mersenneforum.org

mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   Aliquot Sequences (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=90)
-   -   Reserved for MF - Sequence 4788 (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=11615)

jrk 2009-08-17 01:01

[QUOTE=frmky;185808]Otherwise, I'll finish it by tomorrow.[/QUOTE]
You can do a c145 in one day? How big is the cluster?

frmky 2009-08-17 04:54

It's actually quite small and simple, as clusters go. It has 10 compute nodes, each with a 2.4 GHz Core 2 Quad. The grad students got a $5000 intramural grant and built it as a side project a while back. To fit it in budget, the nodes each have 4 GB memory, are diskless, and are connected by GigE.

frmky 2009-08-17 18:44

Argh! It'll take another day. Another user started a process on the cluster which did the service of killing mine. As a result, my simpleton aliquot sequence program thought the results were corrupt, deleted all relations, and stopped. I've gotta teach it to delete things ONLY if the results were successful. Anyway, I'm restarting it outside of the aliquot sequence software with higher priority.

jrk 2009-08-19 03:15

[QUOTE=frmky;186052]Argh! It'll take another day.[/QUOTE]
Was it successful today?

frmky 2009-08-20 06:34

Sorry for the delay. I'm more used to SNFS factorizations, so underestimated the number of relations needed. I also made qintsize too small. These two coupled together meant that it spent an enormous amount of time running the filtering over and over again, only to discover that there still weren't enough relations, then sieving a little more. Anyway, the linear algebra is running now, and the factors should be waiting when I get up tomorrow.

frmky 2009-08-20 16:55

prp49 factor: 9266455924974821009747268979716027836786642121659
prp96 factor: 454366919081653863050546934138139744806404198082970702649005540616077748580934679066082175220009

This bring it to step 2435 with a C155. I'm running ECM curves now up to B1=3M. Feel free to join in. :smile:

jrk 2009-08-20 17:58

[QUOTE=frmky;186721]prp49 factor: 9266455924974821009747268979716027836786642121659
prp96 factor: 454366919081653863050546934138139744806404198082970702649005540616077748580934679066082175220009

This bring it to step 2435 with a C155. I'm running ECM curves now up to B1=3M. Feel free to join in. :smile:[/QUOTE]
Nice.

Now the seq is on step 2436 with a c131.

frmky 2009-08-21 03:27

I've done 4000 curves at B1=11M on the current C132. I'm moving on to other projects, so all y'all can take over from here.

10metreh 2009-08-21 07:21

[QUOTE=frmky;186806]I've done 4000 curves at B1=11M on the current C132. I'm moving on to other projects, so all y'all can take over from here.[/QUOTE]

That's enough ECM; does someone want to do it, or shall it be a team sieve?

Greebley 2009-08-21 14:53

We are now less than 100 away from [URL="http://factorization.ath.cx/search.php?se=1&aq=314718&action=last20"]314718[/URL] reaching 9000 indices.

jrk 2009-08-22 01:06

[QUOTE=10metreh;186827]That's enough ECM; does someone want to do it, or shall it be a team sieve?[/QUOTE]

Looks like it'll be a team sieve then.

I started a poly search with msieve.

jrk 2009-08-22 05:46

[QUOTE=jrk;186963]Looks like it'll be a team sieve then.

I started a poly search with msieve.[/QUOTE]

Here's one:

[code]
n: 128884548745268111272865256286343647297362141639349354777257427180583981433019147873573181228554594271870135015462926183892184639779
# norm 8.620730e-13 alpha -6.151233 e 5.416e-11
skew: 221034.75
c0: -85848422053291577310541182972672
c1: -182784784632530169810380096
c2: 9264140201154197887028
c3: 4616332621091608
c4: -130712859177
c5: 288420
Y0: -13490760014661274202566223
Y1: 452441599659677
rlim: 10000000
alim: 10000000
lpbr: 27
lpba: 27
mfbr: 54
mfba: 54
rlambda: 2.5
alambda: 2.5

[/code]

def-nm-params.txt suggests that a good score is 4.51e-11

jrk 2009-08-22 06:48

A bit better:

