20150124, 16:44  #243 
"Kieren"
Jul 2011
In My Own Galaxy!
10011110101001_{2} Posts 
Up to 4, well, 5. Another showed up while I was writing this.
M79359781 has a factor: 86018707765317281777 [TF:66:67*:mfaktc 0.20 barrett76_mul32_gs] M79329049 has a factor: 436594536103628352239 [TF:68:69*:mfaktc 0.20 barrett76_mul32_gs]248 to go. Last fiddled with by kladner on 20150124 at 16:46 
20150124, 18:00  #244  
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada
13×349 Posts 
Quote:
Code:
Manual testing 77719069 F 20150124 14:27 0.0 1043300478855676685249 1.2640 Manual testing 77711563 F 20150124 14:27 0.0 819036389770912845839 0.7270 Manual testing 77705449 F 20150124 14:27 0.0 290868301272790451633 0.3766 Manual testing 77677547 F 20150124 10:26 0.0 832564635208119196727 0.7637 Manual testing 77619533 F 20150124 10:26 0.0 1027401748819195733953 1.2315 Manual testing 77551121 F 20150124 06:27 0.0 346663356744036424591 0.1789 

20150124, 18:56  #245 
Feb 2003
256_{8} Posts 
78M79M range finished with 14 factors found.
Code:
M78029863 has a factor: 364794058631260354823 [TF:68:69*:mfakto 0.14 cl_barrett15_69_gs_2] M78223967 has a factor: 588248925786788681369 [TF:68:69*:mfakto 0.14 cl_barrett15_69_gs_2] M78384349 has a factor: 31605067156927414583 [TF:64:65*:mfakto 0.14 cl_barrett15_69_gs_2] M78513509 has a factor: 163643721462565212863 [TF:67:68*:mfakto 0.14 cl_barrett15_69_gs_2] M78520903 has a factor: 430500336104244139121 [TF:68:69*:mfakto 0.14 cl_barrett15_69_gs_2] M78568093 has a factor: 204664989572145544961 [TF:67:68*:mfakto 0.14 cl_barrett15_69_gs_2] M78582437 has a factor: 483475972781848663457 [TF:68:69*:mfakto 0.14 cl_barrett15_69_gs_2] M78605207 has a factor: 566674712226093318121 [TF:68:69*:mfakto 0.14 cl_barrett15_69_gs_2] M78692491 has a factor: 179185150747444736353 [TF:67:68*:mfakto 0.14 cl_barrett15_69_gs_2] M78834727 has a factor: 1031162941046042297137 [TF:69:70*:mfakto 0.14 cl_barrett15_71_gs_2] M78838867 has a factor: 239647633094808289367 [TF:67:68*:mfakto 0.14 cl_barrett15_69_gs_2] M78843763 has a factor: 273559567441605180793 [TF:67:68*:mfakto 0.14 cl_barrett15_69_gs_2] M78877333 has a factor: 104244699915142927367 [TF:66:67*:mfakto 0.14 cl_barrett15_69_gs_2] M78932629 has a factor: 537007051232466434927 [TF:68:69*:mfakto 0.14 cl_barrett15_69_gs_2] No exponents were already cleared by larger factors. 
20150124, 20:30  #246 
Apr 2014
2^{7} Posts 
Has anyone checked exponents of users other than sannerud.com that TJAOI found missed factors for? Is there a way that we can get to the root of the problem of missed factors? Do any of these numbers have anything in common? (factoring class and other things I don't really know about?)
Is there a systematic reason why these factors have been missed? It is distressing to think that a large number of factors could have been missed during initial sieving at very low bit levels. 
20150124, 22:13  #247  
Feb 2010
Sweden
173 Posts 
Quote:
We see, that KYOJI_KAMEI, deserves fair amount of doublecheck. So I do that for half a week by now (more than a thousand of records). I have a spider which fetched the work in the 58M59M range, and I am doublechecking his results, so far they are without any missed factor. Of course anyone interested is welcome to join, but usually no one has interest until the first missed factor is found. Everyone is so obsessed about profit, because the GHzDay credit is directly turnable in gold and factors found are Nobelprize achievement, so very few people want to spend power on doublechecks. You are asking because you want to join the doublecheck or to see how the slaves are doing? 

20150124, 22:39  #248  
May 2013
East. Always East.
11·157 Posts 
Quote:
For example, for 53433521 the factor found is ~2^{60.13} but KYOJI_KAMEI did 2^{64} to 2^{65}. Looking at a couple of others I see that this user has in fact missed a couple, but we haven't really determined the value of redoing the TF work yet. The value is AT BEST the same as doing TF that has never been done before. Every nonmissed factor decreases the value. For example, if I am expected to have missed 50% of all factors, then redoing all my work will yield 50% of the normal amount of factors and therefore save 50% the amount of LL tests. For Sannerud.com's laptop, his success rate was roughly 1 in 1,000 whereas it was expected to be along the lines of 1 in 70. This means he missed roughly 13 out of 14 factors which meant his work was redone at ~93% value. However, for someone who missed only, say, 5% of factors, then it very rapidly becomes a suboptimal use of resources to redo the TF. If the miss rate is 50%, TF anything that is one bitlevel below the optimal (for example, if the candidate ought to be TF'ed to 73, only redo anything up to 72). The miss rate is 25%. make that two bit levels. If the miss rate is 12.5%, make that three bit levels. It becomes more complicated when we consider the option of doing P1 instead of TF if there is a suspected missed factor. 

