David you hit shift so you wrote !000, you go off by an order of magnitude writing 87000, and you could spell accurately correctly. is that from typos you couldn't look over ? or someone else ?

Ah! Thanks for the pointers!

First I wrote 8,200 instead of the 8,700 I meant. Oops!

Second, I completely did not understand the unfactored column, though it does make sense now.

Third, I was taking the completely wrong approach to figuring out the missing factors. I went and summed up all the "totals" and got a huge negative number because you're supposed to subtract -945 (so add 945) to get 0. I started with the big numbers, too, so I was around -2000 with only a few +1 and +30 to go, so I never finished (or I would have noticed having -1890 at the end being -945*2 and seen my mistake). Hence my missing $2000. Same as the 25$ hotel room problem :smile:

On this note, would it be difficult to change that column to "factored" from "unfactored" (and switch the sign) or am I the only one who had any confusion there?


Is there a way to find which bit level the factors found were actually in? I could estimate that there were 333 in each range (72, 73, 74).

If we counted "factors found" in "factored to" we would have:

+1,000 in 72
-2,500 in 73
+10,500 in 74

(still -9000 in 71)

Still looks to me like we're ahead of LL.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;362430]
+1,000 in 72
-2,500 in 73
+10,500 in 74

(still -9000 in 71)

Still looks to me like we're ahead of LL.[/QUOTE]

To add a bit to this, the amount of work put in is equal to the work required to bring 1,000 from 71 to 72, minus the work to take 2,500 from 71 to 73, plus the work to bring 10,500 from 71 to 74.

This is 9,000 71 to 72, 8,000 72 to 73, 10,500 73 to 74. With each step behind twice the next, this is like 2,250 + 4,000 + 10,500 = 16,750 of "73 to 74 worth of work".

This amount is also equivalent to ~9,570 of straight up 71 to 74.


If we wanted to think worst-case, and assume all the factors found were 2[SUP]72.001[/SUP] then we get

+700 72
-2,800 73
+10,200 74

Following the same procedure, this comes to 13,650 of 73 to 74 or 7,800 of 71 to 74.

We must therefore have the firepower to bring AT THE VERY LEAST 7,800 exponents from 71 to 74, ASSUMING no work was put into finding the factors at all. Assuming factors are evenly distributed and that the whole bit range was factored (vs stopping when a factor is found) then there is enough for nearly 9,600.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;362430]

On this note, would it be difficult to change that column to "factored" from "unfactored" (and switch the sign) or am I the only one who had any confusion there?

[/QUOTE]

Well, I think it kind of makes sense as it goes. It´s in line with the other columns, where we have "-" signs indicating that a particular bitlevel as "lost" a certain amount of exponents. Similarly, the number of "Unfactored" exponents in a certain range has gone down by x, so we have "[COLOR="Red"]-x[/COLOR]" for that range.

Stop Press
 

Whoopee!

In response to the daily threat of running out of available candidates, Chris has released 300 60M and 61M candidates which (PLEASE GOD) will have been TFed only to 73.

His usual strategy is to slow down the assignment rate by bagging everything up to 68M, leaving only unappetizing fare during the peak demand.

What a ****.

[QUOTE=davieddy;362478]What a ****.[/QUOTE]

At your service... :smile:

You've never managed a real-time system you're not fully in control of, have you David?

[QUOTE=chalsall;362479]You've never managed a real-time system you're not fully in control of, have you David?[/QUOTE]

That sounds like a big compliment:smile:

[QUOTE=davieddy;362481]That sounds like a big compliment:smile:[/QUOTE]

Wasn't meant to be...

1. You haven't managed a business.

2. You haven't managed anything dealing with the Internet.

3. You haven't played in the stock markets.

Are you familiar with the term "independent actors"?

[QUOTE=chalsall;362484]Wasn't meant to be...

1. You haven't managed a business.

2. You haven't managed anything dealing with the Internet.

3. You haven't played in the stock markets.

Are you familiar with the term "independent actors"?[/QUOTE]

NMFP[SUP]MT[/SUP]

[QUOTE=davieddy;362487]NMFP[SUP]MT[/SUP][/QUOTE]

No, it's Not [your] [Fscking] Problem.

But perhaps you could let those of us who have decades of experience doing this kind of thing do this kind of thing....

[QUOTE=chalsall;362488]No, it's Not [your] [Fscking] Problem.

But perhaps you could let those of us who have decades of experience doing this kind of thing do this kind of thing....[/QUOTE]
I could actually do without the theatrics, I think, Malcolm.

Nichola Murray