mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Prime Search Projects > Prime Sierpinski Project

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2005-07-28, 22:28   #1
Citrix
 
Citrix's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

2·787 Posts
Default New Sieve Thread Discussion

Lars,

I was wondering that has anyone found any factors that proth_Sieve previously missed? Could you post them below!


Thanks,
Citrix
Citrix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2005-07-28, 22:40   #2
em99010pepe
 
em99010pepe's Avatar
 
Sep 2004

2·5·283 Posts
Default

Citrix,

Lars told me one week ago (16 Jul) that my ranges found already 19 missed factors where we have no PRP test yet. In Lars ranges he found one. (All missed factor where n>2Mil)

One more thing. I started the 98700-99000 range with the old dat file and found the following factors:

98702674984699 | 90527*2^14752511+1
98705626374527 | 79817*2^3437591+1
98725913745839 | 237019*2^15283258+1
98728617700901 | 258317*2^13774959+1

Then I restarted it with the new dat file and

98701195679903 | 90527*2^22380191+1
98702674984699 | 90527*2^14752511+1
98703968070791 | 79817*2^35840703+1
98705626374527 | 79817*2^3437591+1
98707048330861 | 222361*2^35969432+1
98709139652681 | 214519*2^24565634+1
98710294034071 | 168451*2^47186640+1
98713092107897 | 222361*2^38408320+1
98719327707491 | 90527*2^39919751+1
98720039885147 | 90527*2^30822647+1
98720263609273 | 168451*2^44530128+1
98720326492903 | 90527*2^45747167+1
98723758825841 | 222113*2^30695621+1
98724565964807 | 222113*2^47054597+1
98725913745839 | 237019*2^15283258+1
98726907126721 | 222113*2^35183621+1
98727187829681 | 237019*2^36555406+1
98727258317549 | 222113*2^35498597+1
98728617700901 | 258317*2^13774959+1

Cheers,

Carlos

Last fiddled with by em99010pepe on 2005-07-28 at 22:45
em99010pepe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2005-07-29, 03:43   #3
Citrix
 
Citrix's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

157410 Posts
Default

If in 3T we just found 19 missed factors then I do not think it is worth double checking the dat ranges. May be we should just work on 20-50M and then join the dats around 85T. We are also likely to find duplicate factors for these numbers, so there is no need to find the smallest factor.

If we agree to this it would double are sieving speed.

Citrix
Citrix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2005-07-29, 04:18   #4
hhh
 
hhh's Avatar
 
Jun 2005

22×3×31 Posts
Default

We had about the same discussion at SoB, and we agreed not to give up doublecheck.
Did you think about the amount of time needed to run PRP for 20 numbers? It takes quite a while, I think more then the time spent for re sieve. IMHO, we should do this well, once for all, and not running the risk to regret something later. We will have sieved 4 G in the first month, so, if SoB finishes Firstpass sieving in 8 months, we will be at 40G, at that time. Thats fine, because it is about the level at which PSPsieve alone and SoB+PSP sieve at 60G will be the same efficient (for factor throughput). So, there is no hurry. The extend of the sieving range is something for the far future, anyway. No need to bother with short term speed increases.
For the later ranges which will be done with SoB, I doubt if there is a necessity to do DC, because the SoB DC can show if there are missed factors (and eventual problems with hardware or submission).
Yours H.
hhh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2005-07-29, 06:13   #5
em99010pepe
 
em99010pepe's Avatar
 
Sep 2004

2·5·283 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citrix
If in 3T we just found 19 missed factors then I do not think it is worth double checking the dat ranges. May be we should just work on 20-50M and then join the dats around 85T. We are also likely to find duplicate factors for these numbers, so there is no need to find the smallest factor.

If we agree to this it would double are sieving speed.

Citrix
Correction. In 1T we found 19 missed factors.

Carlos
em99010pepe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2005-07-29, 08:03   #6
shoelace
 

3·1,571 Posts
Default

3100-3300 reserved by shoelace

do you have a prefered range size or range completetion time?

Last fiddled with by shoelace on 2005-07-29 at 08:04
  Reply With Quote
Old 2005-07-29, 15:08   #7
VJS
 
VJS's Avatar
 
Dec 2004

13·23 Posts
Default

Didn't ready through everything but...

- finding 19 factors in 1T doublecheck
- Speed decrease by using 1k<n<50M compared to 20M<n<50M (33%??)

Basically those 19 factors per T = 57 factors per T (time wise)

That's pretty dense. Especially considering your planning on finding primes for 15k's.

Also the chances of finding the second smallest factor when you missed the first one is not great. I think we only found about 3 or 4 of these with SoB.
VJS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2005-07-29, 16:02   #8
ltd
 
ltd's Avatar
 
Apr 2003

22×193 Posts
Default

Newest numbers:

Within the first 2.5 T we have found 33 lost factors.
All these factors are above n=2Mil.
But that was to be expected as we have already increased the sieving range from 2Mil to 20Mil and had a second pass for all values below 2Mil for the first 5-10T already.


Lars
ltd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2005-07-29, 16:09   #9
ltd
 
ltd's Avatar
 
Apr 2003

22×193 Posts
Default

@shoelace:

I have no prefered range size. I am happy about each calculated result that i will not restrict the range reservation.

For the completion time i like to see results latest after a month. If you want to reserve a range that needs longer then a month either send in intermediate results or send me a note that the range will take longer.

Lars
ltd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2005-07-29, 17:06   #10
OmbooHankvald
 
OmbooHankvald's Avatar
 
May 2005
Copenhagen, Denmark

172 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VJS
...considering your planning on finding primes for 15k's.
I haven't heard about this. Are you merging with 15k too?
OmbooHankvald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2005-07-29, 19:45   #11
Citrix
 
Citrix's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

30468 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ltd
Newest numbers:

Within the first 2.5 T we have found 33 lost factors.
All these factors are above n=2Mil.
But that was to be expected as we have already increased the sieving range from 2Mil to 20Mil and had a second pass for all values below 2Mil for the first 5-10T already.


Lars
I suggest that it is not worth to continue with 0-20M dat because as the density of factors decreases with increase in P, so will the density of missed factors decrease. We should get match up with SOBsieve as soon as possible so few resources are wasted.

Citrix
Citrix is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
P-1 discussion thread Rincewind Five or Bust - The Dual Sierpinski Problem 57 2011-02-06 21:53
PRP discussion thread philmoore Five or Bust - The Dual Sierpinski Problem 83 2010-09-25 10:20
Sieve Discussion em99010pepe Prime Cullen Prime 61 2007-06-07 22:23
Combined Sieve Guide Discussion Joe O Prime Sierpinski Project 35 2006-09-01 13:44
Sieve discussion Meaning of first/second pass, combined Citrix Prime Sierpinski Project 14 2005-12-31 19:39

All times are UTC. The time now is 11:55.

Tue Oct 20 11:55:32 UTC 2020 up 40 days, 9:06, 0 users, load averages: 2.56, 2.58, 2.45

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.