Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 81 to 120 of 185

Thread: Small n factoring

  1. #81
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    271
    I'll extend my database of all factors to include computed P+1 B1 and B2 values along with the existing P-1 values.

  2. #82
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    271
    The P+1 figures are interesting.

    I'm in the middle of computing the B1 and B2 values for P+1 (to go along with the B1, B2 for P-1). 1/3 of the way so far.

    Both methods provide the roughly the same number of factors (where p < 2^50) and the overlap (where a specific B1,B2 would have found a factor using either method) is relatively small.

    (Sticking with B2=B1*100)

    228541 factors < 2^50. B1=1000 B2=100000
    P-1 finds 3516
    P+1 finds 3423
    BOTH: 44

    229376 factors < 2^50. B1=40000 B2=4000000
    P-1 finds 47113
    p+1 finds 45112
    BOTH: 9005

    However, I'm having trouble with ecm 6.0.1 which I'm using for P+1. It segfaults in step 2 whenever I use an n > 1M. Will look into this further.

    More stats later when I've factored all P+1's.

  3. #83
    Moderator vjs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    ARS DC forum
    Posts
    1,331
    One of the major problems with P+1 is the group order (from mersenne) basically there is only a 50% probablility that you actually do a P+1 and not a P-1.

    What most people do is 3 curves at 3-levels higher than they would typically ecm.

    Not sure why it's segfaulting for you remember there are many different ecm versions optimized for different platforms. I'm sure your using the correct one but you might just want to check for a new version.

  4. #84
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    271
    Intersting. Got any links to where I can read up on p+1 and the group orders?

    [EDIT] http://magma.maths.usyd.edu.au/magma...lp/text529.htm

    Googled for it. "p+1" is not that easy to search for as google strips out the +, even when it is in double quotes.

    Quoth the page: "A base x_0 is used, and not all bases will succeed: only half of the bases work (namely those where the Jacobi symbol of x_0^2 - 4 and p is -1.) Unfortunately, since p is usually not known in advance, there is no way to ensure that this holds. However, if the base is chosen randomly, there is a probability of about 1/2 that it will give a Jacobi symbol of -1 (so that the factor p would be found assuming that p + 1 is smooth enough). A rule of thumb is to run pPlus1 three times with different random bases."

    Thank you for pointing me in the right direction.

    As for the segfaulting, I think it's a general GMP problem. I had the same thing when implementing my own p-1 code with GMP, it kept on coring in mpz_powm(). I've compiled the whole thing myself (gmp and ecm) so there cannot be any compatability problems.
    Last edited by Greenbank; 09-07-2005 at 11:05 AM.

  5. #85
    Moderator vjs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    ARS DC forum
    Posts
    1,331
    You might just want to browse the mersenneforums.org under the factoring section.

    Since you have the data and bounds (presumably) you should be able to double check to see if P+1 works for a particular k/n value (i.e. get it in the first or second shot). This could prove interesting.

    If so it may be worth P+1'ing all values with (??? we can probably make a guess from your 48+ bit data) ???? 20K/300K before the enter prp in addition to P-1 assuming we get enough factoring computer power.

    I personally believe more people will start to factor these numbers in the future as test continue to take longer and longer.

    I think the only thing we can really do is experiment, I prefer experimentation to theory.

  6. #86
    Moderator Joe O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    West Milford, NJ
    Posts
    643
    Originally posted by Greenbank
    However, I'm having trouble with ecm 6.0.1 which I'm using

    for P+1. It segfaults in step 2 whenever I use an n > 1M. Will

    look into this further.

