20050801, 11:39  #1 
Aug 2002
Termonfeckin, IE
2^{2}·691 Posts 
New Cunningham Tables are ready. Please see sample and comment
Ihave posted the 12+ table here: http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=47884
Please let me know if the format is okay and if you have any questions. I will post the rest up later today. The number in brackets after each digit level given the proportion of curves that have been completed to those required to have a (11/e) chance of missing a factor at that level. 
20050801, 12:11  #2 
"Nancy"
Aug 2002
Alexandria
2,467 Posts 
Looks very good (and like a lot of work!) to me.
Alex 
20050801, 13:44  #3 
Jul 2004
Potsdam, Germany
3·277 Posts 
I like it.
One thing I think of: Maybe changing "11M(45)" to "11M / 45 digits" or something like that reduces the risk that someone new tries to link the 45 to the "optimal work done" count, as both are inside paranthesis... 
20050801, 15:03  #4 
Aug 2002
Termonfeckin, IE
2^{2}×691 Posts 
Yes Alex it was a lot of work :) But rogue helped me a lot by sending his tables.
@Mystwalker done. Some other notes/thoughts are being posted on the "Introduction" thread. 
20050801, 15:49  #5 
"William"
May 2003
New Haven
3^{2}×263 Posts 
1. I'd drop the counts entirely, keeping only the percentages in the tables.
2. This phrase is correct, but unintuitive for most people: "proportion of curves that have been completed to those required to have a (11/e) chance of missing a factor at that level." The following phrase is also correct, and I think more intuitive: "average number of times a factor at that level would have been found." It could optionally be followed by: "If a factor would have been found, on average, "x" times, the probability it would have been entirely missed is e^{x}." or perhaps: "If a factor would have been found, on average, "x" times, Poisson estimates the probability it would have been entirely missed is e^{x}. We consider a level "complete" when x=1." William 
20050801, 16:43  #6 
Aug 2002
Termonfeckin, IE
2^{2}×691 Posts 
@wblipp:
I thought about dropping the counts entirely, but that would have meant a loss of information. If I had dropped counts entirely in v1.0 for instance, I would have had a major problem doing the translation from ECM5 to ECM6 curves. More information is better and in my opinion leaving the curve counts in makes the tables more intuitive and makes bookkeeping a whole lot easier. For your second suggestion, I agree that the wording in my initial post of this thread is confusing. But please look at explanation I posted here http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=4440 and let me know if it is okay. @ALL: The complete tables are now up. Last fiddled with by garo on 20050801 at 16:57 
20050801, 20:17  #7  
Jul 2004
Potsdam, Germany
1100111111_{2} Posts 
Quote:
I see a slight problem with the curve count anyway: Some people use nonstandard B2 bounds, which affect higher/lower digit ranges. But my guess is that the calculations are not that much off... Last fiddled with by Mystwalker on 20050801 at 20:18 

20050801, 22:33  #8 
Aug 2002
Termonfeckin, IE
2^{2}×691 Posts 
The counts are not 100% accurate as it is. I had to make several conversions from ECM5 to ECM6 curves. usually, we ask people to report the B2 they used and akruppa obliges with the conversion factor
I would also like to hear from some newbies like OmbooHankvald on whether they prefer to have the curve counts up or not. It makes very little difference for me as I just need to remove a few variables from a print statement! 
20050802, 09:06  #9  
Bamboozled!
"πΊππ·π·π"
May 2003
Down not across
10101001101101_{2} Posts 
Quote:
However, I'd like to express my opinion, which seems to be in line with Mystwalker's, that the curve counts should be kept around. I'll go further  they should be kept around in an easily findable place. Paul 

20050802, 16:52  #10 
Aug 2002
Termonfeckin, IE
101011001100_{2} Posts 
Well there is always the option of posting two separate tables, one with the counts and the other with proportion done. I had thought about that as well. It's just that many tables run into 3 or 4 posts due to the 10k char limit and cutting and pasting is very tedious. Another option is for me to mail them to xilman and he can host them on his page and we can put a link to it. Alternatively, I can host them on my page as well.

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Extensions to Cunningham tables  Raman  Cunningham Tables  87  20121114 11:24 
Extended Cunningham tables  ZetaFlux  Factoring  2  20080303 18:34 
Cunningham Tables @mersenneforum.org v2.0  garo  Cunningham Tables  3  20060704 08:00 
New ECM Effort Tables for Cunningham Composites Ready  garo  Factoring  12  20050906 07:53 
A question about Cunningham tables  T.Rex  Factoring  14  20050527 00:27 