20210722, 21:25  #584 
"Seth"
Apr 2019
5·7·11 Posts 
I was previously working on a manyfactors project so TF would find factors at ~1/bitlevel they would just already be known. I was still thinking in that context and forgot all these candidates have the prior that P1 didn't find any factors.
I checked the report again and many of these have reasonable B1/B2 (e.g. 180000/3375000). using 1/90: 6% of the time I should have found zero or one factor. using 1/100: 8% of the time I should have found zero or one factor. Bad luck but not even a natural 1 on a d20. 
20210724, 03:56  #585 
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada
2^{3}×5×11^{2} Posts 
20210724 Update  4 years since I gathered the first stats
It is 4 years since I gathered my first stats for this project.
The numbers below (60ish%) suggest we are quite possibly more than half done. That is considering there are a lot of tough ranges left BUT hardware is getting faster and interest is growing. CHARGE!!!! 26 more ranges cleared: 3.4, 3.7, 3.9, 4.9, 7.6, 9.0, 9.6, 10.0, 10.1, 15.7, 18.3, 19.0, 20.0, 21.5, 23.0, 23.5, 26.7, 27.9, 28.8, 29.2, 29.5, 32.4, 35.1, 39.6, 42.6, 48.4 TOTALS to date: 293 total ranges cleared or 58.95% (204 ranges remaining) 2,899 more factored (33,630)....60.89% total factored. A new set of stats: ... I hope I can make these clear: The first column of numbers is as of the start of this project (20170724) The second column of numbers is as of today. The first two rows will be addressed via this project. The last two rows will be addressed by Prime95 with no help required here.  REPEAT: This project will NOT need to help with these 2 rows Code:
Category Start Today Lowest ToDo 1.8 4.1 (The lowest range still over 1999) Highest ToDo 86.3 49.6 (The highest remaining for this project ... all higher will be done via standard Prime95 protocols) Low UnDone 86.4 105.2 (The lowest still over 1999 that Prime95 will eventually clear on its own) High UnDone 999.8 999.8 (The highest remaining for Prime95) There is only 1 ranges remaining in 4xM. 49.6. It has been very aggressively P1'd. Completion will required 2 more bits of TF; to 76.... or P+1. Currently, Anton Repko has been dabbling here. There are only 8 rows remaining in 3xM. I am currently focusing all my CPUs doing P1 there. I am also receiving help from others with P1 and some TF. I expect to complete P1 near year end 2021. Then these 8 ranges will require TF to 75. At that point there may be a couple ranges that required a tad more P1 or TF. I am using my GPUs for TF in the closest 2xM ranges. Several others are doing TF of P1 there. There are some concerted efforts in the 1xM and 0xM ranges too. Thanks all I see light at the end of the tunnel. Where can you best help? If you have a GPU: TF 49.6 to 76 bits To avoid toe stepping the two following will best work if you use GPU72 as some are already working here: TF the remaining 3xM to 75 bits. TF all of 2xM to 73 bits. If you have a good CPU with ample RAM a LOT more P1 is required in all the remaining ranges. Best to note your intentions in this thread to again avoid toe stepping. Thanks again 
20210724, 06:07  #586 
Romulan Interpreter
"name field"
Jun 2011
Thailand
2^{4}×613 Posts 
Wow, so much time wasted! You should have mobilized your resources at front PRP and find two new mersenne primes in 4 years...
Last fiddled with by LaurV on 20210724 at 06:08 
20210724, 14:06  #587 
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada
2^{3}·5·11^{2} Posts 
Seems good in theory until I calculate that Ben Delo does as much PRP in 3 days that my farm did in those 4 years and he hasn't quite found 2 MPs yet...