    Probably stack overflow. There is an option and/or a dll to not use the stack. Check the documentation. It's probably libgmp vs libgmpa but I'm not sure.
    Joe O

  7. #87
    Sieve it, baby!
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Potsdam, Germany
    Posts
    959
    New status:

    Code:
    		25	30	35	40			
    
    21181,1148	ok	ok	ok	ok
    21181,1172	ok	ok	ok	reserved
    10223,1181	ok	ok	ok
    21181,1268	ok	ok	ok
    10223,1517	ok	ok	ok
    24737,1567	ok	ok	ok
    55459,1666	ok	ok	ok
    55459,1894	ok	ok	ok	reserved

  8. #88
    Sieve it, baby!
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Potsdam, Germany
    Posts
    959
    New status:

    Code:
    		25	30	35	40			
    
    21181,1148	ok	ok	ok	ok
    21181,1172	ok	ok	ok	reserved
    10223,1181	ok	ok	ok
    21181,1268	ok	ok	ok
    10223,1517	ok	ok	ok
    24737,1567	ok	ok	ok	reserved (13.2%)
    55459,1666	ok	ok	ok
    55459,1894	ok	ok	ok	reserved (32.6%)

  9. #89
    i tried to do some curves a whileago but i was unable to do s obecause 991 required too much memory at the level itwas at. I would like ot help out with the other numbers though is there anyway someon can tell me what i need to place in different files and what command line i should use ot work on say
    10223,1181 ok ok ok
    for the 40 digit level

  10. #90
    Sieve it, baby!
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Potsdam, Germany
    Posts
    959
    Maybe this posting gof the current thread helps.

    If not, just ask or search the forum - there should be a better instruction somewhere...

    For the 40 digit level, you'll need ~200 MB for optimal performance, IIRC.

  11. #91
    ok well where r the decimal expansions of the remaining canidates and is this the correct command line to call

    C:\gnu\msys\home\sKetch\ecm-6.0.1\ecmfactor.exe ecm -c 100 -n -one 11e7 < SB.txt >> SBresult.txt

    it doesn't seem to work

  12. #92
    Moderator vjs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    ARS DC forum
    Posts
    1,331
    I'd suggest using prime95 for stage1 its faster anyways...

    The other thing you could do is create the decimal expansion with dario's applet.

    Google ECM applet dario

  13. #93
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    271
    I thought ECM-6.0.1 was able to take non-expanded input?

    Yup, just checked. My work files have:-

    METHOD=ECM; SIGMA=2568500344; B1=100000; N=10223*2^4169+1; X=...

    You can check this with (finds a low B1 B2 value factor)...

    # echo 33661*2^1918512+1 | ./ecm -pm1 300 400
    GMP-ECM 6.0.1 [powered by GMP 4.1.4] [P-1]
    Input number is 33661*2^1918512+1 (577535 digits)

    No expansion required.

  14. #94
    Sieve it, baby!
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Potsdam, Germany
    Posts
    959
    For Windows systems, the number probably has to be entered differently:

    http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=4536 (especially starting from #11)


    But I'd also use prime95 for stage1 (using GmpEcmHook=1 in prime.ini). That way, you don't need to do anything about the number, as it is entered into the results file.

    C:\gnu\msys\home\sKetch\ecm-6.0.1\ecmfactor.exe ecm -c 100 -n -one 11e7 < SB.txt >> SBresult.txt
    If you use ecm only, try
    Code:
    echo 10223*2^^^^1181+1 | ecm.exe -n -one -c 2440 3e6 >> SBresult.txt
    - not ecmfactor.exe
    - maybe use 1 or 2 "^"
    - on a fast PC, this should be doable in about a week
    - it's faster when you use Prime95 for stage1, but more complicated (which will hopefully change in a couple of weeks)
    - when you close the program, you'll only loose the current curve (approx. 5-10 minutes lost)

  15. #95
    well nothing seems to be working right now... I'm looking to know exactly what to type in for the correct number of curves to be done for any K and N value. I want to start it directly fro mthe start menu and simply click run and enter a command line. I'm not an expert in dealing with computers so please make it simple. if someone uses AIM and wants to give me a little one on one advise it'd be appreciated but it isn't that important. After all this isn't even a productive part of the project, just a fun one. If anyone wants to assist me yo ucan send me a PM and I'll get back ot yo uwithin a day or so.

