]Expected LL work saved TFing 1 expo from 71 to 75 is 1/72+1/73+1/74+1/75 = .054
Expected LL work saved TFing 2 expos from 71 to 74 is 2*(1/72+1/73+1/74) = .082 (44% more).

I have no real need to be imprecise when [I]I'm sitting in front of a computer.[/I] I thought the difference between 50% (now even more) and 44% was worth clarifying since I was, you know, parked in front of a giant calculator and using it to post on the forum.

I was not arguing though, just clarifying. There are diminishing returns either way.[/QUOTE]
Expected LL work saved TFing 1 expo from 71 to 75 is 1/72 + (1-1/72)*1/73 + (1-(1/72 + (1-1/72)*1/73))*1/74 + (1-(1/72 + (1-1/72)*1/73 + (1-(1/72 + (1-1/72)*1/73))*1/74))*1/75 = 0.053333 not 1/72+1/73+1/74+1/75=0.054434 I think.
Perhaps not surprisingly this simpilfies to 4/75.

Expected LL work saved TFing 1 expo from 71 to 75 is 4/75 = .053333
Expected LL work saved TFing 2 expos from 71 to 74 is 2*(3/74) = 2*0.040540=0.081081

Turns out I missed a few posts. May as well post this anyway now I worked it out.

Probability of no factors between 2[SUP]n-1[/SUP] and 2[SUP]n[/SUP] = (n-1)/n is a special case of the probability of no factors between a[SUP]A[/SUP] and a[SUP]B[/SUP] = A/B
from which it follows immediately that the probability of no factors between 2[SUP]71[/SUP] and 2[SUP]75[/SUP] is 71/75.
(Even more immediately than (71/72)*(72/73)*(73/74)*(74/75) = 71/75:smile:)

Now I gave a derivation of this formula which is so simple and plausible that you feel there must be something in it:

Multiples of a prime p have p-1 integers between them.
If we choose a random number N between 2[SUP]60,000,000[/SUP] and 2[SUP]65,000,000[/SUP], the probability that p is not a factor of N is (1 - 1/p).
From the PNT or Mertens' theorem or otherwise, it is easy to show that the product of (1 - 1/p) for all primes between a[SUP]A[/SUP] and a[SUP]B[/SUP] is A/B.

Now it is very tempting to just say QED, but two big issues rear their heads:
1) Independence: is the probability of p[sub]n[/sub] being a factor still 1/p[sub]n[/sub] even if we know none of p[sub]1[/sub] to p[sub]n-1[/sub] divide N?

2) The form of Mersenne factors

CAN SOMEONE SORT THIS OUT?
BOB?
PLEASE???

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;337690]Probability of no factors between 2[SUP]n-1[/SUP] and 2[SUP]n[/SUP] = (n-1)/n is a special case of the probability of no factors between a[SUP]A[/SUP] and a[SUP]B[/SUP] = A/B
from which it follows immediately that the probability of no factors between 2[SUP]71[/SUP] and 2[SUP]75[/SUP] is 71/75.
(Even more immediately than (71/72)*(72/73)*(73/74)*(74/75) = 71/75:smile:)

Now I gave a derivation of this formula which is so simple and plausible that you feel there must be something in it:

Multiples of a prime p have p-1 integers between them.
If we choose a random number N between 2[SUP]60[/SUP] and 2[SUP]65[/SUP], the probability that p is not a factor of N is (1 - 1/p).
From the PNT or Mertens' theorem or otherwise, it is easy to show that the product of (1 - 1/p) for all primes between a[SUP]A[/SUP] and a[SUP]B[/SUP] is A/B.

Now it is very tempting to just say QED, but two big issues rear their heads:
1) Independence
2) The form of Mersenne factors

CAN SOMEONE SORT THIS OUT?
BOB?
PLEASE???