20210724, 15:21  #588 
"Viliam Furík"
Jul 2018
Martin, Slovakia
2C2_{16} Posts 
I will TF the 49.6 range to 75 bits, then I will continue based on how many factors are found  to help with the LaurV's sub200 project...
Later I would like to do 11M to 70 bits, then 12M, 13M, and 14M. When I get to it, I will ask which ones are available. 
20210724, 16:04  #589 
Romulan Interpreter
"name field"
Jun 2011
Thailand
9808_{10} Posts 
I finished 11.9M few days ago, and found 81 factors from the 95 wanted. Therefore there are still 2014 candidates there, and 15 more factors to be found. I will come back to it later. I am still doing some P+1 there, which is terrible inefficient  it didn't find yet a factor, albeit 28 cores invested for about 3 days and another 10 cores for a week after  but I hope for a big P+1 hit, so I still let the 10 cores run there for a while.
During the work there, I repeatedly adjusted B1 and B2 (mostly increasing them) till the point where the number of factors per a fixed number of candidates was "convenient", but I still could not catch up, so the missing 15 factors remained hidden. Interesting, in the upper 11.9M I found more factors (when B1 and B2 were smaller) and then in the lower 11.9M (after increasing and increasing the bounds) I found less factors. Yet, 81 factors was not a piece of cake task. I will come back to this range later with some more P1 or some TF, whatever will fit appropriate at the time (hopefully, I will learn some more by doing the rest of the 11M ranges). Now, 11.9M was mostly factored to 70 bits, with few exceptions which were at 69, and negligible amount of expos which are higher, 71+ bitlevel. As the P1 progressed into the 11.8M range, with the B1 and B2 fixed by the former 11.9 range, I was surprised to discover that I am finding too many factors, The reason is the fact that 11.8M (and lower ranges too) are factored only to 69 bits (and with few exception higher, 70+). In this case, the difference in probability for P1 is about 1% (including the TF and lowP1 done), so I expect to find about 20 factors more than needed for the 2093 exponents that I started with. But this wisdom only came to me later, after seeing the results. This was not considered when I calculated the limits (read "choose", I didn't do much of calculation, as I said, I was just increasing the limits because I was founding too less factors in the lower side of the 11.9M). So, in summary, I went to 40% of the 11.8M and found already 50% of the 94 needed factors (i.e. 47 factors). Meantime I progressed a bit further, close to 46% of the range, and having 56 factors found (38 to go). I will, anyhow, continue downward towards 11800000, find the (about) 110 factors (94 needed totally) and then the plan is to skip 11.7M because there are a lot more factors needed there, go directly to .6, .4, .1, .3, .2, .0, in order, and do the .7 at the end (in order of needed factors, so I get more experience and "feeling" with those boundaries, and increase them a little for each range if needed). Edit: currently I went through 47% of the 11.8M range and found 58 factors, two factors popped up as I was writing this post, so only 36 more needed while 52% of the range is "to go". I don't thing this range will need any more TF or other work after, even if I get into the "unlucky" side of the force . (hopefully didn't jinx it, hehe) Last fiddled with by LaurV on 20210724 at 16:30 
20210724, 18:33  #590 
"GIMFS"
Sep 2002
Oeiras, Portugal
2×5×151 Posts 
... or, most likely, 4 MP in 2 years.

20210724, 19:00  #591 
"Yves"
Jul 2017
Belgium
2×3×13 Posts 
30.5 M :
2 factors found during the first trials and thereafter more than 330 exponents processed without one single factor . Probability of 330 unsuccessfull trials seems to be about about 1.2 % : (74/75) ^{330}. I've been shutting down and rebooting the computer, testing successfully (factor found) an exponent with a known factor. Should I nevertheless suspect a problem with the GPU/system/... before shutting down/rebooting and redo the TF work since the last found factor ? Yves 
20210724, 21:14  #592  
"Viliam Furík"
Jul 2018
Martin, Slovakia
2·353 Posts 
Quote:
I've had many such long runs without a factor, most of them when doing TF on <10G exponents. Giving your numbers into a perspective: The event of having 330 (assuming consecutive) no factor events occurs with probability of about the mentioned 1.19%. That means that every 1/0,0119 = 84th of such runs will be factorfree. For that to happen once, one only needs to test about 27686 exponents. (I know that's not exactly how it works, but I think it's good enough to prove a point.) So I think you shouldn't waste time rechecking 330 exponents for what is maybe one factor with not exactly high probability. You are better off using that time to check the next 330 exponents, which were not checked before. That's a lot more efficient with regard to probability and worth of the outcome. 

20210725, 02:55  #593  
Romulan Interpreter
"name field"
Jun 2011
Thailand
2^{4}·613 Posts 
Quote:
On a better note, we passed 50% of 11.8M (51% done) and fond 61 factors from the 94 needed. There is 49% of the range to go and 33 factors more to find, so this range will be for sure an overachiever. We will keep the bound for now (lazy to change), and the order was changed to be .8, .4, .1, .6, .3, .2, .0, .7 for the future, in all worktodo files. Last fiddled with by LaurV on 20210725 at 03:02 

20210725, 10:44  #594 
"Yves"
Jul 2017
Belgium
2×3×13 Posts 
Thanks Villiam & LaurV,
I'll do as you propose. Last fiddled with by De Wandelaar on 20210725 at 10:47 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Thinking of Joining GPU to 72  jschwar313  GPU to 72  3  20160131 00:50 
Thinking about lasieve5  Batalov  Factoring  6  20111227 22:40 
Thinking about buying a panda  jasong  jasong  1  20081111 09:43 
Loud thinking on irregular primes  devarajkandadai  Math  4  20070725 03:01 
Question on unfactored numbers...  WraithX  GMPECM  1  20060319 22:16 