[code]
n: 128884548745268111272865256286343647297362141639349354777257427180583981433019147873573181228554594271870135015462926183892184639779
# norm 9.962231e-13 alpha -5.919298 e 5.909e-11
skew: 94066.60
c0: -2859035759779303395827765570880
c1: 35371317901777264650071124
c2: 3858856143107184029879
c3: 5211231669097662
c4: -481062970300
c5: 581640
Y0: -11724987796918835499253147
Y1: 502923181106423
rlim: 10000000
alim: 10000000
lpbr: 27
lpba: 27
mfbr: 54
mfba: 54
rlambda: 2.5
alambda: 2.5[/code]

10metreh 2009-08-22 07:14

[QUOTE=jrk;186976]def-nm-params.txt suggests that a good score is 4.51e-11[/QUOTE]

That isn't actually a "good score". It's just a (bad) name for "below this bound, polynomials will not be saved".

Is the poly search finished yet?

jrk 2009-08-23 05:12

Another slight improvement:

[code]
n: 128884548745268111272865256286343647297362141639349354777257427180583981433019147873573181228554594271870135015462926183892184639779
# norm 9.990093e-13 alpha -6.530119 e 5.917e-11
skew: 125304.96
c0: -3154210280231927135107173799541
c1: 2852258150863533245214823
c2: 9742539035261862224357
c3: 31979892546453095
c4: -390636665178
c5: 743640
Y0: -11162726022381847086623940
Y1: 646588654726421
rlim: 10000000
alim: 10000000
lpbr: 27
lpba: 27
mfbr: 54
mfba: 54
rlambda: 2.5
alambda: 2.5
[/code]

[quote="10metreh"]Is the poly search finished yet? [/quote]
Yes. I ran msieve for the suggested 19 cpu hours.

I'd suggest using siever 13e and starting at Q=5M up to 15M.

10metreh 2009-08-23 07:18

[QUOTE=jrk;187081]Another slight improvement:

[code]
n: 128884548745268111272865256286343647297362141639349354777257427180583981433019147873573181228554594271870135015462926183892184639779
# norm 9.990093e-13 alpha -6.530119 e 5.917e-11
skew: 125304.96
c0: -3154210280231927135107173799541
c1: 2852258150863533245214823
c2: 9742539035261862224357
c3: 31979892546453095
c4: -390636665178
c5: 743640
Y0: -11162726022381847086623940
Y1: 646588654726421
rlim: 10000000
alim: 10000000
lpbr: 27
lpba: 27
mfbr: 54
mfba: 54
rlambda: 2.5
alambda: 2.5
[/code]


Yes. I ran msieve for the suggested 19 cpu hours.

I'd suggest using siever 13e and starting at Q=5M up to 15M.[/QUOTE]

Have you test-sieved for those parameters or do you think it won't matter? (I notice that the very first team sieve from 4788, also a c132, had alim and rlim of 5.4M. def-par.txt suggests 11M or 12M.)

jrk 2009-08-23 20:01

[QUOTE=10metreh;187101]Have you test-sieved for those parameters or do you think it won't matter? (I notice that the very first team sieve from 4788, also a c132, had alim and rlim of 5.4M. def-par.txt suggests 11M or 12M.)[/QUOTE]
The alim & rlim were mostly a guess, but I have just made some tests.

alim & rlim = 10M:
[code]$ for i in `seq 2000000 2000000 18000000`; do ~/ggnfs/trunk/bin/gnfs-lasieve4I13e -a test.poly -f $i -c 500; done
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 1999999.
total yield: 999, q=2000503 (0.02309 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 3999999.
total yield: 462, q=4000511 (0.02297 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 5999999.
total yield: 1231, q=6000503 (0.02399 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 7999999.
total yield: 995, q=8000507 (0.02666 sec/rel)
total yield: 584, q=10000511 (0.02642 sec/rel)
total yield: 751, q=12000509 (0.02696 sec/rel)
total yield: 879, q=14000507 (0.02965 sec/rel)
total yield: 714, q=16000507 (0.03031 sec/rel)
total yield: 402, q=18000527 (0.03308 sec/rel)
[/code]