David[/QUOTE]

I could give it a try:

2) well 2^65-2^60 = 2^60+2^61+2^63+2^64 = 15*2^60
(15*2^60)/(2*p) = (15*2^59)/p there are at most this many candidate factors.

1) though I don't know how many would get thrown from lower candidates being eliminated I know there are likely some depending on p (since 2*k*p+1 has at least one more bit than p, for p=60000000 this gives about 52 bits as (2p+1)^2, it might give some possibilities to eliminate.)

[QUOTE=TheJudger;337641]I don't really know why it is this way and the following text it not a proof, but at least it makes sense to myself:
The chance for a factor between 2[SUP]n-1[/SUP] and 2[SUP]n[/SUP] is 1/n, so the chance for a (roughly) n-bit factor is 1/n, but this is only a (good) estimate.
The product of all prime factors of a number is equal to the number itself.
For a number m there are log[SUB]2[/SUB](m) [I]bitlevels[/I], so summing all products of factor sizes multiplied by the chance for a factor of this size: 1*1/1 + 2*1/2 + 3*1/3 + ... + log[SUB]2[/SUB](m)*1/log[SUB]2[/SUB](m) = 1 + 1 + 1 + ... + 1 = log[SUB]2[/SUB](m)


Oliver[/QUOTE]Nice!
Good to know that this simple probability distribution of factors leads to their product actually equalling the number on average.
As you observe, this is no proof (nor very explanative for that matter), but it is highly suggestive that we are on the right lines.

D

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;338053]Sadness. :cry:[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=chalsall;338054]Why?[/QUOTE]
As usual we concur:smile:
DCTF has been greatly outpacing DC assignment and completion, in marked contrast to LLTF and LL completion.
OTOH the net LL assignment rate seems low ATM, which does not augur well for the future LL completion rate. It does allow us to TF everything to 74 tho.
BTW how worthwhile is P-1 these days?
As long as unP-1ed expos are only assigned to those willing to do it before embarking on their LL, I don't see the low P-1 rate as a major problem.

David

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;338064]I thought we were going to be done with it.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=chalsall;338066]We will. In about 2020....[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=kracker;338068]...unless more people do it.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=chalsall;338069]Always an option with free agents....[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Chuck;338078]Buy more GPUs...[/QUOTE]
Drop the DCTF bitlevel to the optimal.
Drop the rate to just greater than the DC completion rate.
Use the firepower released to ensure that the LL and DC wavefronts are at least doubled by 2020.

We will likely find two more primes.
Am I the only one who considers this to be a more exciting milestone?

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;33808]Am I the only one who considers this to be a more exciting milestone?[/QUOTE]

Am I the only one who knows daviddy doesn't have a single gpu and rambles about how we should use our own gpu's?

[QUOTE=kracker;338089]Am I the only one who knows daviddy doesn't have a single gpu and rambles about how we should use our own gpu's?[/QUOTE]
Davieddy has a brain and monitors GIMPS progress more closely than others.

When I point out the more dramatic observations and predictions, it makes it obvious to the mob where effort is best employed.
I do not say "this should be done" and certainly not "everyone should do this".
But some of observations make it clear to even the dimmest GPU operator the most sensible course of action.
Deniers can't dispute my observations, so they falsely ascribe devious motives to me.
In a sense, GPU ownership diminishes one's objectivity.

Now shut the **** up the lot of you, unless you have something constructive to say.

The only person telling people what to do is Chalsall, and he lacks my ability to see the big, long term picture and analyse the data properly. And yes, I can furnish many examples. His readiness to resort to insults is a giveaway.

