Is the "Combined" factoring probability actually wrong on mersenne.ca?
 

The "Combined" probability just add the trial factoring probability and the P-1 factoring probability, but that makes no sense.
Take [M]108071849[/M] for example:
It has been trial factored to 2^77, with 64.9351% chance of finding a factor. Also, the chance of finding a factor in P-1 with b1=755000, b2=21551000 assuming no factor below 2^77 is 3.5775% (a conditional probability).
Let A denote the event of "finding a factor below 2^77"
B denote the event of "finding a factor in P-1 with b1=755000, b2=21551000"
then P(A) = 64.9351%, P(B|(!A)) = P(!A && B) / P(!A) = 3.5775%
So the total probability of finding a factor should be
P(A || B) = P(A) +P(!A && B) = P(A) + P(B|(!A)) * P(!A) = P(A) + P(B|(!A)) * (1-P(!A)) = 0.0649351 + 0.035775 * (1-0.649351) = 66.1895%
Which makes sense.
This formula can also avoid having over 113% probability (???) on exponents such as [M]1277[/M].
(PS: I'm only a freshman student studying probability. If my formula is wrong, please point out :)

[QUOTE=Zhangrc;580864]The "Combined" probability just add the trial factoring probability and the P-1 factoring probability, but that makes no sense.[/QUOTE]It probably doesn't. But I'm just a programmer who runs the site, my math knowledge is poor.

If others agree that your implementation makes sense I'm happy to revise the site accordingly.
But I'll need a little more explanation in simple terms what you mean with the logical combinations of probabilities, such as [c]P(!A && B)[/c] or [c]P(B|(!A))[/c]

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;580909]It probably doesn't. But I'm just a programmer who runs the site, my math knowledge is poor.

If others agree that your implementation makes sense I'm happy to revise the site accordingly.
But I'll need a little more explanation in simple terms what you mean with the logical combinations of probabilities, such as [c]P(!A && B)[/c] or [c]P(B|(!A))[/c][/QUOTE]

maybe I should use TEX.

[QUOTE=Zhangrc;580864]The "Combined" probability just add the trial factoring probability and the P-1 factoring probability, but that makes no sense.
Take [M]108071849[/M] for example:
It has been trial factored to 2^77, with 64.9351% chance of finding a factor. Also, the chance of finding a factor in P-1 with b1=755000, b2=21551000 assuming no factor below 2^77 is 3.5775% (a conditional probability).
Let A denote the event of "finding a factor below 2^77"
B denote the event of "finding a factor in P-1 with b1=755000, b2=21551000"
then P(A) = 64.9351%, P(B|(!A)) = P(!A && B) / P(!A) = 3.5775%
So the total probability of finding a factor should be
P(A || B) = P(A) +P(!A && B) = P(A) + P(B|(!A)) * P(!A) = P(A) + P(B|(!A)) * (1-P(!A)) = 0.0649351 + 0.035775 * (1-0.649351) = 66.1895%
Which makes sense.
This formula can also avoid having over 113% probability (???) on exponents such as [M]1277[/M].
(PS: I'm only a freshman student studying probability. If my formula is wrong, please point out :)[/QUOTE]

Sorry for a typo. The formula should be 0.649351 + 0.035775 * (1-0.649351) = 66.1895% (There was a redundant 0)

[QUOTE=Zhangrc;580914]maybe I should use TEX.[/QUOTE]Unfortunately that means about the same to me as this.

[QUOTE=Zhangrc;580916]Sorry for a typo. The formula should be 0.649351 + 0.035775 * (1-0.649351) = 66.1895% (There was a redundant 0)[/QUOTE]Would that always equate to

CombinedProb = TFprob + (PM1prob * (1 - TFprob))

? If so, I can work with that.

It seems so. But you'd better wait for another one who really knows the stuff and states that the formula is correct.

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;580918]Would that always equate to

CombinedProb = TFprob + (PM1prob * (1 - TFprob))

? If so, I can work with that.[/QUOTE]

Let's consider a story: on a dangerous trip, somebody must first cross a lake, and afterwards the forest. In the lake there's an aligator that would eat him with 90% chances. In the unlikely event that he successfully crosses the lake, he must now face a tiger in the forest, which would eat him with 60% chances. What are the chances that the person perishes in this adventure?

A) the chances of being eaten by the tiger is: "60% of 10%" == 0.6 * 0.1 == 6% (because, if the aligator gets him first, the tiger is out of luck). Overall being eaten is: 90% + 6%, 96%.

B) considering the complement: surviving the whole trip means: not being eaten by the crocodile (10%), AND not being eaten by the tiger (40%). Surviving = 10% * 40% == 4%. The complement of surviving thus is 1 - 4% == 96%, same as above.

[QUOTE=preda;580920]Let's consider a story[/QUOTE]So now I have hieroglyphs, crocodiles, and tigers. :smile:

I think what you're saying is that my simplified pseudocode above is correct, but please either confirm that it is, or provide a correction if it isn't.

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;580933]So now I have hieroglyphs, crocodiles, and tigers. :smile:[/QUOTE]

:rofl:

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;580933]
I think what you're saying is that my simplified pseudocode above is correct, but please either confirm that it is, or provide a correction if it isn't.[/QUOTE]

If the probability of finding a factor by P-1 is *independent* of the probability of finding a factor by TF then your pseudocode will be correct. But if P-1 could find factors that TF would also have found then that needs to be allowed for and I don't know how to do that.

In the normal case where both TF and P-1 have only a few% chance of finding a factor adding the probabilities would be nearly right. Which is probably why it's not been noticed until now.

Chris

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;580933]So now I have hieroglyphs, crocodiles, and tigers. :smile:

I think what you're saying is that my simplified pseudocode above is correct, but please either confirm that it is, or provide a correction if it isn't.[/QUOTE]

Yes AFAIK the new formula is correct.

fancySum(a, b) = a + b * (1 - a) == a + b - a * b

I have adjusted the combined-probability calculation as described.

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;580978]I have adjusted the combined-probability calculation as described.[/QUOTE]
Thanks!

[QUOTE=Zhangrc;581014]Thanks![/QUOTE]

However, the data on a few exponents haven't been corrected. [url]https://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/82745363[/url] and [url]https://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/108071849[/url], for instance. Does it take a long time? But I've noticed that even exponents as big as 9G (say, [url]https://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/9040030253[/url]) have been corrected.

[QUOTE=Zhangrc;581050]However, the data on a few exponents haven't been corrected.[/QUOTE]The data is all corrected, but if you've looked at an exponent page recently you're probably seeing a cached version -- use Shift+F5 to force a browser refresh and you should see the new numbers.

I see. Sorry for my ignorance.