20090116, 04:30  #23 
Oct 2006
On a Suzuki Boulevard C90
F6_{16} Posts 
I know I'm kind of an outsider, but just wanted to say that I like this scoring idea. It's simple to explain and understand, and seems fair.

20090116, 04:48  #24 
I ♥ BOINC!
Oct 2002
Glendale, AZ. (USA)
3·7·53 Posts 
AMDave says he got it, so we'll see how long it takes him to whip it up, once he's finished with the formatting of the progress tables, or before, his choice
Last fiddled with by IronBits on 20090116 at 04:48 
20090116, 14:08  #25 
I quite division it
"Chris"
Feb 2005
England
100000011101_{2} Posts 
Sounds good. And simple enough for even me to understand. lol The only tweak I can think of is to allow for the different size k. i.e. someone testing running on "Team drive #5: k=400600 n=600K1M" will/might be running at a higher FFTlen than someone running on "Team drive #7 k=8001001 n=600K1M". Probably not worth the hassle. 
20090116, 14:35  #26  
Account Deleted
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA
17·251 Posts 
Quote:
I thought about this, but I don't think it would cause a large enough difference to be something we need to worry about. NPLB works in a relatively small k range (depending on your definition of small...I think it is), so it probably won't really have a big effect. (i.e. I agree that it's probably not worth the hassle) For reference, here's the FFT lengths with max n's for the full Drive 57 range (with new values for every k=200 difference, which is one drive's ): Code:
k = 401 n(min) = 600000 n(max) = 1000000 The following FFT lengths would be used: fftlen nmax  40960 658091 49152 782971 57344 910051 65536 1041631 k = 601 n(min) = 600000 n(max) = 1000000 The following FFT lengths would be used: fftlen nmax  40960 646135 49152 768624 57344 893313 65536 1022502 k = 801 n(min) = 600000 n(max) = 1000000 The following FFT lengths would be used: fftlen nmax  40960 637647 49152 758438 57344 881430 65536 1008921 k = 1001 n(min) = 600000 n(max) = 1000000 The following FFT lengths would be used: fftlen nmax  40960 631061 49152 750535 57344 872209 65536 998383 81920 1239732 40K from 600000646135 40K or 48K from 646136658091 48K from 658092768624 48K or 56K from 768625782971 56K from 782972893313 56K or 64K from 893314910051 64K from 9100521000000 Drive 6 will be in: 40K from 600000637647 40K or 48K from 637648646135 48K from 646136758438 48K or 56K from 758439768624 56K from 768625881430 56K or 64K from 881431893313 64K from 8933141000000 Drive 7 will be in: 40K from 600000631061 40K or 48K from 631062637647 48K from 637648750535 48K or 56K from 750536758438 56K from 758439872209 56K or 64K from 872210881430 64K from 881431998383 64K or 80K from 9983841000000 Last fiddled with by MiniGeek on 20090116 at 14:46 

20090116, 23:59  #27 
May 2007
Kansas; USA
2×5×1,009 Posts 
Many months ago, I had thought of the same thing for the top5000 site, which has k's ranging from 1 to some ridiculously high k's. Also, I think they should score far more for nonpowersof2 bases. Alas, the complexity of doing it is why they haven't and why it would be difficult for us to also, even with the easier formulas.
To do it right, we would need to have a database for fftlen's for every k and come up with a "base k" that gives a score of 1 at n=400K. I think it is definitely doable, but let's put it on the backburner for now. As Mini stated, since this project doesn't deal with k's ranging from 1 to 10 gagillion and combines k's over anywhere from a 200k to 1000k range in its drives, the effect on scoring would be minimal. All of that said, this is a very good idea. Personally, I would like for us to be on the 'cutting edge' of these kinds of improvements in scoring. If we can figure out a reasonable way to implement such a thing, perhaps others, including the top5000 site, will use it as as example. In a past life, I created rating systems for board games and sports teams and used such systems for seeding participants in boardgame tournaments. So I'm no stranger to rating and ranking systems for different things. If it's got math in it, I'm there! :) Gary Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 20090117 at 00:06 
20090119, 05:23  #28 
Jan 2006
deep in a whileloop
292_{16} Posts 
Scoring implemented on the stats site, among other things.

20090119, 05:38  #29 
May 2007
Kansas; USA
23552_{8} Posts 
Wow, that was fast! It looks great!
One thing I might suggest: Display both with just 3 decimal places. The results could actually be displayed with no decimals. As long as the internal calculations are carried out to 6 decimals, we're good. If it's a hassle, no big deal. For all the FreeDCers, you can still make it sort on total primes or total results. Gary 
20090119, 05:54  #30 
I ♥ BOINC!
Oct 2002
Glendale, AZ. (USA)
2131_{8} Posts 
:p
I was read this over on SOB http://www.freedc.org/forum/showthr...467#post131467 and found this formula 1ln(50P)/ln(200P) = 0.0348 1ln(100P)/ln(200P) = 0.0174 1ln(150P)/ln(200P) = 0.0072 1ln(400T)/ln(1P) = 0.0265 1ln(500T)/ln(1P) = 0.0201 1ln(400T)/ln(600T) = 0.0119 Thought maybe it was a *scoring* formula ... Last fiddled with by IronBits on 20090119 at 05:55 
20090119, 06:35  #31  
May 2007
Kansas; USA
23552_{8} Posts 
Quote:
No, it's some sort of optimal sieve depth calculation...far more complex stuff than scoring. 

20090119, 09:46  #32  
Jan 2006
deep in a whileloop
2×7×47 Posts 
Quote:
Calculations re happening at 14 decimal places Bok gets a custom extract independent of the reports for the FDC stats. BTW  you can resort any table by clicking on a column heading that is underlined. Click it again and it will sort in the opposite order. Since the scoring formula is pertinent to where these primes are going I think the scoring should be prevalent on the project's reports. But that is just me. As an after thought, I will add the prime score to the 'NPLB Primes List' so that you can see the 'worth' of the prime and we can fire that out with the rest of the details on the mailer (which is now under construction) 

20090119, 11:04  #33  
May 2007
Kansas; USA
2·5·1,009 Posts 
Quote:
Unfortunately I get a little lost in the maze of info. so I'm not quite sure what you mean. Can you point to the report you're referring to and how you think the score should be more prevalent? Gary 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Distribution of Mersenne primes before and after couples of primes found  emily  Math  34  20170716 18:44 
ECPP  Scoring, or other primality tests (PFGW?)  f1pokerspeed  FactorDB  13  20120702 09:04 
Hoot discussion  "Beastly primes".  Arkadiusz  Math  12  20111128 15:52 
Statistics and scoring  kar_bon  No Prime Left Behind  85  20080919 02:02 
possible primes (real primes & poss.prime products)  troels munkner  Miscellaneous Math  4  20060602 08:35 