mersenneforum.org > Data Did the P1 percentage calculation program change recently?
 User Name Remember Me? Password
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2020-09-03, 02:50 #1 petrw1 1976 Toyota Corona years forever!     "Wayne" Nov 2006 Saskatchewan, Canada 498610 Posts Did the P1 percentage calculation program change recently? About a year ago I tried to emulate prob.php with an Excel macro and was able to get to within about 0.04% of prob.php. I rechecked lately and find I am now out by about 0.4% (10 times worse). I did not {intentionally} change my macro. Thanks
2020-09-03, 04:40   #2
preda

"Mihai Preda"
Apr 2015

55F16 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by petrw1 About a year ago I tried to emulate prob.php with an Excel macro
Yes. One implementation of the new calculator is in gpuowl source code https://github.com/preda/gpuowl/tree/master/pm1 in python and C++.

The news is good, the new calculator returns higher percentages :)

2020-09-12, 19:51   #3
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!

"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

10011011110102 Posts
FWIW ... this is still below what I am seeing.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by preda Yes. One implementation of the new calculator is in gpuowl source code https://github.com/preda/gpuowl/tree/master/pm1 in python and C++. The news is good, the new calculator returns higher percentages :)
Over the past 3 years I have been doing extensive P-1 in the 4xM and 5xM ranges where B1=B2. Extensive in this case is over 33,000 tests.

For no other reason than it worked and I like round numbers I mostly used a new B1/B2 of 1,000,000/20,000,000.
The P1 Probability Calculator at mersenne.ca; and what is reported by Prime95 gave me a success rate back then of somewhere close to 4.25%.
Most exponents had existing P1 with B1=B2 such that their expected success rate was about 1.75%
The difference is 2.5%
The new calculator has a success rate of about 4.35% with a difference of 2.6%.

Over my 33,000 tests from the start and consistently continuing to the current date my success rate has been very close to, and often just above 3%.

2020-09-12, 22:03   #4
preda

"Mihai Preda"
Apr 2015

53×11 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by petrw1 Over the past 3 years I have been doing extensive P-1 in the 4xM and 5xM ranges where B1=B2. Extensive in this case is over 33,000 tests. For no other reason than it worked and I like round numbers I mostly used a new B1/B2 of 1,000,000/20,000,000. The P1 Probability Calculator at mersenne.ca; and what is reported by Prime95 gave me a success rate back then of somewhere close to 4.25%. Most exponents had existing P1 with B1=B2 such that their expected success rate was about 1.75% The difference is 2.5% The new calculator has a success rate of about 4.35% with a difference of 2.6%. Over my 33,000 tests from the start and consistently continuing to the current date my success rate has been very close to, and often just above 3%.
You should also mention the factored-to (TF) value you used, as it affects the probabilities.

mprime uses BS (Brent-Suyama extension) (when E>2, usually E==6), which may also bring a slight benefit, but not exactly known how large.

If you have a big set of results, you could analyze them to filter segregate the cases:
- P-1 found a factor missed by TF (i.e. factored-to value was not correct, too large)
- P-1 found a BS factor (i.e. beyond B2)

Last fiddled with by preda on 2020-09-12 at 22:04

2020-09-12, 22:23   #5
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!

"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

137A16 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by preda You should also mention the factored-to (TF) value you used, as it affects the probabilities. mprime uses BS (Brent-Suyama extension) (when E>2, usually E==6), which may also bring a slight benefit, but not exactly known how large. If you have a big set of results, you could analyze them to filter segregate the cases: - P-1 found a factor missed by TF (i.e. factored-to value was not correct, too large) - P-1 found a BS factor (i.e. beyond B2)
I used the current TF value for both the B1=B2 and my current values (for consistency).

BS has found very few for me (I don't have an exact count though)

I like your idea of an analysis/filter; just a bit of work for me.

Thx

2020-09-13, 00:01   #6
storm5510
Random Account

Aug 2009

72×41 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by petrw1 ...For no other reason than it worked and I like round numbers I mostly used a new B1/B2 of 1,000,000/20,000,000. The P1 Probability Calculator at mersenne.ca; and what is reported by Prime95 gave me a success rate back then of somewhere close to 4.25%. Most exponents had existing P1 with B1=B2 such that their expected success rate was about 1.75%...
I use James' calculator to get a general feel for where I should be. I am running B1 at 1,000,000 and B2 at 25,000,000 on wavefront exponents. James' calculator defaults to 3% probability and I leave it there. My lifetime rate at finding factors is 2.3%. So, that is close.

2020-09-13, 00:14   #7
Prime95
P90 years forever!

Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL

17×457 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by petrw1 I used the current TF value for both the B1=B2 and my current values (for consistency). BS has found very few for me (I don't have an exact count though) I like your idea of an analysis/filter; just a bit of work for me. Thx

B-S data from 33,000 tests would be very useful. If you can tell us, for each E value, how many P-1 tests were run and how many factors would have been missed if B-S was not used.

 2020-09-13, 14:57 #8 axn     Jun 2003 34×5×13 Posts Does the p-1 probability calculation account for the fact that k from 2kp+1 is more likely to have smaller factors compared to random number of the same size (because 2kp+1 is prime and does not have small factors)? I had estimated that this is roughly equivalent to a 2-bit reduction in size for k.
2020-09-13, 16:07   #9
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!

"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

2·32·277 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Prime95 B-S data from 33,000 tests would be very useful. If you can tell us, for each E value, how many P-1 tests were run and how many factors would have been missed if B-S was not used.
Can anyone tell me how I would find such data?

 Thread Tools

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Fred PrimeNet 1 2016-02-29 02:19 jschwar313 GPU to 72 3 2016-01-31 16:41 T.Rex mersennewiki 20 2011-04-09 02:23 cheesehead Forum Feedback 1 2008-06-07 08:33 Primeinator Software 4 2005-03-15 05:32

All times are UTC. The time now is 05:22.

Thu Jan 20 05:22:43 UTC 2022 up 180 days, 23:51, 0 users, load averages: 2.33, 2.25, 2.09

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