View Single Post
Old 2018-08-10, 07:57   #3
fivemack
(loop (#_fork))
 
fivemack's Avatar
 
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England

637910 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WraithX View Post
I ran the script with the example line: ecm-effort.py G174 1000@11 tractor It ran for a while and then produced the following output:
Code:
And now NFS beats them
[[43, 15400], [110, 1400], [260, 1500]]
30..34 0.0000 0.0000
35..39 0.0000 0.0000
40..44 0.0000 0.0000
45..49 0.0006 0.0006
50..54 0.0594 0.0599
55..59 0.1709 0.2308
60..64 0.1844 0.4152
65..69 0.1645 0.5797
70..74 0.1434 0.7231
75..79 0.1255 0.8486
80..84 0.1107 0.9593
85..89 0.0407 1.0000
When I plot the given recommended curves 15400@43e6, 1400@110e6, and 1500@260e6 on my ecm probabilities webpage I get the attached plot, which has much different probability curves. Maybe we're not plotting the same thing? Or, if we are, then I'm not understanding why our numbers are different. Can you help me understand what the numbers in the above table mean?
The second column is the probability of a *remaining* factor of the given size for the given input after following the recipe, whilst I think you're plotting the probability, given that a number has a factor of some size, of finding it using the recipe.

So if you try the same recipe on larger and larger inputs with my code you will find the probability shifts towards the large factors, which are entirely intractable by ECM but exist with higher probability for larger inputs.
fivemack is offline   Reply With Quote