GPU to 72 status...

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by kladner

I seem to run 8-10 factors behind prediction. Currently 91.717 predicted, 82 found. On the other hand, when I was doing DCTF I had 7.567 predicted and 16 found. There are bound to be ebbs and flows, aside from the required effort increasing for each level. Taking longer for each level makes the found factors seem more sparse.

It's a function of statistics.

Some are unlucky, and some are lucky.

I wish I could have an influence, but as Terry Pratchett has shown us "the Lady" is in control.

[kracker]

OT, but I believe GPU72 will be #1 team in Primenet in a next few days or sooner...

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by kracker

OT, but I believe GPU72 will be #1 team in Primenet in a next few days or sooner...

Yes http://www.mersenne.org/report_top_teams/. Very soon.

It is important to acknowledge the teamwork which accomplished this.

Only 11 months ago was GPU72 even a twinkle in an eye....

[kracker]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Yes http://www.mersenne.org/report_top_teams/. Very soon.

It is important to acknowledge the teamwork which accomplished this.

Only 11 months ago was GPU72 even a twinkle in an eye....

Oh wow. only 11 months? Sorry, I've only been here a short time
Anyways, congratz to everyone who has participated


P.S.:.....when we get there shortly

[kracker]

Originally Posted by kracker

Oh wow. only 11 months? Sorry, I've only been here a short time
Anyways, congratz to everyone who has participated


P.S.:.....when we get there shortly

"everyone who is participating"
Damn my grammar. And for some reason I couldn't edit.

[flashjh]

Originally Posted by nucleon

Any stats on 72-73 range for factors? How does current discovered ratio map to theoretical predictions.

For me, I'm finding 72-73 pretty bare (factor-wise).

-- Craig

Pretty much a desert in this range for me too. I've only found 1 a day (or less) for a week now.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by ckdo

Quoting Firefox:

www.gpu72.com uses an invalid security certificate.

The certificate is not trusted because it is self-signed.
The certificate is only valid for Parallels Panel
The certificate expired on 13.08.2012 12:17. The current time is 05.10.2012 09:10.

OTOH, gpu72.com returns "Page not found!" on all requests anyway ATM...

Drilling down on this, it appears my DNS service provider had a hiccup yesterday. Several of my domains were answering with records from about six months ago for a few minutes.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Yes http://www.mersenne.org/report_top_teams/. Very soon.

I just checked and you are there:
Oct 9 2012 6:03AM UTC

1 GPU to 72 1647523.303 | 1 1 1 1 | 91.4 4.0 2.1 2.5
2 UCM-curtisc 1647371.683 | 1 1 1 1 | 0.5 99.2 0.3

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

I just checked and you are there:
Oct 9 2012 6:03AM UTC

1 GPU to 72 1647523.303 | 1 1 1 1 | 91.4 4.0 2.1 2.5
2 UCM-curtisc 1647371.683 | 1 1 1 1 | 0.5 99.2 0.3

Super coolness. Thanks to everyone who has made this possible!

However, I would like to also point out that team rankings is one thing -- the fact that in less than a year we've cleared out everything to the newly appropriate TF level in, and now slightly ahead of, the LL "wave" is the job we volunteered to do, and have accomplished.

Special recognition must, of course, go to Oliver for writing mfaktc, to Bertram for writing mfakto, and to George for creating GIMPS -- a strangely addictive geeky hobby.

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by kladner

I seem to run 8-10 factors behind prediction. Currently 91.717 predicted, 82 found. On the other hand, when I was doing DCTF I had 7.567 predicted and 16 found. There are bound to be ebbs and flows, aside from the required effort increasing for each level. Taking longer for each level makes the found factors seem more sparse.

If you expect 91, the "standard deviation" is SQRT 91.
2/3 of the time you would expect your result to lie within this range.

I cannot see why your results are in any respect "freakish".

D

[kladner]

Originally Posted by davieddy

If you expect 91, the "standard deviation" is SQRT 91.
2/3 of the time you would expect your result to lie within this range.

I cannot see why your results are in any respect "freakish".

D

OK. Thanks. I didn't really consider it freakish.