[SIZE=5]Repenteth, ye vile sinners, for th[SIZE=5]e [SIZE=5]apocalypse beare[SIZE=5]th down upon thee! Heedeth the word of the Prophet Davie :rant: lest [SIZE=5]Saint Mersenne smiteth thee with weapons of math instruction![/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE] :ouch1:[SIZE=5]Then cries of DO[SIZE=5]H![/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=5][SIZE=5] :doh!: shall surely[/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=5][SIZE=5] filleth the land and [/SIZE]great shall be the lamentation of the deluded unbelievers. Too late shall they realizeth their iniquity and their big iron shall falleth up[SIZE=5]on them ev[SIZE=5]en as an Acme safe falleth upon Wile E. Coyote. Yea, verily I sayeth unto you, unending shall be your ouchiness :ouch2:[SIZE=5] [SIZE=5]if you repen[SIZE=5]teth not, and turneth not from thy w[SIZE=5]illful wastiness of valuable resources which thou understandeth not!
:wrong:[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=5][SIZE=5][SIZE=5][SIZE=5][SIZE=5][SIZE=5][SIZE=5] :soapbox:[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=5][SIZE=5][SIZE=5]
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

[QUOTE=kracker;338089]Am I the only one who knows daviddy doesn't have a single gpu and rambles about how we should use our own gpu's?[/QUOTE]
No, you are not... :razz:

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;338092]Imagine how exciting finding a 100M digit prime would be. And imagine how rewarding it might be.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;338093]Yeah, I could use the bucks. I think once we get p-1 running well on gpus I'll set my cpus to doing LL work again. Maybe in the 332M range.[/QUOTE]
This is neither rambling nor a command:

You are [B]170 [/B]times more likely to find a prime with expo 60M than 332M.

Feel free to choose which you want to work on. The decision is yours.
(I'm not in a dictatorial mood this morning:smile:)

D

PS Personally even my patience might be wearing a bit thin after 680 years.

[QUOTE=kladner;338096][SIZE=5]Repenteth, ye vile sinners, for th[SIZE=5]e [SIZE=5]apocalypse beare[SIZE=5]th down upon thee! Heedeth the word of the Prophet Davie :rant: lest [SIZE=5]Saint Mersenne smiteth thee with weapons of math instruction![/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE] :ouch1:[SIZE=5]Then cries of DO[SIZE=5]H![/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=5][SIZE=5] :doh!: shall surely[/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=5][SIZE=5] filleth the land and [/SIZE]great shall be the lamentation of the deluded unbelievers. Too late shall they realizeth their iniquity and their big iron shall falleth up[SIZE=5]on them ev[SIZE=5]en as an Acme safe falleth upon Wile E. Coyote. Yea, verily I sayeth unto you, unending shall be your ouchiness :ouch2:[SIZE=5] [SIZE=5]if you repen[SIZE=5]teth not, and turneth not from thy w[SIZE=5]illful wastiness of valuable resources which thou understandeth not!
:wrong:[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=5][SIZE=5][SIZE=5][SIZE=5][SIZE=5][SIZE=5][SIZE=5] :soapbox:[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=5][SIZE=5][SIZE=5]
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/QUOTE]


Applause! Applause!

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;338119]Applause! Applause![/QUOTE]

Indeed! That was really funny and creative! :smile:

Thanks, RDS and Chalsall. I had fun with it.

Screw Max!
 

[QUOTE=kladner;338161]Thanks, RDS and Chalsall. I had fun with it.[/QUOTE]
"I have"
"So have I"
(Cabaret)

D
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hu7uwfr9OY"][COLOR=#810081]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hu7uwfr9OY[/COLOR][/URL]

[QUOTE=davieddy;338196][URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hu7uwfr9OY[/URL]

So did I.
(Cabaret)

D[/QUOTE]

No need to check the link. I can predict the scene:
[QUOTE]"Max, Max, Max! F.... Max!"
"I do."
"So do I!"[/QUOTE]

It's nice to have one's efforts appreciated on multiple fronts. :smile:

[QUOTE=kladner;338198]No need to check the link. I can predict the scene:


It's nice to have one's efforts appreciated on multiple fronts. :smile:[/QUOTE]
This could be the start of a beautiful friendship.

x