5M:
[code]
$ for i in `seq 2000000 2000000 14000000`; do ~/ggnfs/trunk/bin/gnfs-lasieve4I13e -a test.poly -f $i -c 500; done
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 1999999.
total yield: 950, q=2000503 (0.02040 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 3999999.
total yield: 439, q=4000511 (0.02055 sec/rel)
total yield: 1076, q=6000503 (0.02257 sec/rel)
total yield: 804, q=8000507 (0.02567 sec/rel)
total yield: 449, q=10000511 (0.02523 sec/rel)
total yield: 569, q=12000509 (0.02624 sec/rel)
total yield: 658, q=14000507 (0.02894 sec/rel)
[/code]

6M:
[code]$ for i in `seq 2000000 2000000 14000000`; do ~/ggnfs/trunk/bin/gnfs-lasieve4I13e -a test.poly -f $i -c 500; done
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 1999999.
total yield: 964, q=2000503 (0.02082 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 3999999.
total yield: 445, q=4000511 (0.02112 sec/rel)
total yield: 1173, q=6000503 (0.02233 sec/rel)
total yield: 876, q=8000507 (0.02527 sec/rel)
total yield: 490, q=10000511 (0.02496 sec/rel)
total yield: 623, q=12000509 (0.02597 sec/rel)
total yield: 713, q=14000507 (0.02872 sec/rel)
[/code]

8M:
[code]
$ for i in `seq 2000000 2000000 14000000`; do ~/ggnfs/trunk/bin/gnfs-lasieve4I13e -a test.poly -f $i -c 500; done
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 1999999.
total yield: 986, q=2000503 (0.02177 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 3999999.
total yield: 457, q=4000511 (0.02182 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 5999999.
total yield: 1211, q=6000503 (0.02306 sec/rel)
total yield: 972, q=8000507 (0.02584 sec/rel)
total yield: 548, q=10000511 (0.02526 sec/rel)
total yield: 708, q=12000509 (0.02564 sec/rel)
total yield: 800, q=14000507 (0.02899 sec/rel)
[/code]

So, looks like the fastest is alim & rlim = 6M, and sieving from q=2M to about q=13M to reach a target of 17M relations.

Here's 27-bit vs 28-bit:

27-bit
[code]
$ ~/ggnfs/trunk/bin/gnfs-lasieve4I13e -a test.poly -f 6000000 -c 2000
total yield: 3406, q=6002033 (0.02153 sec/rel)
[/code]

28-bit
[code]
$ ~/ggnfs/trunk/bin/gnfs-lasieve4I13e -a test.poly -f 6000000 -c 2000
total yield: 6420, q=6002033 (0.01175 sec/rel)
[/code]

Not much difference, and 27-bit makes smaller files so 27-bit is better.

So with the changed alim & rlim, here's a new file:

[code]
n: 128884548745268111272865256286343647297362141639349354777257427180583981433019147873573181228554594271870135015462926183892184639779
# norm 9.990093e-13 alpha -6.530119 e 5.917e-11
skew: 125304.96
c0: -3154210280231927135107173799541
c1: 2852258150863533245214823
c2: 9742539035261862224357
c3: 31979892546453095
c4: -390636665178
c5: 743640
Y0: -11162726022381847086623940
Y1: 646588654726421
rlim: 6000000
alim: 6000000
lpbr: 27
lpba: 27
mfbr: 54
mfba: 54
rlambda: 2.5
alambda: 2.5
[/code]

jrk 2009-08-23 21:20

If a mod would please start a thread for a team sieve, I will go ahead and reserve:

reserving 12M to 13M
reserving line sieving from b=1 to 500

mdettweiler 2009-08-23 22:25

[quote=jrk;187191]If a mod would please start a thread for a team sieve, I will go ahead and reserve:

reserving 12M to 13M
reserving line sieving from b=1 to 500[/quote]
The FTP server is open for business again, this time in directory c132-relations. :smile:

Note: while we should be OK for this team sieve, sometime within the next few weeks we'll be starting some major restructuring of the NPLB server setup. The FTP server may be inaccessible during much of that time. I'll let you guys know when everything is all finished being set up and the server is back for good, but meanwhile I'd suggest that for the next team sieve after this, we stay off the FTP server entirely.

