sieve stat question

[Keroberts1]

if a factor is found and a test is currently issued for that N value the nwill the test be aborted? If not then will the test be reassigned if the person who is assigned the proth test doesn't finish it or will it then be aborted, Finally (thge point I'm trying otget at) if the test is deleted after someone lets it expire then will the sieve stats show the factor as having saved a test even though the test was still assigned.

[MikeH]

if a factor is found and a test is currently issued for that N value the nwill the test be aborted?There are some other threads discussing this issue, but the answer is no - currently the SB client has no way of being signalled to abandon a test.

If not then will the test be reassigned if the person who is assigned the proth test doesn't finish it or will it then be abortedI am 90% sure it won't be reassigned, but Louie would need to say for sure.

Finally (thge point I'm trying otget at) if the test is deleted after someone lets it expire then will the sieve stats show the factor as having saved a test even though the test was still assignedI've been thinking about this one recently. Assuming the next.txt file doesn't drop sudenly (as has happened once), then as things stand right now the factor won't score until it enters the double check window (at which point it will receive full score). Clearly this isn't fair, because the factor was useful and did save a test. But with this situation it is difficult to determine when to say for sure that a PRP test has been saved. I am planning to add another magic point which will equate to the 'n upper bound' - if a factor is below this point and has 0 PRP, then it will score full value. This still means it could take >6 months before the factor scores, but that will be a lot better than waiting for it to enter a double check window (which could be never!).

Mike.

[Keroberts1]

thanks not what i was hopping ot hear but still its nice ot be able ot get feedback on questions like this

[MikeH]

:|ot|: Just been trying to tidy up the user references in the sieve stats.

I've combined Kroberts5 and Keroberts1, which will now be displayed as Kroberts5 (Keroberts1). As things were, anything where you were logged-in went to Kroberts5, anything where you're not logged-in went to Keroberts1 due to the association with the co-ordination thread. If this is wrong, let me know, and it can be undone easily, or done differently.

Next question ceselb and smh, are you the same person? If so, would you like me to combine, the two, and which one as primary?

Mike.

P.S. Tully, have you tried the lottery lately? Of your first two factors sieved, one is straight on target, and if you'd submitted two days later in would have been in the PRP zone!:smoking:

[Keroberts1]

thanks you're great

[ceselb]

No, I'm not smh. Where did you get that idea? :gone:

:D

[MikeH]

No, I'm not smh. Where did you get that idea?
P-1 co-ordination thread:

4151500 4152000 smh/ceselb 23 0.505595 3 [completed]

:scratch:

[ceselb]

Ahh. smh couldn't do it all, so I took over the last part. Just wanted to get him some credit for it.

Sorry about the confusion.

[MikeH]

Interesting stats comment.

There is still one k value for which no one has managed to find a factor which scores >3500.

k=22699: mklasson 4847188223273203 | 22699*2^353350 (scored 3500.00000)

When will this one fall?

[Xrillo]

Originally posted by MikeH
Interesting stats comment.

There is still one k value for which no one has managed to find a factor which scores >3500.

k=22699: mklasson 4847188223273203 | 22699*2^353350 (scored 3500.00000)

When will this one fall?

*cough*
k=22699: Xrillo 54968301363529 | 22699*2^4720582 (scored 3827.83695) :banana:

[Frodo42]

Sieve stats are currently unavaileble

You have reached this page through an incomplete address for the site you are looking for. To search the server for the site, please enter the address in the field below and click Submit.
:cry: I hope it will be up running soon again, i just found 4 factors using P-1 :hifi:

[MikeH]

Sieve stats are currently unavaileble To quote my ISP

Some PIPEX customers are reporting that their websites are not displaying correctly.

Customers trying to view their website on one of the following URLs:
www.username.dial.pipex.com
www.username.dsl.pipex.com
are seeing a 'welcome to webhosting' holding page instead of their usual website contents.

We are currently investigating this issue with our network engineers.

PIPEX apologises for any inconvenience caused by this problem. Sorry, but at least they claim to be investigating. Upload is working fine, so when it does come back online it'll be up to date.

[MikeH]

I hope it will be up running soon again, i just found 4 factors using P-1 Frodo, your P-1 efforts sure are showing up the sievers right now. You have found 9 on target factors in under a week. My luck seems to have gone down hill - my last good factor was Tuesday, since then, with 100+ factors submitted, my best is 30 points for a double check factor.:(

[Mystwalker]

Well, can't check the site either, but have something that could probably fixed.
The active window at the scores.htm page has a working (read: updating) lower bound, but the upper bound stays fixed. As one of my factors is going to get into the active window soon, I'd like to know if it's just a display error.:D

[MikeH]

The active window at the scores.htm page has a working (read: updating) lower bound, but the upper bound stays fixed. It's OK, all part of my closing the window down from 500K to 200K - which will then level the playing field in terms of big scores for sieve and P-1. Because I didn't want the top of the window to jump, it is holding at 4830000. It will start to change when the bottom of the window reaches 4630000. And given the PRP effort is moving at about 10K/day, that should be in about 18 days time.

In the end we'll all still score the same, just that for sieving most factors will be swept in the window rather than landing straight in. But this does mean that if P-1ers follow the instruction of selecting a range 200K above next n, then they have a good chance of featuring on the max scores tables.

Mike.

P.S. I can see the scores right now, not sure how long it'll last.:bonk:

[mklasson]

MikeH,
is there something wrong with the "Factors next to pass 'n upper bound'" stats? Pretty much no factors at all seem to go there. I have none listed, for example, while I certainly have submitted lots of factors between the n upper bound and the active window. Or am I just misunderstanding what it's for?

EDIT: *whistling* As usual I should probably have spent a minute more thinking before posting. =) I take it the only factors listed there are those that haven't had any PRP test done, i.e. those that were found for a k whose upper bound was slightly lower than the maximal upper bound of any k?

Mikael

[MikeH]

I take it the only factors listed there are those that haven't had any PRP test done, i.e. those that were found for a k whose upper bound was slightly lower than the maximal upper bound of any k?Correct. And this is the slightly depressing list, because so far all those that have appeared and then disapeared have done so because PRP tests have been returned. We have yet to have one make it down to the 'n upper bound', although I think we are reasonably confident that Xrillo's and Xeltrix's should make it.

[Mystwalker]

Could it be that the second active window uses the 'supersecret' stats instead of 'secret'? The first one stays fixed at 400,000...

btw. there are still some character creation errors, like 0M&ltn< 1M
I guess there's only a ';' missing.

But that are just cosmetic things - when it comes to functionality (and motivation ;)), the scoring page is incredible! :banana:

[mklasson]

Louie,

any plans on having the prp client abort the test when submitting a block for a test that has a known factor? Seems like it should be an easy fix considering that the client aborts tests wrongfully at times (the "server had no record of test" thing). :)

[MikeH]

Could it be that the second active window uses the 'supersecret' stats instead of 'secret'? The first one stays fixed at 400,000... Again correct, but different comment to Mikael's. Since Louie placed cap of 400K on the DC PRP, currently we have paused at 400K. Not sure what Louie's plans are for DC. I remember reading a sugestion some time back that DC should be kept at 1/10 of main PRP effort - that sound like a very good idea to me. It also means that DC will always take 1% of main PRP effort which is insignificant but useful.


btw. there are still some character creation errors, like 0M<n< 1MI thought I'd fixed all the issues with these. Can you let me know exactly which line on which page, and I'll take another look. :scratch:

Mike.

[Mystwalker]

That's right, DC isn't concerned right now, but a factor found for a k/n-pair soon to be checked by the secret account should still be worth some reward, as it lowers some effort, doesn't it?

Problems with character conversion:

- User main page: Largest Score Unique by n
- individual page: titles of Incomplete and Complete (Plus, there's a typo in "Resevred ranges" - hell yeah, I am german :crazy: :jester: )
- project page: Remaining candidates and unique factors by n (n&lt20M)

Hm, I don't know what browser you're using, but maybe that one is "intelligent" enough to just correct it.
Well, gonna slap some mosquitos now and get some sleep. G'night!

