User TJAOI - Page 18

Chuck · 2015-01-22, 13:57

I will do 75M - 76M.

error · 2015-01-22, 14:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by bloodIce

I am doing some double-check in 989M-990M and reporting all factors found. 11% of all factors in the range are new. (second and third). There is no cheating from me and it will be over as of today (in couple of hours).

P.S.: The reason of this double-check is the issue with missed expos. I would like to see if it is a general problem. I was just too lazy to pick the unfactored only and scripted my worktodo.txt. Sorry, soon over, another 100 factors are coming.
P.S.S.: And what I can tell you is that the search of TJAOI is unfortunately non-systematic in respect to finished bit level. If TF55 is clear, then we should not see the factor 23897533126353583, as in http://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/989965729.

Check http://www.mersenne.org/M989965729... mersenne.ca is not up to-date.

petrw1 · 2015-01-22, 14:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by petrw1

Let me take the 72M range

10 hours ... 40% through the range ... 7 new factors so far.
Smallest just over 64 bits; largest just under 69 bits.
It's funny watching the classes ~~roll~~ fly by when its doing 65-66 bit range.
Thruput dropped from about 510 to 490 GhzDays/Day.
I may have some configuration parameters too high for smaller bit ranges.???

Code:

Manual testing	72401041	F	2015-01-22 14:27	0.0	218291136715616382799	0.2332
Manual testing	72382501	F	2015-01-22 14:27	0.0	342944142087508898161	0.1788
Manual testing	72363173	F	2015-01-22 14:27	0.0	544002637626766728503	0.7288
Manual testing	72349657	F	2015-01-22 14:27	0.0	315890959036043643191	0.0810
Manual testing	72337151	F	2015-01-22 14:27	0.0	34504309201726567649	0.0467
Manual testing	72237229	F	2015-01-22 10:27	0.0	364475248423316556359	0.2519
Manual testing	72180077	F	2015-01-22 10:27	0.0	210713469140678257513	0.2128

Mark Rose · 2015-01-22, 15:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by petrw1

10 hours ... 40% through the range ... 7 new factors so far.
Smallest just over 64 bits; largest just under 69 bits.
It's funny watching the classes ~~roll~~ fly by when its doing 65-66 bit range.

It's kind of mesmerizing, isn't it? :D

Quote:

Thruput dropped from about 510 to 490 GhzDays/Day.
I may have some configuration parameters too high for smaller bit ranges.???

Possibly, but it could just be a difference in the exponent range. The higher exponents get lower throughput. Also, the low bit depths are slightly less efficient, if I recall correctly.

Chuck · 2015-01-22, 15:54

Two so far... 75259127 75661711

bloodIce · 2015-01-22, 16:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by error

Check http://www.mersenne.org/M989965729... mersenne.ca is not up to-date.

True! In this case I am very happy to be wrong. Than, it appears that TJAOI search is systematic and exhaustive, at least in my sample of exponents (5000 or so). That is perfect, wish them more factors!

LaurV · 2015-01-22, 16:09

This looks like "fresh factoring", i.e. the expected number of factors like the range was never touched. It is not like few accidentally omissions. So, that guy's (sannerud) laptop is totally messed up, or he is an ordinary cheater. Just for curiosity I accessed the homonym web page. It looks like rubbish too...
Grrr...

Mark Rose · 2015-01-22, 16:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaurV

This looks like "fresh factoring", i.e. the expected number of factors like the range was never touched. It is not like few accidentally omissions. So, that guy's (sannerud) laptop is totally messed up, or he is an ordinary cheater. Just for curiosity I accessed the homonym web page. It looks like rubbish too...
Grrr...

Well, in the list of submitted work George provided, there were 15 factors out of 17,000 attempts. That's less than 10% of what's expected. I've already found 15 factors in about 1 THz-day of work. I have about 2850 GHz-days to go in rechecking all the assignments below 70M.

Prime95 · 2015-01-22, 17:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaurV

So, that guy's (sannerud) laptop is totally messed up, or he is an ordinary cheater.

He had several other machines doing work, all were producing factors at the expected rate. Just a hardware problem.

Mark Rose · 2015-01-22, 17:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prime95

He had several other machines doing work, all were producing factors at the expected rate. Just a hardware problem.

Have you found any other problematic machines whose TF work needs to be checked?

Chuck · 2015-01-22, 17:15

75318389 75908453 75675931 75287159 75661711 75259127

Found six factors so far...

2015-01-22, 15:54	#192
Chuck May 2011 Orange Park, FL 3×5×59 Posts	Two so far... 75259127 75661711 Last fiddled with by Chuck on 2015-01-22 at 15:59 Reason: Found a second one

2015-01-22, 17:15	#198
Chuck May 2011 Orange Park, FL 3·5·59 Posts	75318389 75908453 75675931 75287159 75661711 75259127 Found six factors so far... Last fiddled with by Chuck on 2015-01-22 at 17:16

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Old User	Unregistered	Information & Answers	1	2012-10-18 23:31
The user CP has gone :(	retina	Forum Feedback	5	2006-12-05 16:47
Changing My User ID	endless mike	NFSNET Discussion	1	2004-10-31 19:38
OSX yet? new user here	KevinLee	Hardware	6	2003-12-12 17:06
help for a Mac user	drakkar67	Software	3	2003-02-11 10:55

2015-01-22, 13:57	#188
Chuck May 2011 Orange Park, FL 3×5×59 Posts	I will do 75M - 76M.

2015-01-22, 16:09	#194
LaurV Romulan Interpreter Jun 2011 Thailand 3²×29×37 Posts	This looks like "fresh factoring", i.e. the expected number of factors like the range was never touched. It is not like few accidentally omissions. So, that guy's (sannerud) laptop is totally messed up, or he is an ordinary cheater. Just for curiosity I accessed the homonym web page. It looks like rubbish too... Grrr...