If someone else is interested in running a temporary FTP server in the meantime, that would be great, or we could use file-sharing websites like Rapidshare. (Actually, over at the Twin Prime Search project they've been using [URL="http://www.sendspace.com"]SendSpace[/URL] for tranferring large files, and I've found that it's much faster than Rapidshare, and doesn't have all the restrictions on free users that Rapidshare does. Plus, it allows uploading of files up to 300MB, as opposed to Rapidshare's 100MB. If you guys end up needing to use file-sharing web sites, I'd recommend SendSpace over Rapidshare.)

jrk 2009-08-24 01:45

Thanks Max.

Andi47 2009-08-24 04:55

I am off on holiday for approx. a week (leaving in ~an hour), so I can't join in for this one.

jrk 2009-08-28 09:19

[QUOTE=jrk;187774][code]prp45 factor: 116142080420490348652481779167523675942973567
prp88 factor: 1109714483145504896677442726322739452012945569446033499842999301219455289448039024473437[/code][/QUOTE]
.

Andi_HB 2009-08-28 09:56

Now we have a c141
450 ECM-curves with B1=250000 are done.
900 ECM-Curves with B1=1e6 are running now.

10metreh 2009-08-28 10:39

Done P-1 with B1=1e8, B2=1.1e12, no factor.

Now I'm running curves at 1e6.

Andi_HB 2009-08-28 12:39

675 curves 1e6 done.
I switch to curves with B1=3e6

unconnected 2009-08-28 19:33

2000 curves with B1=11e6 are done.

Andi_HB 2009-08-28 21:24

1120 curves 3e6 are done

10metreh 2009-08-29 07:22

Aliqueit recommends about half t45, what unconnected has done is nearly half t45, another few hundred curves at 11e6 anyone?

Andi_HB 2009-08-29 08:32

100 curves 43e6 are done

unconnected 2009-08-29 10:51

[quote=10metreh;187911]Aliqueit recommends about half t45, what unconnected has done is nearly half t45, another few hundred curves at 11e6 anyone?[/quote]
Another 2000 curves now in progress...

10metreh 2009-08-29 11:08

[QUOTE=unconnected;187933]Another 2000 curves now in progress...[/QUOTE]

Thanks, that'll do. Anyone want to do the poly search?

Greebley 2009-09-01 15:56

I can try using aliqueit to find a poly. I get:

factoring 16181837014125290739138668566669295398316302912886258004758896093690565962635455503848232760339988586007070042
3649548753039700027221666945941 (141 digits)
searching for 15-digit factors
commencing number field sieve (141-digit input)
commencing number field sieve polynomial selection
time limit set to 64.00 hours
searching leading coefficients from 1 to 341452
deadline: 400 seconds per coefficient

So 64 hours I guess - unless one of the other speedier ppl apply.

10metreh 2009-09-01 17:59

[QUOTE=Greebley;188297]I can try using aliqueit to find a poly. I get:

<snip>

So 64 hours I guess - unless one of the other speedier ppl apply.[/QUOTE]

To find a poly with msieve without using aliqueit, run:

[code]msieve -np -v <the_number>[/code]

Greebley 2009-09-01 19:52

It looks like that is exactly the command that aliqueit is running, so I should get the same result.

What is the other way? I think I have seen mention of another program to use?

mdettweiler 2009-09-01 20:19

[quote=Greebley;188323]It looks like that is exactly the command that aliqueit is running, so I should get the same result.

What is the other way? I think I have seen mention of another program to use?[/quote]
The other way is to use the GGNFS polynomial finder tools, pol51opt and pol51m0b. However, those are somewhat more complex to use, and are not nearly as welf-explanatory. (I myself have never used them except in group efforts where the parameters and command lines to use are laid out ahead of time. :smile:)

Fortunately, for numbers of this size, msieve generally produces better polynomials than pol51. Sometimes pol51 will still be used, say, if msieve has a problem and can't generate a polynomial (which happens every once in a while). And for some numbers much larger than the ones we're dealing with here, pol51 is the only option since msieve's parameters for those ranges are still under development. But, for the purposes of this project, pol51 is mostly not needed.