[Nuri]

Mike,

I dunno how hard it would be to implement these ideas (and also how useful some of them would be :rolleyes: ), but would you consider adding some more features like;

- adding a column that shows daily change in score (and average daily change over last 14 days) at user and team main pages

- adding the breakdown of new unique factors on an individual and team basis, and again, (average daily change over last 14 days) at user and team main pages

- a breakdown of daily score change in the individual pages. (i.e. score change from yesterday's submissions and score change from previous submissions). If I understood the scoring system correctly, at the time being the effect of previous submissions is limited to the factors that are submitted above the 90% sieve point. However, things will start to change slowly when main active window upper bound starts to move upwards from the 4830000 within next two weeks. This is also true for the DC active window, though the impact would be less. Score from previous submissions will start to become more and more significant within the total change in individual scores, and I think it would be interesting to see the dynamics from this perspective as well.

[MikeH]

That's right, DC isn't concerned right now, but a factor found for a k/n-pair soon to be checked by the secret account should still be worth some reward, as it lowers some effort, doesn't it? Yeah, and these do score - in fact they receive full score because they are marked as PRP=0. If you get one you'll notice, because they'll score >50 points. I've had a few of these, indeed you can tell when I made the change so that these scored by looking at my changed scores (http://www.aooq73.dsl.pipex.com/ui/1608.htm#S1.2)

Thanks for the pointers, I might get chance later today to take a look, problem is every time a add something I forget the HTML rules :bonk: (IE6.0 BTW).

Nuri, thanks for the suggestions, all sound like good ideas to me, I'll have a think.

[Mystwalker]

Yeah, and these do score - in fact they receive full score because they are marked as PRP=0

Ok, now I understood you point. Strange I didn't see it before... :bang:

[MikeH]

Mystwalker, give the stats pages a try now. Acording to this HTML checker (http://www.htmlvalidator.com/lite/) all is now good (but I haven't looked at the gap pages yet).

There were lots of errors. :blush:

[Mystwalker]

Almost all gone:

- Project page: remaining candidates and unique factors by n (n&lt20M) <-- title + table head + left column
- gap page: top navigation (currently looking like this when using Opera: <&ltprev next>> &ltalt n range>)

[MikeH]

Along the line of Nuri's request (but only a tiny part), here (http://www.aooq73.dsl.pipex.com/ui/7999.htm) is a score card for all users, except that it's a lot bigger - 100 of each category and 500 recent factors. So now if you're wondering where those 400+ factors found today have come from, now you know...:D

[MikeH]

- adding a column that shows daily change in score (and average daily change over last 14 days) at user and team main pages Again, not quite what you were asking for, but on the main score page (http://www.aooq73.dsl.pipex.com/scores.htm) there's a "User scores (daily average for last 14 days)".

Very interesting numbers. ;)

[mklasson]

MikeH,
very nice! I seem a bit unlucky though... Good thing the active window starts moving again soon. *rubbing hands* :)

[MikeH]

very nice! I seem a bit unlucky though I think the only thing that's kept my score up is indeed a bit of luck and a small dose of P-1. :D

[ceselb]

Speaking of scores, this seems a bit off imho. Will it really score that high, or is it a glitch? :confused:



p (T) k n Score Factor found Score changed Score was Score could be Reqd bias
9280.677 4847 4830063 35.000 Wed 10-Sep-2003 676605.103 232.02

[MikeH]

Speaking of scores, this seems a bit off imho. Will it really score that high, or is it a glitch? It's no glitch. If the bias can get to 232, then it will score this much. Of course the bias will never reach this (sieving 90% point would need to be at 9280T, when currently we're at 71T)

So in reality this one's score will be determined by the bias on the day before it drops into the PRP window.

[ceselb]

Originally posted by MikeH
If the bias can get to 232
...
Of course the bias will never reach this
...
So in reality this one's score will be determined by the bias on the day before it drops into the PRP window.

Whouldn't it be better just to pick a slightly (or even a lot) saner bias? Or am I missing something here? :scratch:

[Mystwalker]

The bias is a lot lower for smaller factors. The bias takes into account that it's getting harder to find factors in higher ranges for sieving. Plus, it takes care that factors found through factoring don't score more than a just sieved factor would.

[MikeH]

Whouldn't it be better just to pick a slightly (or even a lot) saner bias? The bias requred for any given factor to achieve it's maximum score is p/40T, so in your case 9280/40 = 232.

[MikeH]

Nuri said
- a breakdown of daily score change in the individual pages. (i.e. score change from yesterday's submissions and score change from previous submissions). Done. Next I'll have a think about those main tables and beefing up the team stuff.

[Keroberts1]

We now have a stat saying what tests have had a factor foundbut are still being performed at this moment. Could we add a list of the users that have bee nassigned that test so someone can let the user know that their test should be aborted?

[Xrillo]

I recall having found a factor for an ongoing test a while ago. Kinda' wondering what happend to it. It is no longer showing on the list of such factors/tests, and I recall someone saying in a thread that he/she aborted (but didn't manually expire it) the test after seeing the factor on that list.

Basically, what I'm saying is should I have expected a score increase when the test expired automatically? :scratch:

Maybe the test was reassigned to someone and completed? This seems unlikely though.

-- Added:
I did some research and found this by MikeH:

"The other pieces of good news are we now get a chance to confirm that this test won't be re-assigned, and assuming it doesn't, Xrillo you'll get full score when the 'n upper bound' catches up!"

The 'n upper bound' hasn't caught up with it yet. Someone who knows his way around the stats might know something about this.

[MikeH]

Maybe the test was reassigned to someone and completed? This seems unlikely though. I took a look at this a few days ago when I noticed it had disappeared from the table. In the results.txt file, the factor in question is now show as having 1 PRP result returned.:(

I'm hoping that maybe the PRP=1 is not true, and is somehow a minor bug in the assigment code. But my worst fear is that this there is a much more serious bug in the assignment code, and this test really was reassigned even though a factor was present at the time of reassignment.

Only Louie or Dave can answer this one.

(k=5359, n=4387702)

[MikeH]

Today I found and submitted a very strange factor

69.077 33661 2975400 1911.054 Thu 18-Sep-2003

Note the score - it's big considering this should only be valid for the DC window some time in the distant future. If you take a look in the results.txt, it's there with PRP=0. How can this be possible?:scratch:

According to the project stats (http://www.seventeenorbust.com/stats/rangeStatsEx.mhtml) the n upper bound has been around the 4M mark for a while. So how can the same database claim that no test has ever been performed for a candidate at 2.9M? I guess the only possibility is that a factor already exists for this candidate, but isn't present in the results or lowresults files.

If this really is the first factor for this candidate, then how many other candidates are there that have not been tested?

:dunno:

Edit: And before anyone asks, no this isn't a secret test. For this k, secret tests should have topped out at n=645336.

[biwema]

hi,


I seem a bit unlucky though... Good thing the active window starts moving again soon. *rubbing hands*

I also noticed, that mklasson was sometimes quite unlucky. I always thought he will pass me next days because he did more sieving. The chance to find a factor within the window is now smaller as it is just 200k wide.
Mklasson, things are getting better for you when the window moves beyond 4.87M. You will pass me soon. I wish you all the best and good luck. :thumbs:

biwema

[mklasson]

Thanks! :D

[Joe O]

Originally posted by MikeH
I guess the only possibility is that a factor already exists for this candidate, but isn't present in the results or lowresults files.


Mike, When was the last time you got a refresh for the lowresults file?

[MikeH]

Mike, When was the last time you got a refresh for the lowresults file? The one I'm currently using is dated 18th Jun. That file takes us from 1G to 3T, but I thought at that stage the whole range was complete. I guess it's possible that a factor was missed and then later picked up by P-1 or by someone looking very closely to try to find holes.

[Joe O]

Originally posted by MikeH
The one I'm currently using is dated 18th Jun. That file takes us from 1G to 3T, but I thought at that stage the whole range was complete. I guess it's possible that a factor was missed and then later picked up by P-1 or by someone looking very closely to try to find holes.

1598494103 | 33661*2^2975400+1

[Mystwalker]

ATM, there seems to be slight "disturbance" in the active window. The lower bounds dropped to a value below 4,600,000 again. I already witnessed this once before. I'm not sure where this originates, maybe a test that needs to be redone in the time frame the script checks the current bound?

One could change the script so the active window can't get smaller, or is there a reason against doing so?

But hey, thanks to this, I passed mklasson... :jester:

edit: Ok, active window changed to normal again and thus I'm at position 5 again... :cry:

[MikeH]

Originally posed by JoeO
1598494103 | 33661*2^2975400+1 I am confused. Why did you get this from?:scratch:

[Joe O]

Originally posted by MikeH
I am confused. Who did you get this from
Mike, I got it from you last February. I have another 531 of yours, and 10 of mine that are not in your results

[Keroberts1]

any updates on this?