  16. #96
    Moderator vjs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    ARS DC forum
    Posts
    1,331
    If your using windows

    C:\gnu\msys\home\sKetch\ecm-6.0.1\ecmfactor.exe ecm -c 100 -n -one 11e7 < SB.txt >> SBresult.txt

    almost correct

    C:\gnu\msys\home\sKetch\ecm-6.0.1\ecmfactor -n -one -c 100 11e7 7e11 <SB.txt >>SBresult.txt

    Where sb.txt contains the decimal expanded number, try that and see if it works.

    Also your ecm file is called ecmfactor???
    If you tell me what O/S, processor, ram you have I could e-mail you a complete zipped folder where all you have to do is click.

  17. #97
    i have windows XP and a AMD athalon 2000+ with 256 MB of memory. I am planning to get more memory sticks soon. Interestingly enough i have no problem installing new hardware on my machine but for somereason i just can't friggin figure out how to d osimply things with windows. I hate microsoft.

  18. #98
    Sieve it, baby!
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Potsdam, Germany
    Posts
    959
    New status:

    Code:
    		25	30	35	40			
    
    21181,1148	ok	ok	ok	ok
    21181,1172	ok	ok	ok	ok
    10223,1181	ok	ok	ok	Keroberts1
    21181,1268	ok	ok	ok	reserved
    10223,1517	ok	ok	ok
    24737,1567	ok	ok	ok	reserved (26.5%)
    55459,1666	ok	ok	ok
    55459,1894	ok	ok	ok	reserved (66.2%)
    Keroberts:
    Did you make gmp-ecm run your number?

  19. #99
    not really i kinda gave up after i failed 50 times and never got any responses in the fourum. I mean i have sbfactor working fine and at some point in the past i was having no problem running GMPecm but i forgot waht to do adn can't find where i read how to do it. My main problem is i can't remember what to use for formatting when calling the program and i don't remember the windows syntax for calling programs from the start menu. whether i need to seperate comands with - or < or " or - . or just spaces. I also don't remember which order the commands should be in. I forgot all of this a while ago when i dropped all of my programming courses. I love the math but hate the computers. Tis a shame they seemed like they would have fun together.

  20. #100
    Sieve it, baby!
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Potsdam, Germany
    Posts
    959
    Can you navigate to the directory that contains ecm.exe?
    You can also use "command prompt here" (this one probably only works for WinXP SP2, but it should be available for other Windows versions as well). Just install it, then right-click on the folder in the Explorer and select the resp. command from the pop-up menu.

    Now, first try something like
    echo 547398 | ecm.exe 100 1000
    Does this work?

  21. #101
    seemed to work found a factor of 2 immediatly where do i go from here?

  22. #102
    Sieve it, baby!
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Potsdam, Germany
    Posts
    959
    Sorry for the late reply...

    Now, try
    echo 10223*2^^^^1181+1 | ecm.exe -n -one -c 2440 3e6 >> SBresult.txt
    The expected behavior:
    - Nothing will be in the window
    - a few seconds later, a file named "SBresult.exe" will appear in the directory. Its contents:
    Code:
    GMP-ECM 6.0.1 [powered by GMP 4.1.4] [ECM]
    Input number is 10223*2^1181+1 (360 digits)
    Using B1=3000000, B2=4016636513, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=1083634601
    (The sigma value will be different, though...)

    - every now and then (depending on your PC's performance; maybe every 1 or 2 minutes), the text file should grow

    If this doesn't work, try this one instead:
    echo 10223*2^^1181+1 | ecm.exe -n -one -c 2440 3e6 >> SBresult.txt

  23. #103
    I've got itrunning nowhowlong does a single curve take? Howlong should i expect it to take on an athalon 2000+ for it to finish?

    edit: nevermind answered my own question should be done in 15 days.

    how much memory shouldi have to even attempt to help with the 991 factoring? I would relly love to see that one fall and it would be cool to find a record factor.

    I was reviewing some old posts and i saw someone mentioning an obvious fact that there can at most be 6 5 0digit factors or 5 60 digit factors and so on for something adding up to 300 digits. This means that if there are going to be multiple 50 or 60 digit factors then perhaps fewer curves should be performed because there are likely to be more than 1 factor in the certain digit range.