20150124, 23:15  #249  
Feb 2010
Sweden
173 Posts 
58145281 : Factor of 64.790 bits, missed by KYOJI_KAMEI
58273277 : Factor of 64.442 bits, missed by KYOJI_KAMEI 58294177 : Factor of 66.327 bits, missed by KYOJI_KAMEI 58577543 : Factor of 65.286 bits, missed by KYOJI_KAMEI 58720187 : Factor of 65.989 bits, missed by KYOJI_KAMEI I do not see your point with 53433521, why putting attention to something which is irrelevant. I agree that there his name is not at the missed factor (did I say that he is the only reason for missed factors?), but please do not say that 58M range looks fine to you. The value is the value of profit you see... unfortunately. The value of cleaning the misses (at least in DC and LL range) is immense. Not to mention that accuracy in "no factor below" statements should matter something in this project ... or is just a bullshit. Rechecking one or two users does not use too much resources (not to mention that part of the same resources would be spend to TF75 and DC/LL some of those expos for no reason). And yes... if George points to which machine of KYOJI_KAMEI's missed the factors and compiles a list similar to that of Sannerud.com's, it will help to reduce the work, hopefully to a hundred GHzDays. Quote:
I actually expect answers to some of these questions. Last fiddled with by bloodIce on 20150124 at 23:27 

20150124, 23:17  #250  
"Kieren"
Jul 2011
In My Own Galaxy!
11×13×71 Posts 
Five more. 200 to go.
Total, so far: Quote:


20150124, 23:32  #251 
"/X\(‘‘)/X\"
Jan 2013
5561_{8} Posts 
I've got 200 to go, all work between 68 and 71. They'll be done by morning and I'll report then.
Last fiddled with by Mark Rose on 20150124 at 23:35 
20150125, 02:31  #252  
May 2013
East. Always East.
11·157 Posts 
Quote:
The smart question is: "How much TF do we do?" but that is easy to answer. Using easy numbers as an example: If it takes 100 GHzDays to do an LL test, finding a factor will save 200 GHzDays. If we have a 1 in 100 chance of finding a factor, then it is reasonable for us to invest 2 GHzDays into that TF because on average, after 100 candidates, we will have eliminated 200 GHzDays worth of LL and it cost us 200 GHzDays of TF. Now, why do we redo the TF? Well, the goal of this project is to find the next Mersenne Prime, and redoing the Trial Factoring eliminates potential candidates. The smart question is: "How much TF do we do?" but that is not so easy to answer. It still takes 100 GHzDays to do the LL test and finding the factor still saves 200 GHzDays, but what is the chance of finding a factor now? This is hard to tell. If it WAS 1 in 100 with a "fresh" run, it has to be less than 1 in 100 now. For example, if I attempted 10,000 TF runs and found 75 factors (as opposed to the expected 100) then it is reasonable to suggest that I might have missed 25. If you're going to repeat my work, suddenly your odds of finding a factor are 1 in 400. Which means that it is now only reasonable for you to invest 0.5 GHzDays into that TF, because on average, after 400 candidates, we will have eliminated 200 GHzDays worth of LL at a cost of 200 GHzDays of TF. You're confusing what I called the "Work Value" with "Results Value". The Results are just as valuable as they have ever been (2 saved LL's is 2 saved LL's) but the "Work Value" is less because it has a lesser chance of success. It's analogous to me saying that the results are more expensive to get. 

20150125, 04:52  #253 
Romulan Interpreter
Jun 2011
Thailand
3^{4}·113 Posts 
You start repeating yourself. This is troublesome for two reasons, first of all it might be from the age, and second, I thought that such privilege on this forum is only reserved for myself
We generally agree here, but don't make the same confusion as other people/projects (including gpu72 in the beginning) did, of counting efficiency in GHzDays. Different hardware have different efficiency for different type of assignments, like in the puzzle with the hen and half making an egg and half in a day and a half... but even that problem will ask you how many eggs 9 hens make in 9 days, and not in 9 GHzDays... We also understand your calculus about reducing the chances when you recheck the range, which is right. If one wants to help the project most, altruistically, then he has to think how many exponents he can clear in some time unit, day, hour, week, month. This depends on his hardware. If you can factor 70 or more numbers to 70 bits in the same time you would need to LL a single one, then you re better doing TF. Otherwise, better do LL. Generally you are better doing LL with a CPU, and you are better doing TF with an AMD card, regardless of the bitlevels (in reasonable ranges) and exponents. With a nVidia card, you may go one way or the other, depending on the card, the range and the bitlevel. A Titan, for example, can clear a DC by doing LLDC, in about 10 hours. In the same time, if the card does TF, it would succeed in taking about 80 (DCRange) exponents to 71 bits, but it would only take 40 to 72 bits. The last one is too less, because the chances to find a factor, therefore clear an exponent, is below 0.5. Even the 71 bits, this is at the limit and only make chance for expos which had no P1 done, for which the chance to find a factor is about 1 in 70. If P1 was done in the range, the chances to find a factor from 70 to 71 bits is about 1 in 90, and TF to 71 does not make sense. You still can do it if you consider yourself lucky, and/or if you believe that finding a factor is nicer and cooler than finding a LL residue which is not nul. If you have a titan and want to find a prime, then better do LLDC with it, than factoring DC exponents to 71. This was an example, and I didn't write the exponent range deliberately. Last fiddled with by LaurV on 20150125 at 05:03 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Old User  Unregistered  Information & Answers  1  20121018 23:31 
The user CP has gone :(  retina  Forum Feedback  5  20061205 16:47 
Changing My User ID  endless mike  NFSNET Discussion  1  20041031 19:38 
OSX yet? new user here  KevinLee  Hardware  6  20031212 17:06 
help for a Mac user  drakkar67  Software  3  20030211 10:55 