Originally posted by MikeH
I'm hoping that maybe the PRP=1 is not true, and is somehow a minor bug in the assigment code. But my worst fear is that this there is a much more serious bug in the assignment code, and this test really was reassigned even though a factor was present at the time of reassignment.

[MikeH]

Mike, I got it from you last February. I have another 531 of yours, and 10 of mine that are not in your results Many thanks Joe. Brain fade on my part. :bonk:

All of those are now incorporated (which is why the stats are a little distorted). Now I just need to take away that one that scored almost 2000 for me, and all will be square.

[Joe O]

Originally posted by MikeH
Many thanks Joe. Brain fade on my part.
Mike, You're welcome!

ps what's with the Gap Analyses?

None of the ranges:
1.5T<p<60T 0T<p<60T

60T<p<80T 60T<p<80T

...

220T<p<240T 220T<p<240T

240T<p<2000T 240T<p<2000T

correspond to the pages they point to:
Gaps analysis 1.500T < p < 10.000T (0.3M < n < 3.0M)
Gaps analysis 10.000T < p < 20.000T (0.3M < n < 3.0M)
...
Gaps analysis 90.000T < p < 100.000T (0.3M < n < 3.0M)
Gaps analysis 100.000T < p < 2000.000T (0.3M < n < 3.0M)

nor have they been updated recently:

"Last Update: Sun 28-Sep-2003 16:24 (GMT+1)"

[ceselb]

The not updating part might be because of me. :blush:
I did some reformatting of the coordination pages, that might have broken Mikes scripts.

[Keroberts1]

I've been wondering about this for a while and I would like to know who could answer this. If a factor is found for a certain N value that is currently being tested but the test is aborted will it be reassigned or not. I know this was uncertain before i was just wondering if anyone has checked on this because I have had several factors that have landed in that range and stayed on my stats page for a while only to dissapear once i was convinced that the test for it must have been aborted.

[MikeH]

ps what's with the Gap Analyses? Sorry, looks like I've broken it. As you can tell I changed all the ranges at the weekend, and when I tested it locally it worked. I guess the pages aren't being sent up to the server.:blush:

I'll take a look at it this evening.

P.S. ceselb, it's nothing you did, honest.

[ceselb]

Originally posted by MikeH
P.S. ceselb, it's nothing you did, honest.

Ok, nice. I was kind of relying on your scripts being flexible enough to handle the change.

[Joe O]

Originally posted by MikeH
I guess the pages aren't being sent up to the server.
Or you forgot to change the underlying pointers: eg for "200T<p<220T"
"http://www.aooq73.dsl.pipex.com/gaps/Gaps_n3_20_p08u.htm" to "http://www.aooq73.dsl.pipex.com/gaps/Gaps_n3_20_p20u.htm" or whatever your new naming scheme is.

[MikeH]

OK, gap analysis is working again.

(I had commented out the line in the script that uploads the pages while I did some quick tests:blush: )

[Keroberts1]

earlier on my stats showed taht the range i had to finish from 87200-89970 had around 80 missing factors however at 87246-89970 it says about 600 factors. Is that right. I have noticed that factors were very common for a while, I got a whole bunch probably like 14 in a course of about 30 when i regularly see gaps of like 8-14. Is it possible taht factor density could follow trends other than strictly loosing density. Could some ranges inherently have higher factor density than others. Maybe we could find a formula to help us decode this possible pattern. I believe that the stats change was probably due to the density at that specific range If I'm wrong my bad. :confused: I don't really know anything. In any case the density of that range is surprising and I gotta wonder the odds of that happening again. The range did nothing for my score by the way.

[mklasson]

MikeH,
saaaay, what's up with -17K under "Other"?

Score breakdown
Total New factors ( %) Score change ( %) Other ( %)
Daily change last 1 day : -1903.39 24.79 ( -1.3) 15528.65 (-815.8) -17456.83 (917.1)

[MikeH]

saaaay, what's up with -17K under "Other"? It would appear that all the hugh factors have disapeared from the results.txt file. (Louie/Dave what's going on).

As a result, the following have been dropped from the scores. Don't worry though, the finds are still recorded in my DB, so when they appear in the results file again, normality will be restored.


1335945347757694154470789 28433 2473 2876 150
1420021239577240035601 10223 4187705 3109 203
148603027109277394117 67607 4090091 769 0
179928189648359393301449201 55459 1054 3031 81
192319539630928827473 5359 10150 2876 150
249138319295011519189933003 22699 1414 2876 150
25756370825971135421 55459 316750 2876 150
273148210774616633431 5359 4151886 365 60
27528683020268847973 21181 4829108 1608 0
29132891782118156447 33661 323016 2876 150
3553460704416618023888371 55459 1030 2876 150
38681107049404634813 33661 1584 2876 150
39480881218898286589 10223 8105 2876 150
42498445799169841757640079 5359 2230 2876 150
552467210540360947721 4847 304983 2537 0
771852543150955945417 10223 3821 2876 150
94846070521408174091 10223 4348601 584 61

[MikeH]

It would appear that all the hugh factors have disapeared from the results.txt file. Now it's fixed. Did anyone change anything?

[MikeH]

earlier on my stats showed that the range i had to finish from 87200-89970 had around 80 missing factors however at 87246-89970 it says about 600 factors. Is that right. The estimate for the number of factors in a given range is based on the density of factors in the preceding ranges that it thinks have no gaps. Since the areas preceding your range are very disjointed in their completeness, the estimates will have been a bit questionable. As more factors have come in (including your own submissions at the beginning of this range), the estimates will have got better. The current estimate looks about right - 570 factors for a 2705G range - 0.2 factors per G.

[MJX]

I think that the stats, as they currently are, aren't very attractive for newcomers, even with high cpu power (and that isn't my case).
Imagine someone with 4 or 5 athlons boxes, sieving at 5*400=2000 kp/s and starting at 100T. The discovery rate should be around 40 factors every 250G, meaning 1 factor in the active windows (and immediately scoring) every 250G... So this person will score something that 40000 a week (5 "big" ones at 7000 and a few others)...not bad but...
It will be hard for him to reach the Top10 and, morehower, he won't benefit the huge "stock option" power cumulated by those who were sieving at 10T, with a discovery rate ten times higher, and that have dozens of factors with n below 5000000 waiting to see their score explode soon..
He will NEVER be able to progress and reach the top and, if he is stat addict, will certainly not join the sieve yet...
This state is inherent to the rarefaction of factors discovered, so the sieving effort is exponential and not lienar (as in DF or Seti or many others)...
So I suggest to segment the stats, for example by year. One should close the stats at the end of 2003, letting the scores growing so that the former work will benefit to the "2003 challengers", AND open a 2004 stats page from scratch, by users and team, so that a new challenge may begin at 110-120T, with the ability to be a newbee, or a new team, and to reach a good place in stats....
This is still done in projects like ECMNET because hitting factoring records with ECM means an exponential difficulty too...

[Mystwalker]

You have to consider that factors found earlier have a relative small factor value. This means the bias is a lot lower than that of current (and future) findings. This negates the disadvantage of a worsening factor density, as it proportionally affects the score of a factor.

So the score for a factor is basically independant from the effort needed to find it.

[MJX]

I do agree, but when the top score is 630000, and will probably increase a lot with the active window, I think that even with 7300 pts scoring factors the challenge is a bit too hard for new members...(and, basically, it is funnier to find many "small" factors and see their growth than to get one big every week and see the others score climbing...). So I persist in my suggestion of a renewal of the stats for 2004...
(a project as the XYYX factorization has lost most of this members last year because it was becoming too difficult and got a big boost when an extension was releasing, offering many news easy small factors to find...most people doing DC for fun and not for the state of the art!)
Best wishes.

[Frodo42]

With P-1 factoring it's actually not that hard to get into the top-10. I've almost only done P-1 for about a month with a 2.4 GHz P4 and already I'm in the top 10. I'm not sure that I'm going to stay there, as I almost don't have any "stock" and the window has now started moving, but I have not fallen as fast as expected since those factors that already scored keep on getting more points as the bias climps (which I don't really contribute to ...).

I think the important thing about the stats is that it should reflect the positive effect the work you do have on the SoB project. How to weigh the positive effect you made in the past with the one you make now is a little difficult.
The system with moving windows is very good thing as it makes the scores reflect the actual postive effect.

