mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Data

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2021-09-29, 17:37   #771
chalsall
If I May
 
chalsall's Avatar
 
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados

1004810 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by De Wandelaar View Post
I'll take 34.4.
"Released" for you to work. Good luck!
chalsall is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-09-29, 17:40   #772
De Wandelaar
 
De Wandelaar's Avatar
 
"Yves"
Jul 2017
Belgium

2·3·13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chalsall View Post
"Released" for you to work. Good luck!
Thank you, Chris !!
Yves
De Wandelaar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-09-30, 08:35   #773
kruoli
 
kruoli's Avatar
 
"Oliver"
Sep 2017
Porta Westfalica, DE

28·3 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by petrw1 View Post
According to the math page TF should produce factors at the rate of about 1/X.
So for TF75 that would be 1/75 or about 26 factors.
However, I have found that, on average, with these ranges that have lots of P1 done the rate is closer to 1/100.
Maybe I should rephrase my question, since it was about P-1 and not TF (have I signed up for TF? ). In your listing, you wrote "don't pick B1/B2 with over 3-4% success rate". Do you mean I shall pick them such that the factor probability is 3-4% when ignoring previous factor work (what I would have called "gross", which would be extremely close to the original P-1 work, so basically less than 1 factor per 100 runs "in the real world") or do you mean that I shall use bounds that take previous work (TF and P-1) into consideration and will have 3-4% "real world" success probability (what is roughly what I was targeting)?

For 26.3M, I guess you'll have to strike me out because Chris is finishing it up.

@Chris: Thanks for releasing the other two ranges for me.
kruoli is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-09-30, 17:25   #774
masser
 
masser's Avatar
 
Jul 2003
Behind BB

176810 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kruoli View Post
Do you mean I shall pick them such that the factor probability is 3-4% when ignoring previous factor work (what I would have called "gross", which would be extremely close to the original P-1 work, so basically less than 1 factor per 100 runs "in the real world") or do you mean that I shall use bounds that take previous work (TF and P-1) into consideration and will have 3-4% "real world" success probability (what is roughly what I was targeting)?
I'm fairly certain that he meant 3-4% "real world" success probability.

The formula I use is: Actual Probability = (Pr(new)-Pr(old)) / (1-Pr(old))
masser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-09-30, 19:24   #775
chalsall
If I May
 
chalsall's Avatar
 
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados

100111010000002 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by masser View Post
The formula I use is: Actual Probability = (Pr(new)-Pr(old)) / (1-Pr(old))
Please forgive me for revealing my massive lack of knowledge...

I have found that the probabilities given by way of James' specialized Worktodo generator give quite different probabilities, compared to mprime during runtime calculations, compared to James' deep drill-down iif a factor is found.

I'm mostly just wondering if anyone else sees this, or if I'm not understanding things deeply enough (very high probability of the latter).

P.S. BTW, we seriously overshot 13.7M. Sorry about that. P-1 was more successful than expected.
chalsall is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-09-30, 19:49   #776
masser
 
masser's Avatar
 
Jul 2003
Behind BB

23·13·17 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chalsall View Post
Please forgive me for revealing my massive lack of knowledge...

I have found that the probabilities given by way of James' specialized Worktodo generator give quite different probabilities, compared to mprime during runtime calculations, compared to James' deep drill-down iif a factor is found.

I'm mostly just wondering if anyone else sees this, or if I'm not understanding things deeply enough (very high probability of the latter).

P.S. BTW, we seriously overshot 13.7M. Sorry about that. P-1 was more successful than expected.
I have noticed the discrepancies between the various probabilities reported. A few hunches/observations:
1. mprime is most correct; its calculator is getting attention with recent updates to the P-1/ECM/P+1 algorithms and comparisons to gpuOwl.
2. James' exponent pages (the deep drill downs) report values fairly close to the mprime probabilities
3. Something weird happens with the "worst bounds" page. It's not quite as dynamic as we might like; exponents can only be removed (when someone does an improved P-1). Perhaps it should be possible for exponents to join the list when the P-1 bounds become "small" relative to the amount of TF that's been done.
masser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-01, 00:40   #777
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
 
petrw1's Avatar
 
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

23·607 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by masser View Post
I'm fairly certain that he meant 3-4% "real world" success probability.

The formula I use is: Actual Probability = (Pr(new)-Pr(old)) / (1-Pr(old))
No, correct my if I'm wrong. I don't have a PhD in Math or anything for that matter.
All I use is: Actual Probability = Pr(new)-Pr(old).

If the prior P1 had a 2% prob and the new P1 has a 5% prob then isn't the new P1 actaully expected to have a net 3% success rate??
petrw1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-01, 00:45   #778
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
 
petrw1's Avatar
 
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

23·607 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chalsall View Post
Please forgive me for revealing my massive lack of knowledge...

I have found that the probabilities given by way of James' specialized Worktodo generator give quite different probabilities, compared to mprime during runtime calculations, compared to James' deep drill-down iif a factor is found.

I'm mostly just wondering if anyone else sees this, or if I'm not understanding things deeply enough (very high probability of the latter).
I have done close to 54,000 P1 for this project ... I think that is a statistically significant sample size?
As in my formula above: Actual Probability = Pr(new)-Pr(old).
My overall average success rate is about 0.25% higher than this.
Though it does seem to be a little closer with the new version of P1 (which I assume includes new estimations).
Of course I have really bad ranges and also really good ones (like your 13.7)....but overall....
petrw1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-01, 00:51   #779
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
 
petrw1's Avatar
 
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

10010111110002 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kruoli View Post
Maybe I should rephrase my question, since it was about P-1 and not TF (have I signed up for TF? ). In your listing, you wrote "don't pick B1/B2 with over 3-4% success rate". Do you mean I shall pick them such that the factor probability is 3-4% when ignoring previous factor work (what I would have called "gross", which would be extremely close to the original P-1 work, so basically less than 1 factor per 100 runs "in the real world") or do you mean that I shall use bounds that take previous work (TF and P-1) into consideration and will have 3-4% "real world" success probability (what is roughly what I was targeting)?

For 26.3M, I guess you'll have to strike me out because Chris is finishing it up.

@Chris: Thanks for releasing the other two ranges for me.
Yes, I have you with 27.3 and 28.1
See my formula in response to masser's response above.
I'm waiting for him to tell my if I'm mathematically confused. :(
petrw1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-01, 00:59   #780
masser
 
masser's Avatar
 
Jul 2003
Behind BB

23·13·17 Posts
Default

RDS once reminded me about conditional probabilities.

When P1 is relatively small, P2-P1 is a good enough approximation.
masser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-01, 01:06   #781
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
 
petrw1's Avatar
 
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

23×607 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by masser View Post
RDS once reminded me about conditional probabilities.

When P1 is relatively small, P2-P1 is a good enough approximation.
So he is talking about ECM ... does that make a difference?
petrw1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thinking of Joining GPU to 72 jschwar313 GPU to 72 3 2016-01-31 00:50
Thinking about lasieve5 Batalov Factoring 6 2011-12-27 22:40
Thinking about buying a panda jasong jasong 1 2008-11-11 09:43
Loud thinking on irregular primes devarajkandadai Math 4 2007-07-25 03:01
Question on unfactored numbers... WraithX GMP-ECM 1 2006-03-19 22:16

All times are UTC. The time now is 21:45.


Sun Dec 5 21:45:59 UTC 2021 up 135 days, 16:14, 0 users, load averages: 1.38, 1.43, 1.41

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.