mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > Factoring

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2018-08-02, 10:08   #1
fivemack
(loop (#_fork))
 
fivemack's Avatar
 
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England

6,323 Posts
Default ecm-toy now called ecm-effort

I've pushed ecm-toy to my GitHub, https://github.com/fivemack/factorisation-tools

Happy to hear feature requests!
fivemack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-08-10, 03:48   #2
WraithX
 
WraithX's Avatar
 
Mar 2006

23×59 Posts
Default

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?
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	plot.png
Views:	76
Size:	44.9 KB
ID:	18908  
WraithX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-08-10, 07:57   #3
fivemack
(loop (#_fork))
 
fivemack's Avatar
 
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England

6,323 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
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Perl Reading of Called Process Output EdH Programming 8 2017-09-12 02:23
Here is a fun little game for Katydids called "Hypergraphia".Children enjoy Kathegetes Miscellaneous Math 35 2014-04-30 21:18
they used to be called programs... chappy Lounge 15 2012-08-11 21:02
Group Effort robert44444uk Sierpinski/Riesel Base 5 15 2005-06-25 14:07
Where is P-1, P+1 effort recorded? geoff Factoring 14 2004-05-13 21:18

All times are UTC. The time now is 22:31.

Thu Nov 26 22:31:17 UTC 2020 up 77 days, 19:42, 4 users, load averages: 1.69, 1.68, 1.64

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.