[MikeH]

I have to say I'd tend to agree with Mystwalker and Frodo. Those stock options are becoming worth very little at an alarming rate. With new factors now scoring over 7000, I think that with two fast P4s you could P-1 factor your way to top five or top maybe even top three in the 14 day average.

I'd have to agree that the "all time" scores are now becoming a bit stale, but the 14 day average should really be viewed as the place to be, and shouldn't be too big a challenge for any new comer.

Having said all that, I have no objections to having (say) a quarterly challenge, where only factors submitted in that period would score towards that challenge.

The one thing I don't want to encourage is people holding back factors. If everyone knows that the next challenge will start at the beginning of 2004, then I'm sure that some people will hold back factors until then. Although in itself this isn't a problem, ultimately it will lead to factors being forgotten or lost, and that's the last thing we all want.

[Joe O]

Originally posted by MikeH
If everyone knows that the next challenge will start at the beginning of 2004, then I'm sure that some people will hold back factors until then. Although in itself this isn't a problem, ultimately it will lead to factors being forgotten or lost, and that's the last thing we all want.

The next challenge can start when we start 20M to 50M.

[MJX]

If everyone knows that the next challenge will start at the beginning of 2004, then I'm sure that some people will hold back factors until then.

ohohoh...I didn't thought people may be so pervert...:p
ok ok for the global stats and challenging for the last 14 days..

But the idea of quarterly challenges sounds great to me. Imagine " the christmas ulltimate week" where everybody is challenging and try to break the records (for example by stealing your boss cpu cycles while he is on hollidays, installing an hidden client on his desktop...) what a fun!!!:thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:

best wishes.

ps : stealing cycles is bad and it was a joke, and i know one shouldn't use his boss cpu cycles without permission... etc...etc... :haddock:

[Nuri]

Mystwalker, congratulations for the first place in last 14 days stats. :thumbs:

I'm sure you'll soon get the second place from me in the overall stats. :cry:

[MikeH]

Mystwalker, I too would like to congratulate you. :cheers: You have some serious sieving power right now (and P-1 factoring too).:smoking:

[Mystwalker]

Originally posted by Nuri
I'm sure you'll soon get the second place from me in the overall stats. :cry:

I hope so. ;)

But I doubt I'll stay at #1 for long - semester starts now, so I won't have that much computing power at hand anymore. :cry:
For a short time, I had 17-18 machines sieving plus 1 P4 factoring. The first ones are (except one 1 GHz) only 800 or even approx. 450 MHz, but they are running 24/7 and the sheer bulk converted them into a big mean crunching machine. :D
And, of course, I have to congratulate mklasson for his great sieving client, as it as fast as lightning and provides several features to ease administration a lot as well. :cheers:

Ok, so now, you all have the goal to beat me again. :tramp:

I think we all contribute a lot to this project and can be proud of it... :hifi:

[MJX]

hello!

in the stats page, user stats, a range completed more than a week ago is still noted incomplete in the 300K-3M range and the new reserved one doesn't appear...So, factors found in this range are marked as non reserved ones... The forum's coordination pages are up to date so I can't understand what is the problem...
Is the update an automated task in the stats page or is it done by hand? May I help by submitting to MikeH my completed and reserved ranges???

Thanks.

[MikeH]

Is the update an automated task in the stats page or is it done by hand? Sorry to say that this is a manual task. It's about the only manual task, and I do just block cut and paste from the forum pages, but still it is manual.

I tried automating it a while back, but decided it was more trouble than it was worth. Things seem to have settled down a bit since then, so maybe I'll give it another try.

In any case, I try to do an update at least once a week (usually much more often), but I only take the main post, not the recent additions at the bottom.

I've just updated, so in the update in 2.5 hours it should be OK.

Also remember that as long as you're logged in when you submit factors, then it isn't too important that your reservation isn't shown. If you're not logged in it can be a big problem, because a score won't be awarded until it can identify the user - if a factor is close to the PRP wave, then the wave may have crashed over before I've had chance to do an update.

[ceselb]

Nice, than maybe you can look into this:
A range is marked incomplete for me. Could you check 16250-16270 for me?

Some ranges that are abandoned in p-1 are marked as incomplete also (atleast I think they are).
Maybe move them to complete, but keep the [abandoned] bit.


No hurry. :cheers:

[Keroberts1]

Has there been any updates on the factors found after tests have been assigned but abandoned. I just foundanother factor today about 6 hours after it got assigned out. If I'd checked the system earlier i would haveprobably gotten it in in time. Ohh well... Jus wondering if the bugs had been worked out with that. Maybe we could add a feature to keep a list of the tests being performed that have factors and the name of the user doing the prp. Then the staff at SoB could attempt to manually remove the canidate to prevent it fom being reassigned? This is all just hopeful thinking. I really don't know if this is possible. Well I'd at least love to hear if anything is known wether or not a factor in the testing prp range is worth anything at all.


Side thought...

man I haven't found any useful factors in weeks i really need this.
Frodos overtaken me. :bang:

[Frodo42]

For some reason my last found factor
11431293770421995731 | 27653*2^5103393+1
does not seem to be anywhere to be found in the stats.
It's more than 24 hours since I submitted it and Keroberts1 overtook me in the meantime :Pokes:

[MikeH]

does not seem to be anywhere to be found in the stats. That's because it's not in the results file. But why it's not in the results file I don't know. I tried resubmitting the factor, and it wasn't added to the DB, so it is already known.

Dave or Louie will need to take a look at this one.

Edit: Just submitted it using the largesieve page, and it claimed to have added it to the DB, so we'll see if it turns up in the update in 6 hours from now (in my name). I can sort out the owner afterwards :D

Edit (again): ...and before anyone asks why their scores have gone down, the largeseive factors disapeared from the results file in the 09:00 GMT update.:rolleyes:

[Keroberts1]

Most recently (significant) changed scores
p (T) k n Score Factor found Score changed Score was Score could be Reqd bias
88.150 67607 4940451 6723.629 Sun 26-Oct-2003 Fri 31-Oct-2003 0.881
88.105 10223 5180765 7389.934 Sun 26-Oct-2003 Thu 30-Oct-2003 0.881



This was in the next to pass Upperbound but i gues the test as stopped and i got scored for it?

[MikeH]

This was in the next to pass Upperbound but i gues the test as stopped and i got scored for it? More likely that the 'next n' jumped arround and ended up lower than this, so you'd score. The test is probably still on-going, but hey, you got lucky.;)

[Keroberts1]

cool

[MikeH]

Congratulations to hc_grove for taking the top spot in the 14 day average.:|party|:

And also congratulations to Nuri, who almost unnoticed took the top spot a couple of days ago.:|party|:

Both very much deserved.

(I've just submitted a few factors, so let's see what my fortunes hold.;) )

[ceselb]

MikeH, you might want to raise the 'active' window' for double checking.

Your page states 400000 < n < 600000, while my current test for secret shows 739778 (k=19249).


Another thing. Caould you add another page view of the holes?

Based on http://www.aooq73.dsl.pipex.com/gaps/Gaps_n3_20_p05u.htm

I'd like something like this (One row per not completed range/user pair):

( 90.00G) : 121210-121300 expmod8
( 81.36G+ 183.05G) : 121300-122000 Slatz
( 150.02G+ 81.40G) : 122000-123000 Mystwalker
( 100.00G) : 123400-123500 Moo_the_cow
( 192.41G) : 123600-123800 biwema
( 661.94G) : 123800-125000 cmprince
( 83.48G) : 125000-125100 rosebud
( 176.87G) : 125100-125500 Foobar
( 802.46G) : 126000-128000 Nuri
( 447.76G+ 749.78G) : 126000-128000 Nuri
( 72.41G+ 204.31G+ 377.59G+ 33.23G) : 128000-129000 mklasson
( 106.54G+ 393.46G) : 129000-129500 Troodon
( 380.38G) : 129500-130000 TheCrusher
( 105.82G+ 122.08G+ 120.21G+ 111.46G+ 93.21G) : 130000-131000 hc_grove
( 525.33G+ 334.76G) : 131000-132000 priwo
( 855.03G) : 132000-133000 Mat67
( 500.00G) : 133000-133500 biwema
( 440.03G) : 133500-134000 ceselb
( 173.83G+ 138.09G+ 157.76G+ 151.51G+ 146.22G+ 160.12G+ 147.98G+ 579.37G) : 134000-136000 Mystwalker


ranges added up if it's not too much work. If it's too difficult to do, a simple list would be great. ( I do this manually right now)

