Unlucky in l̶o̶v̶e̶ factoring?

[wreck]

900.0M - 900.1M
2016-01-15 ~ 2016-12-17 34 / (70t71 388; 70t72 101) 17.6
2016-12-24 ~ 2017-12-17 10 / (70t71 534; 78t79 64) 8.4
2017-12-31 ~ 2018-12-17 3 / (70t71 229; 78t79 29) 3.6
2019-01-07 ~ 2019-12-17 1 / (71t80 1151; 72t80 638) 193.2
It is possible that someones only submit factors without submit no factor result before the year 2016.

900M - 901M
27325 factored, 48676 exponents.
ratio 0.5613, no much difference to other ranges.

900.0M - 900.1M
2748 factored, 4854 exponents.
ratio 0.5661, no much difference to other ranges.

[petrw1]

Originally Posted by wreck

900.0M - 900.1M
2016-01-15 ~ 2016-12-17 34 / (70t71 388; 70t72 101) 17.6
2016-12-24 ~ 2017-12-17 10 / (70t71 534; 78t79 64) 8.4
2017-12-31 ~ 2018-12-17 3 / (70t71 229; 78t79 29) 3.6
2019-01-07 ~ 2019-12-17 1 / (71t80 1151; 72t80 638) 193.2
It is possible that someones only submit factors without submit no factor result before the year 2016.

900M - 901M
27325 factored, 48676 exponents.
ratio 0.5613, no much difference to other ranges.

900.0M - 900.1M
2748 factored, 4854 exponents.
ratio 0.5661, no much difference to other ranges.

The following table shows all 900.x ranges with similar Pct Factors;
however .0 and .1 and 9 or 10 TF bits deeper.
But 900.3 at only 71 bits is a higher percent than .0 or .1.
With each bit (B) expected to produce 1/(B+1) more factors.
So roughly by 80 the percent factored should be about 62%.

Range	Exp	Fact	Unfact	Pct	TF Bits
900.0M	4,854	2,748	2,106	56.6%	80
900.1M	4,831	2,760	2,071	57.1%	80/82
900.2M	4,856	2,683	2,173	55.3%	71
900.3M	4,878	2,788	2,090	57.2%	71
900.4M	4,946	2,771	2,175	56.0%	71
900.5M	4,830	2,751	2,079	57.0%	71
900.6M	4,870	2,721	2,149	55.9%	72
900.7M	4,857	2,697	2,160	55.5%	71
900.8M	4,855	2,700	2,155	55.6%	71
900.9M	4,899	2,706	2,193	55.2%	71

[masser]

Originally Posted by petrw1

Range	Exp	Fact	Unfact	Pct	TF Bits
900.0M	4,854	2,748	2,106	56.6%	80
900.1M	4,831	2,760	2,071	57.1%	80/82
900.2M	4,856	2,683	2,173	55.3%	71
900.3M	4,878	2,788	2,090	57.2%	71
900.4M	4,946	2,771	2,175	56.0%	71
900.5M	4,830	2,751	2,079	57.0%	71
900.6M	4,870	2,721	2,149	55.9%	72
900.7M	4,857	2,697	2,160	55.5%	71
900.8M	4,855	2,700	2,155	55.6%	71
900.9M	4,899	2,706	2,193	55.2%	71

That is bad. Do the primenet and mersenne.ca admins know?

Were those TF ranges done by one person? one piece of software? one piece of hardware?

[Anonuser]

However, according to Primenet these are the actual exponent counts (sorted by the maximum TF bitlevel):

900.0M - 900.1M

71: 1080
72: 709
74: 114
75: 2
76: 43
77: 12
78: 3
79: 139
80: 3
86: 1


900.1M - 900.2M

71: 1641
72: 275
74: 82
76: 19
77: 8
78: 23
79: 22
80: 1


So I suspect that the data in the (mersenne.ca) tables may have been corrupted sometime in the past.

[petrw1]

Originally Posted by Anonuser

So I suspect that the data in the (mersenne.ca) tables may have been corrupted sometime in the past.

I thought briefly about redoing the factoring until I calculated the work required:
Assuming TF to 71 was accurate (and it may NOT be).
There are 1996 exponents to take from 71 to 80
--- At about 271 GhzDays per = 540,916
And 970 to take from 71 to 82
--- At about 1088 GhzDays per = 1,055,360
==== TOTAL about 1.6M GhzDays

Almost exactly 1 year for my 2080Ti
Closer to 4 years for a 1080Ti.

[Anonuser]

Originally Posted by petrw1

I thought briefly about redoing the factoring until I calculated the work required:
Assuming TF to 71 was accurate (and it may NOT be).
There are 1996 exponents to take from 71 to 80
--- At about 271 GhzDays per = 540,916
And 970 to take from 71 to 82
--- At about 1088 GhzDays per = 1,055,360
==== TOTAL about 1.6M GhzDays

Almost exactly 1 year for my 2080Ti
Closer to 4 years for a 1080Ti.

That said, it seems that the (factor) success rate in the 900.0M - 900.2M range is fine if we use the bitlevels reported by Primenet as a basis.

It is a bit unusual though that 3911 exponents are available for P-1 in the 900M range.

(One possible explanation could be that bogus TF results were submitted in the 900M range some time ago. These results were recognized as bogus and they were subsequently deleted. But unfortunately the incorrect data made it into the mersenne.ca database.)

[petrw1]

Originally Posted by Anonuser

That said, it seems that the (factor) success rate in the 900.0M - 900.2M range is fine if we use the bitlevels reported by Primenet as a basis.

It is a bit unusual though that 3911 exponents are available for P-1 in the 900M range.

(One possible explanation could be that bogus TF results were submitted in the 900M range some time ago. These results were recognized as bogus and they were subsequently deleted. But unfortunately the incorrect data made it into the mersenne.ca database.)

Primenet has the same number of factored/unfactored as Mersenne.ca; however, Primenet does NOT indicate TF bit level.
https://www.mersenne.org/primenet/
https://www.mersenne.ca/status/tf/0/0/3/90000

Normally Primenet makes assignments available for P-1 when they are factored to the PrimeNet levels here:
https://www.mersenne.org/various/math.php
which is 80 bits for 576M+.
Listing them as available for P-1 suggests PrimeNet believes they are factored to 80 bits.

That said, PrimeNet also shows 2001 available for P-1 in the 912M range which Mersenne.ca does NOT show as factored to 80 (only 71).

[ATH]

Originally Posted by petrw1

Listing them as available for P-1 suggests PrimeNet believes they are factored to 80 bits.

Only 23 exponents 900M-920M are factored to 80 bits or higher according to primenet:

https://www.mersenne.org/report_fact...=80&bits_hi=99

But there are 1365 exponents in the same range factored to between 75 and 79 bits:

https://www.mersenne.org/report_fact...=75&bits_hi=79

[petrw1]

Originally Posted by ATH

Only 23 exponents 900M-920M are factored to 80 bits or higher according to primenet:

https://www.mersenne.org/report_fact...=80&bits_hi=99

But there are 1365 exponents in the same range factored to between 75 and 79 bits:

https://www.mersenne.org/report_fact...=75&bits_hi=79

Ok so it looks like Mersenne.ca has the wrong counts in their table for 900.0 and 900.1

However, its still a mystery why PrimeNet thinks there are 2000 exponents ready for P-1 in 900M and 912M

[ATH]

Originally Posted by petrw1

However, its still a mystery why PrimeNet thinks there are 2000 exponents ready for P-1 in 900M and 912M

Yeah that must be an error because there are only 62 exponents in 912M factored to 72+ bits, but 10000+ factored to 71+ bits, so no bit level corresponds to ~2000 exponents.

[mrh]

I thought I'd be fancy an run a bunch of PM1 on my old unverified LL exponents, like 82503017. So far about 20 have completed, about 350 GHz-Days each, with no new factors. Not as fancy as I thought....