mersenneforum.org > Data And now for some TF results...
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

2019-07-02, 05:11   #199
SethTro

"Seth"
Apr 2019

13310 Posts

Quote:
I wrote up a 80% of the code needed for this
https://github.com/sethtroisi/mfaktc/tree/master

mod_simple_96_and_check_big_factor96 doesn't calculate the modulo so it uses a slightly different Proof-of-work function (instead producing very large modulos instead of small)
https://github.com/sethtroisi/mfaktc...helper.cu#L244

The end result is on TF-NF results you get a little extra line like this
Code:
M59068201 proof_k(17257705361971287559): 30 bits [TF:60:64:mfaktc 0.21 75bit_mul32_gs]
M59068201 proof_k(1759939290551364353): 31 bits [TF:60:64:mfaktc 0.21 75bit_mul32_gs]
M59068201 proof_k(1297657372566442343): 31 bits [TF:60:64:mfaktc 0.21 75bit_mul32_gs]
M59068201 proof_k(8940824503190951977): 29 bits [TF:60:64:mfaktc 0.21 75bit_mul32_gs]
[Mon Jul  1 21:59:54 2019]
no factor for M59068201 from 2^60 to 2^64 [mfaktc 0.21 75bit_mul32_gs]
You can then verify that pow(2, 59068201, 8940824503190951977) = 422536362 which is 29 bits meaning ~34 leading zeros bits. so it takes around ~1e11 test to find this (which is handily just about 2^64 / 59068201)

 2020-01-09, 01:29 #200 SethTro     "Seth" Apr 2019 100001012 Posts What's the appropriate way to report probable false results? M14951 has a P-1 result with B2=9,887,122,214,540,712 which took an estimated 186,161 GHzDays (I guess this isn't impossible, but seems unlikely given the user doesn't appear on any of the top producer lists are regularly submit factors)
2020-01-09, 02:48   #201
axn

Jun 2003

23·34·7 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by SethTro What's the appropriate way to report probable false results? M14951 has a P-1 result with B2=9,887,122,214,540,712 which took an estimated 186,161 GHzDays (I guess this isn't impossible, but seems unlikely given the user doesn't appear on any of the top producer lists are regularly submit factors)
This is a perfectly doable range if you use P95 for stage1 and GMP-ECM for stage 2. The 186k GHzdays is granted based on the assumption that stage 2 was done with P95.

2020-01-09, 04:24   #202
SethTro

"Seth"
Apr 2019

2058 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by axn This is a perfectly doable range if you use P95 for stage1 and GMP-ECM for stage 2. The 186k GHzdays is granted based on the assumption that stage 2 was done with P95.
It sticks out quite a bit on the factoring limit page. with B2=9e15 it's the 2nd largest B2 and 2-3 orders of magnitude larger than the B2 of nearby exponents (M10061 had B2=1e14, M16411 had B2=5e12)

https://www.mersenne.org/report_fact...99&tftobits=72

2020-01-09, 06:38   #203
axn

Jun 2003

23·34·7 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by SethTro It sticks out quite a bit on the factoring limit page. with B2=9e15 it's the 2nd largest B2 and 2-3 orders of magnitude larger than the B2 of nearby exponents (M10061 had B2=1e14, M16411 had B2=5e12) https://www.mersenne.org/report_fact...99&tftobits=72
From the ratio of B2/B1, it looks like most of them were done with P95 for both stages. Couple of them, 2719 and 14951 sticks out.

Like I said, this is perfectly normal _if_ GMP ECM was used for stage 2. Unless you have some reason to believe that these are specifically fraudulent (apart from the large B2), I suggest that you make peace with it.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post ET_ Operazione Doppi Mersennes 604 2020-03-26 15:17 lycorn PrimeNet 22 2017-10-02 02:40 danaj Prime Gap Searches 0 2017-08-14 18:35 Unregistered Information & Answers 3 2010-07-26 00:49 Mike PrimeNet 11 2004-05-23 12:55

All times are UTC. The time now is 21:52.

Sat Apr 4 21:52:14 UTC 2020 up 10 days, 19:25, 0 users, load averages: 1.66, 1.57, 1.61