![]() |
![]() |
#1 |
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England
145128 Posts |
![]()
The numbers of exponents just listed as available
seem abnormally large - as if they had not removed the ones which have been factored. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Einyen
Dec 2003
Denmark
23·5·7·11 Posts |
![]()
56,915 primes between 42M and 43M. According to ftp://mersenne.org/gimps/factors.zip there are 34,650 known factors between 42M-43M (haven't checked if there are several factors for same exponent), so that leaves 22,265 unknowns.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England
2×3×13×83 Posts |
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Einyen
Dec 2003
Denmark
1100000010002 Posts |
![]()
Its not that far off then, its probably 1522 exponents in factors.zip which has more than 1 factor listed.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England
2×3×13×83 Posts |
![]()
Here are the percentages of Mersennes factored by range:
0-15M: 63.54% 15M-17.5M: 62.59% 17.5M-20M: 62.87% 20M-25M: 63.04% 25M-30M: 62.67% 30M-35M: 62.64% 35M-40M: 62.41% It is hardly over-extrapolating to guess that from 40M-80M the percentage factored before LL testing takes place will be close to 62.5% (5/8). The corresponding % we have got for 42M-43M is 58.2% which is significantly lower than expected. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England
2·3·13·83 Posts |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Sep 2006
Brussels, Belgium
11×151 Posts |
![]()
Do not forget that earlier versions of the program Prime95 factored one bit higher... For the current range of exponents that would be up to 69 bits compared to 68 bits with version 24 of Prime95. That removes 1.5% of the difference.
Jacob |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England
2·3·13·83 Posts |
![]() Quote:
a factor between 2^68 and 2^69 is ~1/68 ~1.5%. But this accounts for 1.5% of the 40% of exponents which have no factor below 2^68, i.e. 0.6% of all the prime exponents. The discrepancy is bigger than this. David |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | |
"Mark"
Feb 2003
Sydney
57310 Posts |
![]() Quote:
It could be (& I really hope so!) that the excess exponents are not actually available for assigning, like the way TF assignments go back into the "available" column when they're completed, because the v4 primenet server couldn't handle the change to factoring cutoffs in prime95 v24.12 very well. Roll on PrimeNet version 5! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England
2·3·13·83 Posts |
![]()
Now that some of these have been allocated for LLtesting ,
can we now identify some of the 1500 which have already been factored? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England
2×3×13×83 Posts |
![]()
70 in the "factored" column for 42.0M-42.1M.
Is this not further evidence that our suspicions are well founded? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Exponents which don't need any more ECM | MatWur-S530113 | PrimeNet | 8 | 2016-10-12 08:00 |
77.9M exponents | GP2 | Data | 9 | 2016-08-21 14:10 |
ECM for exponents above 20,000,000 | TObject | Data | 25 | 2014-05-24 15:45 |
Unreserving exponents(these exponents haven't been done) | jasong | Marin's Mersenne-aries | 7 | 2006-12-22 21:59 |
>10,000,000 exponents | ninjabill | PrimeNet | 5 | 2006-02-07 17:28 |