121210-121300 expmod8
121300-122000 Slatz
122000-123000 Mystwalker
123400-123500 Moo_the_cow
123600-123800 biwema
123800-125000 cmprince
125000-125100 rosebud
125100-125500 Foobar
126000-128000 Nuri
126000-128000 Nuri
128000-129000 mklasson
129000-129500 Troodon
129500-130000 TheCrusher
130000-131000 hc_grove
131000-132000 priwo
132000-133000 Mat67
133000-133500 biwema
133500-134000 ceselb
134000-136000 Mystwalker

[MikeH]

Your page states 400000 < n < 600000, while my current test for secret shows 739778 (k=19249). secret performs tests on candidates declared as tested by previous searchers, but for which no residue has been provided. supersecret performs double checking - testing candidates that have only one residue to generate a second (hopefully) matching residue. Louie placed an artificial stop point on supersecret of 400K. Right now supersecret will function as secret. So right now 400K - 600K is correct. If you (sieve and) submit factors for candidates designated for secret, they will score immediately. One such example was submitted yesterday

130.482 4847 743223 225.237 Sun 23-Nov-2003 hc_grove



Another thing. Could you add another page view of the holes? I'll have a try. Unfortunately I haven't had a lot of time to give to SoB recently (work and family), so can't promise any timescales.

[hc_grove]

Originally posted by MikeH
One such example was submitted yesterday

130.482 4847 743223 225.237 Sun 23-Nov-2003 hc_grove



I did wonder why that factor scored so much, thanks for the explanation.

[ceselb]

Originally posted by MikeH
I'll have a try. [...] can't promise any timescales.

No problems. Do it next year when you've got some time to spare. I've managed so far, so I'll survive a few months more. :cheers:

[peterzal]

hey i got a quick question about the MikeH's sieving stats. I submitted 11 factors 2 days ago, but only 8 of them showed up in the stats. And whats up with these factors only getting a score of 1.4ish?

Thanks,

Peter Zalewski

[MikeH]

I submitted 11 factors 2 days ago, but only 8 of them showed up in the stats. And whats up with these factors only getting a score of 1.4ish? Some of the 11 were duplicates, only 8 were unique.

(from your score card (http://www.aooq73.dsl.pipex.com/ui/0627.htm) )

Sieve 3M<n<20M Range size FactorsU FactorsD FactorsE Score
143000 - 143050 50 8 4 121 17.164

...and the scoring has changed since last you were here. Wecome back :thumbs:

http://www.aooq73.dsl.pipex.com/

[peterzal]

nevermind, i actually took the time to read some of this forum and my questions were answered.

[cmprince]

I thought I was just imagining it, but over the past few days I've noticed the "active window" in the 5M range has moved backward; how does that happen? I thought it tracked with the last assigned proth test.

Last Update: Thu 11-Dec-2003 09:01 (GMT)
Current 'active' windows:
400000 < n < 600000
4879702 < n < 5079702

I'm especially curious since I had a 5.1M factor score as if the window had already passed it.

Thanks,
Chris

[Frodo42]

The active windows is decided by next.txt and it has been stuck at 5359*2^4879702 for some time now.
Why that is I don't know hopefully it only affects the stats, but I dont know therefore i posted this (http://www.free-dc.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5023)

[MikeH]

I've now changed the sieving stats so that it uses the highest of the 'Current test window'-> 'max n' on this page (http://www.seventeenorbust.com/stats/rangeStatsEx.mhtml) instead of using next.txt.

Lets hope this stops those crazy jumps ;)

[hc_grove]

Okay, I screwed up a little. :bang: Today I've submitted a number of factors without being logged in. :blush: Is it possible to have them properly assigned to me? (luckily none of them were on-the-spot).

I've done the submitting from the same IP number as I normally use (80.196.145.71), but a different computer (behind a NAT router) on which I hadn't checked the "remember me" box. I could send somebody the fact.txt's to show which factors it might be (I can't remeber which I have submitted from my regular box, so there will be additional factors in them).

I have a fixed IP, so if any factors have previously been submitted from that by somebody not logged in, that will be me too.

.Henrik

[MikeH]

Okay, I screwed up a little. Today I've submitted a number of factors without being logged in. If you take a look on your score card (http://www.aooq73.dsl.pipex.com/ui/2437.htm#S1.5) I think you'll find they're already sorted.

For any factors where the user wasn't logged in, I check the sieve and P-1 reservations, and match them up that way automatically. So usually you'll only see them as [unknown] if I'm a bit behind on updating my copies of the reservations.

If you can't see your factors, give me a shout and I'll have a deeper look.

[MikeH]

Sieve stats have now been adjusted to reflect the finding of the prime k=5359. :D

I have gone back to the state of play on Wed 16 Dec 03 03:00, frozen all the k=5359 scores, then re-imported factors submitted between then and now. This means that all factors submitted since Wednesday will now be time stamped as today (sorry if this causes any confusion:confused: ).

All factors k=5359 submitted after Wed 16 Dec 03 03:00 will score 0. Any duplicates that have ever been found for k=5359 now score 0. As a result of these changes, most people's scores have decreased a little.

The project (http://www.aooq73.dsl.pipex.com/scores_p.htm) page now shows only the remaining ks. It's really good to see the {-3381} for the current 1M slice, and {-67755} for all 20M .

I'm starting an archive of the three main score pages, saving snap shots at significant points (of which this is the first).

There are still a number of k=5359 items floating around on various pages, but if anyone sees anything that now looks wrong, let me know.

[Joe O]

Why does
21.419 21181 716852 21.419 Fri 19-Dec-2003 not appear under
Factors next to enter (double check) 'active window' (@n=600000)

For that matter why don't:

21.341 28433 625345 21.341 Mon 15-Dec-2003
21.322 27653 638457 21.322 Mon 15-Dec-2003
13.922 24737 534991 13.922 Mon 15-Sep-2003
13.678 4847 629127 13.678 Tue 09-Sep-2003
13.371 10223 547901 13.371 Tue 02-Sep-2003
8.265 4847 637767 8.265 Thu 24-Jul-2003

For that matter, there are others that should have appeared there but have now been passed but belonged there before when the window was lower.

Such as:

13.282 10223 439805 13.282 Sun 31-Aug-2003
13.256 5359 480526 13.256 Sun 31-Aug-2003

[MikeH]

Here's an indication of how sieving has progressed. I thought it was worth sharing this data. :cheers:

The x axis are sieve score updates (four per day), so this shows the progress since early August. The y axis is in Gs. The lines relate to the data on the project (http://www.aooq73.dsl.pipex.com/scores_p.htm) page.

[Nuri]

Originally posted by Joe O
Why does not appear under
......


I think this is because their p values are lower than 40T. Factors below 40T are scored directly as p/T.

[MikeH]

I think this is because their p values are lower than 40T. Factors below 40T are scored directly as p/T. Exactly. They will only be listed under the 'next to enter ...' if their score will change as a result.

Hope that helps.

[Joe O]

MikeH,
Could you explain this:
Most recent finds
p (T) k n Score Factor found Score changed Score was Score could be Reqd bias
152.922 67607 18205451 1.529 Wed 24-Dec-2003 Wed 24-Dec-2003 158388.595
152.905 24737 3819631 1.529 Wed 24-Dec-2003 Wed 24-Dec-2003 4182.782



Specifically, that there is a date under "Score changed" and this is the original appearance and score.

[Mystwalker]

@Mike:

Could you post a diagram showing the derivation of these graphs? I'd love to see how much performance gain we have. Maybe we can even see some client changes in it? ;)

btw. seems like the lower bounds for DC PRPing is hard-coded to 400,000...:bonk: :D

[Joe O]

Last Update: Fri 26-Dec-2003 15:03 (GMT)

Definitely Stuck!

No change as of 2003-12-28-1330 EST

[MikeH]

Specifically, that there is a date under "Score changed" and this is the original appearance and score. Good question. No idea why, looks like a bug - possibly had something to do with the almost empty results.txt file, need to investigate further.


Definitely Stuck! Sorry, been visiting family over Christmas. Looks like I had a power failure at 18:00 GMT 26 Dec.