    Has the 50 digit range been finished? 55? I just upgraded my system's RAM to 512 MB of DDR. would this be enough ot help out? I am usually just a siever and I like ot play with P-1 but i don't find enough factors in either of these to really make me feel like I'm helping the project much so I'd just like to try something a little more interesting for a while. Does anyone know what the statistical odds of the factors being distributed i ndifferent fashions? We know that the value is not prime so the absolute worst scenerio would be two prime factors around 150 digits. This is not extremely likely though.

    Would ECM work at all if the factors that are at say the 70 digit level were composed of 2 primes both of 35 digits hence that factor = P1+P2+1 ?

    How often do 2 primes +1 add up to equal another prime... I believe there was a specia lname for this type of a number but i am not up to date on my number theory. I am hopping ot take a few more courses on it next semiester (have some empty blocks n my schedual) I would really love to be able ot understand a little better how exactly all of this works.
    Last edited by Keroberts1; 11-15-2005 at 03:55 AM.

  24. #104
    Sieve it, baby!
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Potsdam, Germany
    Posts
    959
    Originally posted by Keroberts1
    how much memory shouldi have to even attempt to help with the 991 factoring? I would relly love to see that one fall and it would be cool to find a record factor.

    Has the 50 digit range been finished? 55? I just upgraded my system's RAM to 512 MB of DDR. would this be enough ot help out?
    512 MB should be enough for the 50 digit level. For 55 digits, 1 GB would be good and 2 GB even better.

    The 50 digit range is still underway. I guess we're approx. half-way through, so there's still a lot of work to be done.

    I was reviewing some old posts and i saw someone mentioning an obvious fact that there can at most be 6 5 0digit factors or 5 60 digit factors and so on for something adding up to 300 digits. This means that if there are going to be multiple 50 or 60 digit factors then perhaps fewer curves should be performed because there are likely to be more than 1 factor in the certain digit range.
    This is possible, but not very likely. According to [utl=http://home.earthlink.net/~elevensmooth/MathFAQ.html#NoFactors]William Lipp[/url], the probability of a factor between 10^a and 10^b is 1-a/b.

    Would ECM work at all if the factors that are at say the 70 digit level were composed of 2 primes both of 35 digits hence that factor = P1+P2+1 ?
    This is where ECM differs from P-1/P+1 factoring. You don't need a smooth P-1/P+1 (which rely on "P_1 * P_2 * ... * P_n +/- 1", by the way).
    I haven't completely figured it out myself, but I think the following is a nice (but definitely wrong) way of putting it (call it a lie - but a useful lie ):

    Each curve uses a random sigma value.
    Just imagine that a curve tries to find a smooth P+sigma.
    Again, this is not how it works, but it can be understood easily.

  25. #105
    I was thinking that such a formula would not work atthis point because of the extensive factoring already done for this value. I believe it is more likely that there is a few factors that are just above what we are currently searching through. This would mean that fewer curves should be necessary for us to find one of those factors and hence we'd want to switch to higher bounds sooner, perhaps alot sooner. I'm planning to work out the stats tonight but i probably won't have time because ofmy workload for school. I just wish i paid more atention in stats class last year so I'd remember how to do this quickly without having to g othrough the book again. What I'd really like is a probability graph showing the likelyhood of multiple factors in the different digit ranges. it is likely that there is a range around 70 digits that is more likely to have several factors within it and would therefore require fewer curves to find a factor.

  26. #106
    so where is the current stand of the 991 factoring effort? when i finish my current factoring range and my sieve range i would like to help. what are the neccessary bounds? How many curves are needed?

  27. #107
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    271
    Originally posted by Keroberts1
    so where is the current stand of the 991 factoring effort? when i finish my current factoring range and my sieve range i would like to help. what are the neccessary bounds? How many curves are needed?
    My personal opinion is that people have plowed far too much time into trying to factor this number already. Even my rubbish proth_gmp binary can PRP it in about 1/100th of a second and prove that it is composite.

