mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > Factoring

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2005-08-01, 11:39   #1
garo
 
garo's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Termonfeckin, IE

22×691 Posts
Default 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 (1-1/e) chance of missing a factor at that level.
garo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2005-08-01, 12:11   #2
akruppa
 
akruppa's Avatar
 
"Nancy"
Aug 2002
Alexandria

2,467 Posts
Default

Looks very good (and like a lot of work!) to me.

Alex
akruppa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2005-08-01, 13:44   #3
Mystwalker
 
Mystwalker's Avatar
 
Jul 2004
Potsdam, Germany

83110 Posts
Default

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...
Mystwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2005-08-01, 15:03   #4
garo
 
garo's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Termonfeckin, IE

ACC16 Posts
Default

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.
garo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2005-08-01, 15:49   #5
wblipp
 
wblipp's Avatar
 
"William"
May 2003
New Haven

3·787 Posts
Default

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 (1-1/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
wblipp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2005-08-01, 16:43   #6
garo
 
garo's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Termonfeckin, IE

1010110011002 Posts
Default

@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 book-keeping 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 2005-08-01 at 16:57
garo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2005-08-01, 20:17   #7
Mystwalker
 
Mystwalker's Avatar
 
Jul 2004
Potsdam, Germany

3×277 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by garo
I thought about dropping the counts entirely, but that would have meant a loss of information.
I also just thought about that - I think dropping the curve count is no problem, as long as you just keep it somewhere else (maybe even in a public place).
I see a slight problem with the curve count anyway: Some people use non-standard 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 2005-08-01 at 20:18
Mystwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2005-08-01, 22:33   #8
garo
 
garo's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Termonfeckin, IE

22·691 Posts
Default

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!
garo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2005-08-02, 09:06   #9
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"π’‰Ίπ’ŒŒπ’‡·π’†·π’€­"
May 2003
Down not across

2×72×109 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by garo
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!
I am not a newbie!

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
xilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2005-08-02, 16:52   #10
garo
 
garo's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Termonfeckin, IE

276410 Posts
Default

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.
garo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Extensions to Cunningham tables Raman Cunningham Tables 87 2012-11-14 11:24
Extended Cunningham tables Zeta-Flux Factoring 2 2008-03-03 18:34
Cunningham Tables @mersenneforum.org v2.0 garo Cunningham Tables 3 2006-07-04 08:00
New ECM Effort Tables for Cunningham Composites Ready garo Factoring 12 2005-09-06 07:53
A question about Cunningham tables T.Rex Factoring 14 2005-05-27 00:27

All times are UTC. The time now is 09:02.

Mon May 10 09:02:15 UTC 2021 up 32 days, 3:43, 0 users, load averages: 2.68, 2.09, 1.96

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.