Could you post a diagram showing the derivation of these graphs? I'd love to see how much performance gain we have. Maybe we can even see some client changes in it? Planning to be out again Monday, but should get change before the year ends ;)


btw. seems like the lower bounds for DC PRPing is hard-coded to 400,000 I've got the code ready, I just wasn't sure when Louie and Dave were going to reactive supersecret, so should be live soon.

[Keroberts1]

Does anyone have a AMD 3200? Just wondering what type of speed they get?

[MikeH]

Specifically, that there is a date under "Score changed" and this is the original appearance and score. As I suspected it was due to the almost empty results.txt file. As a result of this it was unable to figure out the 90% point properly on the next run, so anything new on that run were scored as negative numbers, so when all was restored to normal the change in score was significant enough for it to log a score changed date. I think that's a long way of saying it's a bug :)


Could you post a diagram showing the derivation of these graphs? I'd love to see how much performance gain we have. Maybe we can even see some client changes in it? The attached graph shows the daily change in the various points. I've averaged over 5 days and removed the 100%, 98% 95% and 85% to make things at little smother and more readable.

Don't know why we had a big dip just over two months ago. Any ideas?

I'm now time stamping the data, so any graphs of this type in the future should be more acturate :D

[ceselb]

Thanks for the nice graphs, very interesting.

I've capped the DC sieve to 75T, could you close out completed ranges above that? Some people have posted about it in the DC thread (http://www.free-dc.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2771) .

[MikeH]

Hi ceselb,

I've sent my set of n <3M p <75G to Joe O, I think he has more up to date info than me, but really I need everyone that started one of these ranges to either declare as [complete] or [abandoned], that way everything will be neat and tidy.

Another thing. Caould you add another page view of the holes?

Based on http://www.aooq73.dsl.pipex.com/gap..._n3_20_p05u.htm

I'd like something like this (One row per not completed range/user pair):

( 90.00G) : 121210-121300 expmod8
( 81.36G+ 183.05G) : 121300-122000 Slatz
( 150.02G+ 81.40G) : 122000-123000 Mystwalker How about this (http://www.aooq73.dsl.pipex.com/gaps/Gaps_n3_20_ps0u.htm) (go to the bottom of the page). Is this roughly what you're after?

[ceselb]

Really nice, thank you very much. :cheers:

[MikeH]

Really nice, thank you very much. You're welcome.

Now for the n<3M ranges over 75T. With JoeO's help we have narrowed down the following ranges where we don't know whether they have (or will be) completed with the 300K < n < 20M sob.dat, or the new 1M < n < 20M sob.dat.


134000 136000 Mystwalker
137000 139000 Mystwalker
139800 140500 Slatz
140500 143000 cmprince
143050 143250 rosebud
143250 145000 priwo
147300 148000 Mystwalker
148800 149500 expmod8
149500 150000 Mystwalker
151000 152000 Mystwalker
All of the above are still active in the main sieve effort. If you are named above, can you please let me know whether you intend to complete the range with a 300K - 20M sob.dat, or if you have switched to 1M - 20M and you know when you switched can you let me know like this (e.g.)

134000 134500 Mystwalker [complete]
134500 136000 Mystwalker [abandoned]

or if you don't know where you switched (it really isn't a big deal), just like this

134000 136000 Mystwalker [abandoned]

[ceselb]

Mirrored here. (http://www.free-dc.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2771)

[Mystwalker]

Just declared my DC ranges abandoned in the other thread...

Mike:
The first two links below "The Sieving clients" point to the SoBSieve client, whereas they are titled as prothsieve...

[MikeH]

Mike:
The first two links below "The Sieving clients" point to the SoBSieve client, whereas they are titled as prothsieve... Thanks Mystwalker (:blush: how long has it been like that?)

[Keroberts1]

As long as i can remember i believe. I thought i made a mention bout it a while ago but never found a reply. However, I can't find my post so maybe it was so late i sumbited the thread wrong. Late night is often when i find time ot visit the forums.

[Slatz]

my range is being completed with the new dat file.

I believe i switched right around 140100

so
139800-140100 complete
140100-140500 abandoned

Slatz

[hc_grove]

I noticed that 6354798418167061747|27653*2^5998713 scored 35 points = as a duplicate factor, but I can't find any other factors for n=5998713 in the result files (checked both the regular and the one with duplicate and excluded factors marked)?

[Mystwalker]

I don't think that's a duplicate.
It's merely still outside of the active window. Normally, this would give you p / 100T points. Put as the 90% sieve point is lower, it will be cut.
But I don't memorize the according equation. It should be somewhere in this thread, though.

[hc_grove]

Originally posted by Mystwalker
I don't think that's a duplicate.
It's merely still outside of the active window. Normally, this would give you p / 100T points. Put as the 90% sieve point is lower, it will be cut.


That's what I expected too, but 90% sieve point / 100T is around 1.8 and not 35 (and it doesn't change as the 90% sieve point grows).

Looking at the scoring rules on Mike's page, I found no other reason why the score would be exactly 35 than it being scored as a duplicate.

[Mystwalker]

Ok, found the scoring conventions. Well, I confused the threads. :bang:

It is here (http://www.free-dc.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2408&perpage=25&pagenumber=20)



A unique factor will score as follows:

p < 40T, score = p/1T (i.e. as before)
p > 40T, in 'active' window, 0 PRP tests performed, score = (n/1M ^ 2) * 125
p > 40T, in 'active' window, 1 PRP tests performed, score = (n/1M ^ 2) * 125 * 0.6
p > 40T, in 'active' window, 2 PRP tests performed, score = (n/1M ^ 2) * 125 * 0.2
p > 40T, outside 'active' window, score = (as duplicate, see below)

A duplicate factor will score as follows:

score = p/100T, capped at 35.

Thus, you factor is either a duplicate or outside the active window. I guess it's the latter...

[MikeH]

I noticed that 6354798418167061747|27653*2^5998713 scored 35 points Don't worry it'll get it's moment of glory in about 5-6 weeks time. ;) Might even manage to hold the top spot as the highest scoring factor under 6M (which I'm guessing is what you were after).

....that's provided we don't find a prime for k=27653 before then. :D

[hc_grove]

Originally posted by MikeH
Don't worry it'll get it's moment of glory in about 5-6 weeks time. ;) Might even manage to hold the top spot as the highest scoring factor under 6M (which I'm guessing is what you were after).


Correct. (And ceselb: I'm going to complete a sensibly looking range to avoid making the coordination page too confusing).



....that's provided we don't find a prime for k=27653 before then. :D

Yeah, that's the problem with primes, they are bad for sieving scores. :rotfl:

[Mystwalker]

Mike:

I've found a strange occurence on my personal scores page:

Score change is said to be 13549.09 last day, but there was only one change: 1.347 --> 13555.303
Shouldn't the score change be 13553.956 (other score changes would even increase this gap - unless I had negative score changes, of course...).

Do you have more insight?:cheers:

[MikeH]

Do you have more insight? When is a day not a day? That is the question.

Having just taken a look at this, it would appear that the problem occurs because one day is actually taken as the time between this update and the one that's about 24 hours ago. Because the clock doesn't start until the various files that are required for the update have been downloaded, there can be a variation of many minites. In the data currently displayed, the gap between updates was 24.04 hours.

You'd expect the score change to be 13555.303 - 1.347 = 13553.956

but adjusting for a day: 13553.956 * (24/24.04) = 13531.403 (which is what's displayed)

This adjusting for a day feature was designed for when the score update fails totally for a number of runs. When that happens it makes slightly more sense because the two comparison points will be much more than 24 hours appart.

Hope that helps.

[Mystwalker]

Originally posted by MikeH
Hope that helps.

Definitely! Thanks for the clarification! :thumbs:

[Nuri]

Mike,

It seems to me that, since we started to have secret and supersecret doing DC work on two different ranges, I guess we should have a slight change in our sieve scoring system.

In short, we need a third "active window" on the 2m+ range to reflect secret related effects.

