New report: Cost per Factor Found...

chalsall · 2011-12-07, 14:32

Hey all.

In order to be able to make a more informed decision on exactly how deeply we should be trial factoring in the various ranges, I have created a new report: Cost per Factor Found broken down by "bit depth" and 1M ranges.

It seems to me that at 53M and above we might want to consider to start going to 73, but only after clearing out everything (or, at least, most everything) below.

Thoughts?

davieddy · 2011-12-07, 14:52

If you make the data any clearer, you will be in danger of realizing I am talking sense.

diamonddave · 2011-12-07, 15:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalsall

Hey all.

In order to be able to make a more informed decision on exactly how deeply we should be trial factoring in the various ranges, I have created a new report: Cost per Factor Found broken down by "bit depth" and 1M ranges.

It seems to me that at 53M and above we might want to consider to start going to 73, but only after clearing out everything (or, at least, most everything) below.

Thoughts?

Sorry for the cross posting, post belong here I think,

I'm really surprised by those results. We are finding way more factor then expected, excepted for the 69 bit level in DC.

Also the Factor found reported here doesn't agree with other report on the site.

LL:

Code:

Bit     Exp.    Factor  Expected
69	1640	61	24
70	9949	250	142
71	6020	192	85
72	4244	112	59
73	78	3	1

DC:

Code:

Bit     Exp.    Factor  Expected
68	1477	32	22
69	5291	50	77
70	83	4	1

chalsall · 2011-12-07, 15:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by diamonddave

Also the Factor found reported here doesn't agree with other report on the site.

Whoops... Stupid programmer error...

Fixed.

diamonddave · 2011-12-07, 15:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalsall

Whoops... Stupid programmer error...

Fixed.

Here are my new report with the new Data.

LL:

Code:

Bit   Exp.  Factor  Expected
69    1640      17        24
70    9951     106	 142
71    6032      68        85
72    4271      38        59
73      78	 1   	   1
               230       311

Finding only 73% of the expected number of factor.

DC:

Code:

Bit   Exp.  Factor  Expected
68   1477       20      22
69   5291       45      77
70     83        3       1
                68     100

Finding only 68% of the expected number of factor.

Surprising results...

TheJudger · 2011-12-07, 15:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by diamonddave

Finding only 68% of the expected number of factor.

Surprising results...

Adjust your expectations. Chance for a factor within 2^x and 2^x+1 is 1/x only if no P-1 was done.

Oliver

diamonddave · 2011-12-07, 15:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheJudger

Adjust your expectations. Chance for a factor within 2^x and 2^x+1 is 1/x only if no P-1 was done.

Oliver

Can we have clearer data?

chalsall · 2011-12-07, 16:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by diamonddave

Can we have clearer data?

Such as?

I could do as I do on the "Available Assignments" page, and give the option of showing statistics with only "with P-1" and "without P-1". Would this be helpful?

Also, I remember back with the original PrimeNet server that some LMHers were TFing in higher ranges. The server would accept "Factors Found", but not "No Factors Found" results. I don't know what ranges and bit-levels were involved, however.

diamonddave · 2011-12-07, 16:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalsall

Such as?

I could do as I do on the "Available Assignments" page, and give the option of showing statistics with only "with P-1" and "without P-1". Would this be helpful?

Also, I remember back with the original PrimeNet server that some LMHers were TFing in higher ranges. The server would accept "Factors Found", but not "No Factors Found" results. I don't know what ranges and bit-levels were involved, however.

Yeah the with & without P-1 would give a much clearer picture I think.

davieddy · 2011-12-07, 16:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheJudger

Adjust your expectations. Chance for a factor within 2^x and 2^x+1 is 1/x only if no P-1 was done.

Oliver

For some strange reason, I have a feeling in my water that this guy knows what he's talking about.

David

diamonddave · 2011-12-07, 16:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by davieddy

See above (#2)

Get a brain.

(Sorry Dave. Like your posts!)

I was surprised because right now 2/3 of assignment are No P-1 assignment, it would follow that most of the result would also come from that source.

I thought that P-1 was reducing chance from something like 1/69 to 1/80. Seeing anything north of 1/90 was unexpected to me.

2011-12-07, 14:32	#1
chalsall If I May "Chris Halsall" Sep 2002 Barbados 2×5×7×139 Posts	New report: Cost per Factor Found... Hey all. In order to be able to make a more informed decision on exactly how deeply we should be trial factoring in the various ranges, I have created a new report: Cost per Factor Found broken down by "bit depth" and 1M ranges. It seems to me that at 53M and above we might want to consider to start going to 73, but only after clearing out everything (or, at least, most everything) below. Thoughts?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Factor found that should have been found by P-1	tha	Data	65	2020-08-05 21:11
F12 factor found?	johnadam74	FermatSearch	16	2016-11-03 12:10
How to report a factor	ATH	PrimeNet	2	2014-09-01 03:42
found this factor	tha	Factoring	4	2007-06-18 19:56
After a factor is found it keeps on going	jocelynl	Software	6	2004-08-07 01:31

2011-12-07, 14:52	#2
davieddy "Lucan" Dec 2006 England 2·3·13·83 Posts	If you make the data any clearer, you will be in danger of realizing I am talking sense. Last fiddled with by chalsall on 2011-12-07 at 18:25 Reason: Removed unnecessary inflammatory language.