Bingo!
(last 2 post)

Re TF progress statistics.
I have long suspected that the colour swatches in the visualization are inconsistent, because they simply look different to any aspect of the assembled bar graph.
Upon now looking more closely at the rendered material, when using tools like Paint Shop to examine particular pixel RGB components, such cause for belief of discrepancy appears to be sustained.

[QUOTE=snme2pm1;523066]I have long suspected that the colour swatches in the visualization are inconsistent[/QUOTE]Please explain in more detail. The graphs should be an exact representation of the average TF level. Please cite a specific example where you think this is not the case.

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;523071]The graphs should be an exact representation of the average TF level.[/QUOTE]

Actually I'm not sure what you're focusing on there, so apparently we are at cross-purposes.
Looking at [url]https://www.mersenne.ca/status/tf/0/0/3/11000[/url], the colour swatch for 74 bits from the browser that I am using exhibits RGB 255,102,255 upon pixel plucking examination with Paint Shop Pro.
In contrast, looking at the 74 bit bar feature for 118M various other colour variants appear, including 240,39,240; 209,39,209, 196,5,192; 175,5,208; 208,6,240; and others.
One impression is that right hand side colour swatches are an over-saturated variant of the essence of the colours that are used to constitute the various dimensions of bars, and somewhat unrepresentative to my eye.
Does that make sense, yet?

[QUOTE]
The graphs should be an exact representation of the average TF level.
[/QUOTE]

looks fine to me
try a different browser

[QUOTE=snme2pm1;523196]Actually I'm not sure what you're focusing on there, so apparently we are at cross-purposes.[/quote]I was talking about the [url=https://www.mersenne.ca/graphs/]Factoring Progress Graphs[/url].
[QUOTE=snme2pm1;523196]Looking at [url]https://www.mersenne.ca/status/tf/0/0/3/11000[/url], the colour swatch for 74 bits from the browser that I am using exhibits RGB 255,102,255 upon pixel plucking examination with Paint Shop Pro.[/QUOTE]The 3D graph will naturally have colour variations, otherwise it wouldn't look 3D. Moreover, the especially-large 118M-74bit column in your example clearly shows that the columns are semi-transparent, which of course means that the displayed colour is not only influenced by the base colour (as show in the legend, which side of the 3D column it appears on (front, side, etc), and what object(s) are behind it. So yes, it's perfectly natural and expected (and required) that there would be pixel colour variations in a given 3D column. But it shouldn't look "unnatural".
If you play with the sliders at the bottom of the graph you can see the 3D-ness and how the background flows through. If you set the sliders to 90° and 500 then you'll get a single-colour (but useless) version of the graph.

Vaguely related: [url]http://brainden.com/color-illusions.htm[/url]

The following numbers are shown as "Remaining cofactor is PRP status unknown" on mersenne.ca, even though PRP checks were made in 2017/2018:

[URL]https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=18261863&full=1[/URL]
[URL]https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=10172717&full=1[/URL]
[URL]https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=10969577&full=1[/URL]

What they all have in common is that one of the PRP checks was done by "Gabriel Lignelli" in July 2018.

Any idea why this is happening?

[QUOTE=nordi;523358]The following numbers are shown as "Remaining cofactor is PRP status unknown" on mersenne.ca, even though PRP checks were made in 2017/2018:

[URL]https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=18261863&full=1[/URL]
[URL]https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=10172717&full=1[/URL]
[URL]https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=10969577&full=1[/URL]

What they all have in common is that one of the PRP checks was done by "Gabriel Lignelli" in July 2018.

Any idea why this is happening?[/QUOTE]


Not sure if this has anything to do with the issue, but I also noticed there is no history of who/when found the smallest factors on these. Maybe they were known before more detailed records were being recorded?

[QUOTE=nordi;523358]The following numbers are shown as "Remaining cofactor is PRP status unknown" on mersenne.ca, even though PRP checks were made in 2017/2018[/QUOTE]They were done with an older version of Prime95 which format the output nicely when doing PRP against a long list of known factors. The data has since been fixed up on PrimeNet, but the fixes results were not new results so never made it into my data.
I have manually verified and fixed the results for the 3 exponents you quoted.


[QUOTE=hansl;523368]I also noticed there is no history of who/when found the smallest factors on these.
Maybe they were known before more detailed records were being recorded?[/QUOTE]That is exactly the case. Detailed records were not kept before about 2008 or thereabouts.

I'm on the final stretch of my factoring effort to 55 bits now; should be done in the next day or two. Just a few more in the 4G, 7G, and 8G ranges left to finish. :whee:

Also I have another small nitpick about the many factors page again:
[url]https://www.mersenne.ca/manyfactors.php[/url]

When clicking any of the headers to sort by, or navigating to the next page of 50, the rest of the filters: min/max exponent range and # of factors get removed from the query. Likewise if updating those filter fields, the sort-by preferences get removed. I can manually edit the URLs to get these features to work together but it would be nice if clicking around worked too.

[QUOTE=hansl;523492]Also I have another small nitpick about the many factors page again
..it would be nice if clicking around worked too.[/QUOTE]It should work as intended now. Thanks for pointing that out.