To complicate things a bit more, we'll also need a second completed window for 2000000<n<2m+


PS: Also, since we've finished all original secret tests, we will not have a case for
"p > 40T, in 'DC active' window, 0 PRP tests performed," anymore. :D

[hc_grove]

:confused: Something weird has happened to the scores, almost everybody lost lots of points. Mike is still in first place, but only with around 125000 points, and among the really weird stuff Kroberts5 (Keroberts1) only has 13433 points but under largest scores he has a factor giving 19808? :dunno:

BTW: Mike you seem to have missed that I actually have completed the 153300-153500 sieving range. (it's in the archived ranges thread now)

[Mystwalker]

Scores are better since the last update, but "Current 90% sieve point: -0.001T" looks slightly incorrect. ;)

[MikeH]

Something weird has happened to the scores, almost everybody lost lots of points. Mike is still in first place, but only with around 125000 points, and among the really weird stuff Kroberts5 (Keroberts1) only has 13433 points but under largest scores he has a factor giving 19808? I've seen this before, looks like the results file it downloaded for the 09:00 update was almost empty. Looks like the 15:00 one was OK, the 90% point etc. will be off, because that comes from the previous run. Should all sort itself out at 21:00.

Hmm....I really must add some protection against this happening (no update at all would be better than a crazy update).


BTW: Mike you seem to have missed that I actually have completed the 153300-153500 sieving range. (it's in the archived ranges thread now) Sorry, I always miss the archived ones.

BTW, I'm out of town from tomorrow for a week (Iceland in February:scratch: ) , so I won't be able to updates my local copies of the sieve and factor reservations. But that won't be a problem as log as everyone remembers to log in before submitting factors :)

[Death]

BTW, I'm out of town from tomorrow for a week (Iceland in February:scratch: ) , so I won't be able to updates my local copies of the sieve and factor reservations. But that won't be a problem as log as everyone remembers to log in before submitting factors :) [/B]

Don't worry daddy, we will.... :rolleyes:

[MikeH]

OK, scores are now sorted.


Hmm....I really must add some protection against this happening (no update at all would be better than a crazy update). ...and I've done this too.

[hc_grove]

In the table listing a users largest factors T/P/E/Z/Y-suffixes are used to display the factors. It would be nice if these were used in the other tables (such as largest score, factors next to enter ...) too.

[Keroberts1]

178.600 67607 13126211 1.786 Fri 30-Jan-2004
178.560 27653 2628537 1.786 Fri 30-Jan-2004
178.516 55459 1843894 1.785 Fri 30-Jan-2004

RATIO: 178491.08G - 178600.28G, size: 109.21G, est fact: 7 (178491077368091-178600284728843) R: 1.159, S: 0.672
#*# ( 100.28G) : 178500-179000 cooper76 [complete]

is something wrong with this ?

[Nuri]

Both of the factors

178.560 27653 2628537 1.786 Fri 30-Jan-2004
178.516 55459 1843894 1.785 Fri 30-Jan-2004


have n<3m. So, it's normal that they don't show up in the http://www.aooq73.dsl.pipex.com/gaps/Gaps_n3_20_p07u.htm page, but show up in the http://www.aooq73.dsl.pipex.com/gaps/Gaps_n3_20_ps0u.htm page.

[Frodo42]

The sieveing scores seem to have taken an unexpected turn ... the current active window is listed to be -1 < n < 4830000 :confused:

Last time there was a problem with the active windows it was due to a prime, I hope that is the case again.

[Mystwalker]

The project data from SoB looks ok, so I'd rather guess it's either an error with the results.txt or the scoring script.

[MikeH]

In the table listing a users largest factors T/P/E/Z/Y-suffixes are used to display the factors. It would be nice if these were used in the other tables (such as largest score, factors next to enter ...) too. Done.

The sieveing scores seem to have taken an unexpected turn ...and that's fixed too.:bang:

[Mystwalker]

Damnit! I thought I almost got Nuri (score-wise), but now I'm 100,000 points behind again. :cry: :D

[Nuri]

Originally posted by Mystwalker
Damnit! I thought I almost got Nuri (score-wise), but now I'm 100,000 points behind again. :cry: :D

It's for sure that you will one day. All I can hope is it will be far into the future. :D

[Keroberts1]

is there an active range for the sieve stats taht will allow tests for secret to score for the tests they have saved? Around 2 million? I don't see any i nthe stats page.

[MikeH]

is there an active range for the sieve stats taht will allow tests for secret to score for the tests they have saved? Around 2 million? I don't see any i nthe stats page. 'secret' is now a secondary double check window at n=2M, so really there are no more true 'secret' tests to save (in the old sense).

I was going to add a second DC window to the stats, but there seems to have been so little activity in 'secret' since it ran out of first time tests that there seems to be little point. Looking just now, three tests were completed yesterday - that's far more than when I looked a couple of weeks ago.

I'll have a think - the only real problem right now is determining where the window should be. I'll keep an eye on http://www.seventeenorbust.com/secret/ to see if this is behaves;)

[hc_grove]

I can see that we now have a third window (currently at 2002699 < n < 2012699), could we have a list of the factors next to enter this window?

[Keroberts1]

These scores don't make sense shouldn't the higher n value higher p value score higher


197.675T 28433 2011777 500.025 Wed 14-Jan-2004 1.977
86.435T 27653 2005665 651.942 Tue 14-Oct-2003 0.864


also I've noticed some factors on one name that i thought was combined with my other name i use now. They didn't show up in the sats for next to enter main active window on the score page where i rank 6th i believe. Could someone please check to see if the factors saved under keroberts1 (id=3172) are properly credited ot the other name i use more often when submitting factors Kroberts5 (id=3423).

[Nuri]

197.675T 28433 2011777 500.025 Wed 14-Jan-2004 1.977 has 2 PRP tests performed.

Thus; score = (n/1M ^ 2) * 125 * 0.2 * bias

=((2011777/1000000)^2)*125*(197.675T/40T)*0.2

= 500.025



86.435T 27653 2005665 651.942 Tue 14-Oct-2003 0.864 has 1 PRP test performed.

Thus; score = (n/1M ^ 2) * 125 * 0.6 * bias

=((2005665/1000000)^2)*125*(86.435T/40T)*0.6

= 651.95

[Keroberts1]

i don't understand why it has two done already but thanks for th info.

[MikeH]

i don't understand why it has two done already but thanks for th info. Some candidates do already have 2 PRP tests. Typically these happen where the original PRP test failed to report within the 5 day deadline (or whatever it was then), it was re-issued, but the both ran to completion.

[Keroberts1]

shouldn't these values have been removed from the current sob.dat file then? I thought all the values with two tests or that had already had factors foundwere eliminated before. That is i atleast thought they were nolonger considered to be possible primes so they were off of our list and not worth sieveing at all. I don't know what dat i was using when i found that factor but are values that have been tested twice stilli n the current dat file for the sievers?

P.S. it would be cool to get a list of next factors to enter secret active window. I'm sure it'll be made in due time though and I don't mind waiting as other things are definatly more important.

[Keroberts1]

I've also noticed that nothing from my lower ranges ever appears in the factors next to enter active window

[Nuri]

If you mean for ranges p<40T, that's the case for everybody.

As you might recall, we switched to the new scoring system at 40T. Every factor below 40T has already got their fullest points with the old scoring system.

[Mystwalker]

Originally posted by Keroberts1
I thought all the values with two tests or that had already had factors foundwere eliminated before. That is i atleast thought they were nolonger considered to be possible primes so they were off of our list and not worth sieveing at all.

There's still a slight error rate even after having passed 2 tests. Unfortunately, one cannot easily verify the PRP test, whereas it is pretty simple to verify a found factor. As there is no or next to no performance penalty for such factors, there's no big advantage in omitting them...

[Keroberts1]

i believe factors in the 50-70 T range are missing too.

[Nuri]

Originally posted by Keroberts1
i believe factors in the 50-70 T range are missing too.

I can see my factors for the 65T-67T range I seived. May be it is for some users only?? Can you specify it more?

[MikeH]

i believe factors in the 50-70 T range are missing too. I see 5 factors in this range in your 'Factors next to enter (main) 'active window'' right now.

[Keroberts1]

It is my understanding that once we hit another FFT boundary we will start seeing the PRP tests takeing significantly longer to complete. Is this correct, and if it is will this be reflected in the scoring of the factors for that size tests. It makes sense ot me that this would be so since the current value of the factors is related to the amount of work it saved the main effort. Just a side though i might be completely off on this anyways.

[MikeH]

Is this correct, and if it is will this be reflected in the scoring of the factors for that size tests. You are correct, however I rekon that improvements in the PRP client over time just about balance this out, so the square rule holds true enough.

So no, I wasn't planning to changing the sieve/factor scoring.