    However, you are free to contribute to the project in whatever way you want. My opinions are my own ;-)

    You should find this thread useful:-

    http://www.free-dc.org/forum/showthr...&threadid=9595

    It explains the bounds and number of curves that people have run in the past, along with a few expected execution times per curve for certain hardware, plus the bounds for different factor lengths.
    Quad 2.5GHz G5 PowerMac. Mmmmm.
    My Current Sieve Progress: http://www.greenbank.org/cgi-bin/proth.cgi

  28. #108
    Sieve it, baby!
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Potsdam, Germany
    Posts
    959
    Originally posted by Keroberts1
    so where is the current stand of the 991 factoring effort? when i finish my current factoring range and my sieve range i would like to help. what are the neccessary bounds? How many curves are needed?
    Joe posted his Excel spreadsheet here.
    It's almost half a year old.
    In the meantime, I did approx. 10% of the required curves, Joe probably did some more.
    Thus we're at 30%+...

  29. #109
    my computer crashed after 1490 curves for 1181 and i was hopping i coul djust start it again and finish the last 950 but I'm worried its going ot start off with the same sigma values again. How should i go about continueing this?

  30. #110
    Moderator vjs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    ARS DC forum
    Posts
    1,331
    no everytime the simga value is chosen at random. ALso several sigma values will fit what's required for a factor if there is one.

  31. #111
    Sieve it, baby!
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Potsdam, Germany
    Posts
    959
    Originally posted by vjs
    no everytime the simga value is chosen at random.
    That would be surprising for me...
    Actually, each sigma value should be random, in the sense that it is highly unlikely to get the same value twice in such a short time.

    Even if it happens, it's not that bad. That one curve is useless then, but the next curve should have a new (and unused) sigma value.

    Your 1490 curves are completely valid, assuming you still have the output and/or checked that no factor has been found.

  32. #112
    Moderator vjs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    ARS DC forum
    Posts
    1,331
    O.K. then I'm not understanding where are the sigma values of the previous curve stored or?

    I know there are functions to start with a particular sigma value then incrementally increase. But I wouldn't know which sigma to start at or what increment to use.

    It would make sence that if one wanted to conduct "all" of the 45-digit curves etc that there would be a minimum sigma to start with and an sigma increase etc.

  33. #113
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    271
    They aren't stored. There are 2^32 (4294967296) possible sigma values it could pick at random.

    Let's have a look at the odds.

    If N=2^32 (number of possible sigma values):-

    For one sigma value to be unique (which it obviously will be):

    N/N = 1

    For two sigma values:-

    N*(N-1)/ N^2.

    For three sigma values:-

    N*(N-1)*(N-2) / N^3

    Or: N! - (N-c)! / N^c (where c is the number of curves)

    Continuing this up to 5000 sigma values (and knocking up a quick GMP program to calculate this).

    The chances of picking 5000 unique sigma values is 99.70944%. So there is a 1 in 344 chance that you won't have picked 5000 unique sigma values.
    Quad 2.5GHz G5 PowerMac. Mmmmm.
    My Current Sieve Progress: http://www.greenbank.org/cgi-bin/proth.cgi

  34. #114
    either way all of the curves are completed and no factors found (where would the factor be outputted?) No fact.txt file or other new files that i can see.

  35. #115
    Sieve it, baby!
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Potsdam, Germany
    Posts
    959
    Do you have the ">> SBresult.txt" at the end of your command?
    If yes, all output will be there. Thus, just open it and search for "factor".
    If you haven't specified an output file, then you either have to use the parameter "-one" (which stops factoring once a factor is found; nevertheless, the output is only on screen by default) or search through all screen output.

  36. #116
    Moderator vjs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    ARS DC forum
    Posts
    1,331
    Mystwalker is correct of course...

    The other option is to yet again use more switches, take the following commmand line for example

    k7 -one -c 900 3e6 <991.num >>results.txt

    This commandline would 900 curves and b1=3e6 (the 40-digit level) and save all the output to results.txt.

    The two options of >>results.txt and >results.txt,
    >results.txt this basically means write the output for the curve to a text file results.txt
    >>results.txt this basically means write the output for the curve to the end of the text file results.txt

    The differences are suttle but with the first case only the last curve will appear in the file the one with the factor. With the secondcase all curves are written to the file with the factor producing curve at the end.

