![]() |
|
|
#1 |
|
May 2021
23 Posts |
The "Combined" probability just add the trial factoring probability and the P-1 factoring probability, but that makes no sense.
Take 108071849 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 1277. (PS: I'm only a freshman student studying probability. If my formula is wrong, please point out :) Last fiddled with by Zhangrc on 2021-06-13 at 12:59 |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 | |
|
"James Heinrich"
May 2004
ex-Northern Ontario
3·5·227 Posts |
Quote:
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 P(!A && B) or P(B|(!A)) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 | |
|
May 2021
23 Posts |
Quote:
Last fiddled with by Zhangrc on 2021-06-14 at 03:52 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 | |
|
May 2021
23 Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
"James Heinrich"
May 2004
ex-Northern Ontario
3×5×227 Posts |
Unfortunately that means about the same to me as this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
"James Heinrich"
May 2004
ex-Northern Ontario
3·5·227 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
May 2021
1716 Posts |
It seems so. But you'd better wait for another one who really knows the stuff and states that the formula is correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 | |
|
"Mihai Preda"
Apr 2015
3·457 Posts |
Quote:
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. Last fiddled with by preda on 2021-06-14 at 06:10 Reason: spelling |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
"James Heinrich"
May 2004
ex-Northern Ontario
3·5·227 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
If I May
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados
2×5×7×139 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 | |
|
Sep 2009
81E16 Posts |
Quote:
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 |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| What's wrong with PrimeGrid? I keep getting "The connection was reset"... | Stargate38 | Riesel Prime Search | 3 | 2017-08-14 18:14 |
| "factoring" vs "factorizing" | ixfd64 | Factoring | 4 | 2012-10-16 04:07 |
| Official "Benford was wrong!" thread | Mini-Geek | Aliquot Sequences | 15 | 2009-06-18 19:09 |
| P-1 factoring != "Mersenne numbers to factor"? | James Heinrich | Marin's Mersenne-aries | 8 | 2004-05-17 11:09 |
| trial factoring of "small" mersenne numbers | antiroach | Lone Mersenne Hunters | 6 | 2003-07-16 23:35 |