[Keroberts1]

where is the ftt barrier? How much slower are the tests going ot run. I didn't think that the new client was any faster was any faster. I actually thought i heard it was slower. We'll see how the general public feels about this and see how the client performs o nthe new tests before making any rash decisions I'm sure.

[MikeH]

FFT crossover points are discussed here (http://www.free-dc.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5454&highlight=fft)

When I talk about imrovemnts in the PRP client, I'm not just talking about the last release (which indeed is no quicker), but the whole history of the project, and the future.

I did think about the FFT crossover point when the current sieve/factor scores were designed, but all this would have done would be to make the scoring use (say) n^2.1 instead of n^2. And the effect would be the same for everyone, so relative scores wouldn't change.

In the end there are lots of different ways we could score, but this is the one we went with, and it's one with which most people seem reasonably happy.

[Keroberts1]

ok good en0ugh explanation for me.

[MikeH]

Congratulations to dmbrubac for taking the number one spot in the 14 day average. Very much deserved since you are generating 0.8 'active' factors per day from factoring alone.:|party|:

[Nuri]

Originally posted by MikeH
Congratulations to dmbrubac for taking the number one spot in the 14 day average. Very much deserved since you are generating 0.8 'active' factors per day from factoring alone.:|party|: That 0.8 figure is incredible. I envy it.

[MikeH]

....and now I'm 4th.


1+ dmbrubac 20396.61 (12.35) 0.8 ( 1.37) 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0
2+ Mystwalker 18767.07 (11.36) 2.5 ( 4.36) 0.1 0.1 2.4 0.0 0.0
3+ OrkunBanuTST (Nuri) 17880.26 (10.82) 11.4 (19.80) 0.1 1.1 10.2 0.0 0.0
4- MikeH 17832.56 (10.79) 11.6 (20.17) 0.3 1.1 10.4 0.0 12.5
congratulations Nuri and Mystwalker
:|party|:

[Keroberts1]

could I have a number of factors over 1000000 that have been found that are over 40T? Just wondering to see how much further wewould have to push sieving to save another 5% of tests. I figured that since 40T sieving averages about a 5% speedup of the rate that the PRP line moves.

[Death]

266189010400249 | 21181*2^14314148+1
266189632782739 | 28433*2^18282217+1
266190560995831 | 21181*2^16656764+1

just at the morning home siever found this 3 factors.
after submitting them via http://devel.seventeenorbust.com/sieve (only server I see now) it says 2 of 3 new....

what's happend???

UPD. I found it. But don't understand how this happens. This factor was found at this night by home siever...
At the evening I checked sobistrator and there was no new factors..

266.189T 21181 14314148 2.662 Mon 17-May-2004 170439.853

[MikeH]

Due to server migration, the results.txt.bz2 file hasn't been available since 03:00 UK time. As a result, it's not being updated right now.

[Death]

why does this happen?

170.014T 4847 6416463 21873.898 Fri 26-Dec-2003 Wed 26-May-2004 1.700

why score rise after a half a year?

please tell something about scores raising...

[Mystwalker]

Originally posted by Death
why does this happen?

170.014T 4847 6416463 21873.898 Fri 26-Dec-2003 Wed 26-May-2004 1.700

why score rise after a half a year?

please tell something about scores raising...

The "active window" (200,000 bigger than the currently largest assigned test) just moved to a point where it includes the n of your factor, which means that it is now (resp. soon) saving a PRP test. This was necessary to honor the near-time property of P-1 factoring, as a factor for n=19,000,000 isn't valuable right now.

The way factors get scored is described here (http://www.aooq73.dsl.pipex.com/) .

[Nuri]

Death, it's highly likely that you'll be the first one to have a factor that scored 40,000+ within a couple of days. (or it'll be Paperboy - which is less likely -, and you'll be second. It all depends on project PRP progress vs. project sieve progress)

666.306T 33661 6440712 6.663 Thu 04-Mar-2004 86375.741 16.66 DeadJDona will score ~40,950 when the active window (PRP boundary+200,000) reaches 6440712, and your score for that factor will continue to increase (only slightly this time) up until the lower end of the active window (PRP boundary) passes 6440712. Thenafter, it will not increase anymore.

[Death]

Mystwalker, as non native english-speaking person I understand this intuitively. =))
I have no problems with math, but some terms confuse me... :blush:

Current 'active' windows: 747958 < n < 947958
2014584 < n < 2024584
6231127 < n < 6431127

170.014T 4847 - k 6416463 - n

so n is in active window now and it saves a full test?

Nuri, that will be fun!

I remember you PM me asking why I choose this range... ;)
That was an intuition! :blush:

If this happens I got 100000+ score! Don't beat a MikeH :D but also not too bad.

[Mystwalker]

Originally posted by Death
Mystwalker, as non native english-speaking person I understand this intuitively. =))
I have no problems with math, but some terms confuse me... :blush:

Current 'active' windows: 747958 < n < 947958
2014584 < n < 2024584
6231127 < n < 6431127

170.014T 4847 - k 6416463 - n

so n is in active window now and it saves a full test?

The most important window is the third:
6231127 < n < 6431127

That's the window current tests are handed out. So, when a factor was found for such a k/n pair, it will (soon) save a test (and lateron maybe a double check test...). When you find a factor for a 'n' that already has passed this active window, it has already assigned, so the factor is worth less...

[Death]

i can distinguish one number from anotheê =)))


but why there's three active windows???

[Nuri]

Death,

I think you know about secret and super secret accounts. If not, take a look at here (http://www.seventeenorbust.com/secret/).

Both these accounts are used for double checking previous PRP work. A user who changes his username (at the related SoB client window) to secret does secret work, and the same for supersecret. In other words, it's an anonymus work.

Currently, secret account is set to double check for the remaining k where n is between 2 million and 3 million. The lower end of the second active window shows where the largest secret test is (which is around 2,015,000 at present). So, when a factor you find enters the second active window, this suggests it will save a secret test soon.

The same applies for supersecret and the first active window. supersecret is currently doing double checking work for n up to 800,000 and the leading edge at supersecret is around 750,000.

PS: When supersecret is finished with numbers up to 800,000, it will probably be assigned the tests for n between 800,000 and 2,000,000.

I hope it is all clear now.

If this is not still enough, please search for secret and/or supersecret in the forum using the search button above to get more information on the issue. There is quite a lot of material there.

[Death]

Thanks, Nuri for good explanation.

Yep, I know about secret and supersecret accounts (actually I'm running SoB! client with supersecret account when PC is not sievieng). plain wu's seems soooo long for me. and also I want to eliminate ALL supersecret tests sometime. Not by myself only, but with help of all of SoBers =))

Now it's clear to me about three active windows and three types of accounts.

Actually we already talk about secret andsupersecret accounts but there was another questions about them that you answered me. =))

And also someone (sorry, buddy, don't want to dig forum right now) mention that if supersecret tests finished, there will be some stats and server problems.

So it will be wise to take care about this BEFORE this 747958 < n < 947958 becomes 947958 = n = 947958. =))

and is there any possibility to take some stats or credits for this job to users?
Yeah, I understand that tests distinguished by username, that is "supersecret" for supersecret tests but some IP logging can make some help.
You know, DC is 50% stat's fun and 50% of sciense, so some supesecret statistic can add few dozens of users to supersecret job...

[Death]

Originally posted by Nuri
Death, it's highly likely that you'll be the first one to have a factor that scored 40,000+ within a couple of days. (or it'll be Paperboy - which is less likely -, and you'll be second. It all depends on project PRP progress vs. project sieve progress)

666.306T 33661 6440712 6.663 Thu 04-Mar-2004 86375.741 16.66 DeadJDona will score ~40,950 when the active window (PRP boundary+200,000) reaches 6440712, and your score for that factor will continue to increase (only slightly this time) up until the lower end of the active window (PRP boundary) passes 6440712. Thenafter, it will not increase anymore.

666.306T 33661 6440712 40705.082 Thu 04-Mar-2004 Fri 28-May-2004 6.663 86375.741 16.66

:elephant: :elephant: :elephant:

31+ DeadJDona (death) 119474.28+

:thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:

[Mystwalker]

Originally posted by Death
And also someone (sorry, buddy, don't want to dig forum right now) mention that if supersecret tests finished, there will be some stats and server problems.

So it will be wise to take care about this BEFORE this 747958 < n < 947958 becomes 947958 = n = 947958. =))

This point will be reached for n = 800,000 already. I estimate it takes approx. 2 more weeks to get there...