    Using >> is the better choice since you can see the progress of your ecm by checking txt file size. I think a 900 curve file is about ???88k??? when completed???

    Here is the important part

    -one

    When using this switch the ecm program will stop once a factor is found, therefore the last curve i.e. the last curve written to the curve containing the factor.

    Here is an example of what's contained in a sucessful factor using the above commmandline (note b1=11e6)

    GMP-ECM 6.0 [powered by GMP 4.1.4] [ECM]
    Input number is 2366206759345660958438496174396247604384804004693614461892003255335430183968544739660002801882779222 8876627301931 (113 digits)
    Using B1=11000000, B2=50000000000, polynomial Dickson(12), sigma=1539336453
    Step 1 took 121896ms
    Step 2 took 102287ms
    Using B1=11000000, B2=50000000000, polynomial Dickson(12), sigma=2897668340
    Step 1 took 121628ms
    Step 2 took 102263ms
    Using B1=11000000, B2=50000000000, polynomial Dickson(12), sigma=1080738149
    Step 1 took 121945ms
    Step 2 took 102188ms
    ********** Factor found in step 2: 109152212865049578528408617691239
    Found probable prime factor of 33 digits: 109152212865049578528408617691239
    Probable prime cofactor 216780466216577989739156624879506765269560601796002467513388819212013895038704029 has 81 digits


    The bolded portion is the only curve which produced a factor. IF you don't use the -one switch the factor could be buried somewhere in the file, if you use the -one and only use > only the factoring curve is written.

    I think I made this more complicated than it need to be. Simply do a text search for words factor or prime or simply search for *** as mystwalker suggested.

    On another note it will take quite some effort for us to find a factor for this number. It's quite possible that there are no factors less than 100 digits in size. But then again we may find a 45-digit factor for it in the next curve. We just don't know.

  37. #117
    Sieve it, baby!
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Potsdam, Germany
    Posts
    959
    Originally posted by vjs

    >results.txt this basically means write the output for the curve to a text file results.txt
    >>results.txt this basically means write the output for the curve to the end of the text file results.txt

    The differences are suttle but with the first case only the last curve will appear in the file the one with the factor. With the secondcase all curves are written to the file with the factor producing curve at the end.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd think that with ">", all curves of one run of the application are written to the resp. file.
    In other words, the file is only overwritten when you start gmp-ecm another time, not when another curve is calculated.

    Apart from that, I completely concur with you.

  38. #118
    ok well i did use -one and there were no factors at the end of the file so i guess no luck this time. What bounds should i use for 991 i am thinking i should do 10 or 20 curves just to see if i can push that one along a little more. what optional commands should i use to save memory?

  39. #119
    Sieve it, baby!
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Potsdam, Germany
    Posts
    959
    B1 bounds is 44M at the moment.

    For B2, it's generally sensible to use the default value when performing stage1 with gmp-ecm as well.
    When you have few memory, there are 3 options:

    1. use smaller B2 bounds
    Curves will be completed faster and need less memory, but more are needed for a certain digit level.
    For 49e9, I need upto 340MB.

    2. use the parameter "-k <x>" where <x> is a number
    By default, x = 4. It's basically the number of fractions the b2 "space" gets divided in.
    Increasing this value saves memory, but curves take a bit longer.
    Quadrupling the value halves the memory consumption.

    3. use the parameter "-treefile <x>" where <x> is a name
    Now, some tables are written to disk instead of stored in memory. This considerably reduces memory requirements, but of course lessens performance, but not as much as one might expect.

  40. #120
    Moderator vjs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    ARS DC forum
    Posts
    1,331
    Mystwalker,

    Hummm... > or >>

    Now you have me thinking, it doesn't make sence at if you decided to run 400 curves with the > that only the first curve were reported. Since if a factor were found on the 249th curve the client would stop but you wounldn't know the factor. (Not saying your wrong but... I always thought the txt was simpley overwritten and the >> was an append?)

    Well lets just agree that one shouldn't use the > but the >> option instead.

    Keroberts,

    Mystwalker is giving you great advise I'd stick with with his guidance.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •