mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Data

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2021-12-16, 17:28   #23
James Heinrich
 
James Heinrich's Avatar
 
"James Heinrich"
May 2004
ex-Northern Ontario

3,733 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prime95 View Post
Can the P-1 probability calculator be changed to allow more than 95 bits of TF?
Or even better, estimate the proper TF value given the amount of ECM that's been done?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kruoli View Post
Take the estimated T-Level that is already on your site, then calculate T-level/log10(2). This is your value.
The calculator will now accept either TF bitlevel or ECM T-Level as input. If the latter it will be converted to equivalent TF bitlevel.

Last fiddled with by James Heinrich on 2021-12-16 at 17:30
James Heinrich is offline  
Old 2021-12-16, 18:17   #24
lisanderke
 
"Lisander Viaene"
Oct 2020
Belgium

6D16 Posts
Default

https://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/5003
https://www.mersenne.ca/prob.php?exponent=5003&ecmtlevel=33.639&b1=5000000000&b2=4.4190835712423E%2B15
Do these values make sense? This is an example of stage 2 completed on 30.8b5
lisanderke is offline  
Old 2021-12-16, 18:44   #25
firejuggler
 
firejuggler's Avatar
 
"Vincent"
Apr 2010
Over the rainbow

5×569 Posts
Default

What do you consider a low exponent?
Because today, I found a rather big one.
M8538269 has a 129.728-bit (40-digit) factor: 1127043861162808113814773315610463390639 (P-1,B1=1000000,B2=330325710)
firejuggler is offline  
Old 2021-12-16, 18:50   #26
lisanderke
 
"Lisander Viaene"
Oct 2020
Belgium

109 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by firejuggler View Post
What do you consider a low exponent?
Because today, I found a rather big one.
M8538269 has a 129.728-bit (40-digit) factor: 1127043861162808113814773315610463390639 (P-1,B1=1000000,B2=330325710)
Congratulations! Anything below Co-factor PRP FTC-wavefront is a low exponent to me
lisanderke is offline  
Old 2021-12-16, 18:53   #27
Prime95
P90 years forever!
 
Prime95's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL

789710 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lisanderke View Post
Now what amazes me the most is that for some reason, assignments of the second kind got MORE credit given.
Coincidence. The explanation is the larger exponents used a larger FFT length and thus deserved more credit.

Here's some good news. You can check if your save files are good. Create a worktodo.txt entry with a slightly larger B1 and no known factors. Let 30.7b9 run that and see if it finds some or all of the known factors. I think you'll find you're in good shape.

Example: Pminus1=N/A,1,2,5003,-1,200000999,200000999
Prime95 is offline  
Old 2021-12-16, 18:55   #28
Prime95
P90 years forever!
 
Prime95's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL

11110110110012 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by firejuggler View Post
What do you consider a low exponent?
Because today, I found a rather big one.
I think of low as sub-100K. Maybe sub-1M.

Nice find, BTW! I'm a little jealous.
Prime95 is offline  
Old 2021-12-16, 18:59   #29
charybdis
 
charybdis's Avatar
 
Apr 2020

23×3×31 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lisanderke View Post
Note that many if not all exponents in this range have likely had far more ECM than has been reported. For example, this number has a known 44-digit factor found by ECM, and it's very unlikely that the reported t33.6 would have found this. See M5333 for a more extreme example.

Looking at the sizes of the known factors, I'd say all exponents up to ~7500 have probably had at least a t45 (maybe even t50) from Ryan Propper. Ryan doesn't seem to have done any work from 7700-10000 so if I were you I'd focus your efforts there.

Last fiddled with by charybdis on 2021-12-16 at 19:02
charybdis is offline  
Old 2021-12-16, 19:03   #30
lisanderke
 
"Lisander Viaene"
Oct 2020
Belgium

6D16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prime95 View Post
Coincidence. The explanation is the larger exponents used a larger FFT length and thus deserved more credit.

Here's some good news. You can check if your save files are good. Create a worktodo.txt entry with a slightly larger B1 and no known factors. Let 30.7b9 run that and see if it finds some or all of the known factors. I think you'll find you're in good shape.

Example: Pminus1=N/A,1,2,5003,-1,200000999,200000999
Aha, that explanation is a relief.


I used the following worktodo entry as suggested: Pminus1=N/A,1,2,5903,-1,200000999,200000999
Copied save file for 5903 from 30.8b5 to 30.7b9. And Prime95 turned it into a 'bad' save file.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot 2021-12-16 200042.png
Views:	30
Size:	9.0 KB
ID:	26241  

Last fiddled with by lisanderke on 2021-12-16 at 19:07
lisanderke is offline  
Old 2021-12-16, 19:11   #31
lisanderke
 
"Lisander Viaene"
Oct 2020
Belgium

109 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by charybdis View Post
Note that many if not all exponents in this range have likely had far more ECM than has been reported. For example, this number has a known 44-digit factor found by ECM, and it's very unlikely that the reported t33.6 would have found this. See M5333 for a more extreme example.

Looking at the sizes of the known factors, I'd say all exponents up to ~7500 have probably had at least a t45 (maybe even t50) from Ryan Propper. Ryan doesn't seem to have done any work from 7700-10000 so if I were you I'd focus your efforts there.

Thank you for the insights! Before I move on from the 5k range, though, let me try wrap my head around this:
Let's assume B1=4e12 (as suggested by Zhangrc, no clue what the runtime for B1 would be) and B2=800K times 4e12, and T-level = 50, we have this calculation https://www.mersenne.ca/prob.php?exp...0&b2=3.2E%2B18
That seems a lot of effort for a very low chance of finding a factor.

Last fiddled with by lisanderke on 2021-12-16 at 19:11
lisanderke is offline  
Old 2021-12-16, 19:34   #32
charybdis
 
charybdis's Avatar
 
Apr 2020

23×3×31 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lisanderke View Post
Thank you for the insights! Before I move on from the 5k range, though, let me try wrap my head around this:
Let's assume B1=4e12 (as suggested by Zhangrc, no clue what the runtime for B1 would be) and B2=800K times 4e12, and T-level = 50, we have this calculation https://www.mersenne.ca/prob.php?exp...0&b2=3.2E%2B18
That seems a lot of effort for a very low chance of finding a factor.
Indeed it is. When this much ECM has already been run, it is more efficient to run further ECM rather than P-1 if your aim is solely to find factors. Of course you can only find a record P-1 factor by running P-1 but I'd still advise you to focus on ranges that Ryan hasn't targeted or you may not find factors at all.
charybdis is offline  
Old 2021-12-16, 19:38   #33
charybdis
 
charybdis's Avatar
 
Apr 2020

23·3·31 Posts
Default

M5231 is a good example of a potential huge P-1 factor having already been found by Ryan using ECM.
charybdis is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sieving freakishly big MMs (was "World record" phone number?) davieddy Operazione Doppi Mersennes 284 2021-10-24 13:53
...merely a question about ECM world record? lukerichards Factoring 29 2019-03-26 16:32
World record sized double-check? Siegmund PrimeNet 6 2016-05-09 22:39
World Record Factorial Prime Found rogue Lounge 8 2012-03-02 16:41
70 billion pixels Budapest (world record) R. Gerbicz Science & Technology 0 2010-07-28 01:50

All times are UTC. The time now is 05:36.


Sun Jun 26 05:36:31 UTC 2022 up 73 days, 3:37, 1 user, load averages: 0.61, 0.78, 0.88

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