Batalov 2009-09-01 21:53

[quote=mdettweiler;188327]... welf-explanatory...[/quote]
Please don't fix it. This is a great portmanteau. [I]well+self[/I]! Loved it.

Note that both pol51 and msieve poly searches can be distributed.
If people just take different ranges, like this:
[FONT=Arial Narrow]msieve -v [I]insert_number_here[/I] -np 1,12000[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]msieve -v [I]insert_number_here[/I] -np 12001,24000[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]msieve -v [I]insert_number_here[/I] -np 24001,36000[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]msieve -v [I]insert_number_here[/I] -np 36001,48000[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]#etc. or use different step[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow][/FONT]
P.S. Let's just not call msieve (called from inside aliquiet) aliqueit.
aliqueit [I][B]is[/B][/I] a great program, but here it is simply a shell.

mdettweiler 2009-09-01 23:35

[quote=Batalov;188337]Please don't fix it. This is a great portmanteau. [I]well+self[/I]! Loved it.[/quote]
Hmm, good point. Indeed I did not notice the boo-boo, but now that you mention it, yes, it does make sense. :wink:

Greebley 2009-09-03 17:08

1 Attachment(s)
My computer rebooted in the middle of finding polygons. It was about 2/3 done (maybe 45 hours out of 64). This means it didn't automatically pick the best and I am not exactly sure of the criteria.

It didn't find anything the first day, but did the second. I am attaching the msieve.dat.p file. Note that there are less than 10 - about 7 or so - all seemed to come all in the same iteration.

Is one of these good enough or do we need to search more?

10metreh 2009-09-03 17:12

[QUOTE=Greebley;188545]My computer rebooted in the middle of finding polygons.[/QUOTE]

I didn't think polygons were related to GNFS, except that "polygon" and "poly search" are both related to lost parrots.

BTW, those polys don't look good enough - the closest data point we have is a c140, and the poly we used for this had a Murphy E of 2.21e-11. Could someone do a search with pol51?

Greebley 2009-09-03 17:56

I don't know why it came out as polygon. Weird.
Years of programming graphics I guess.

henryzz 2009-09-08 17:27

if someone could provide parameters for poly51m0b and poly51opt i will put some effort into poly selection

BTW what is the difference between polym0b and polym0n?

Andi47 2009-09-08 17:42

[QUOTE=henryzz;189036]if someone could provide parameters for poly51m0b and poly51opt i will put some effort into poly selection
[/QUOTE]

According to my records:

pol51m0b -b <inputfile> -p 6 -n 3.42E21 -a <start of range> -A <end of range>

where the inputfile must be named something like "inputfile[B].data[/B]".

and

pol51opt -b <inputfile (the same as for pol51m0b)> -n 6.05E19 -N 2.16E17 -e 1.08E-11

According to [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=155821&postcount=77"]one of fivemacks pearls of wisdom[/URL], an excellent poly would be Murphy E 1.75315E-11.

smh 2009-09-12 08:52

OK. I'll spend a cpu day or so on a poly search using pol51.

I started at a=1000.

Best so far (15 minutes) Murphy E 1.48E-11

Greebley 2009-09-12 15:10

The best from the file I posted was 1.687E-11

smh 2009-09-12 19:22

Will this do?

[color=blue][b]10metreh:[/b] Looks all right, comparing it to the poly for the c140.[/color][CODE]n: 161818370141252907391386685666692953983163029128862580047588960936905659626354555038482327603399885860070700423649548753039700027221666945941
skew: 218408.79
# norm 6.29e+019
c5: 1345500
c4: 903520513230
c3: 950442088171805794
c2: -39197370380948423635871
c1: -12819943941628451031444312634
c0: -18634757145877289097221229821275
# alpha -7.30
Y1: 11907265150855129
Y0: -654678024469607953754065014
# Murphy_E 2.03e-011
[/CODE]Haven't got the time to do any parameter testing at the moment.

I can let the poly search run overnight or start sieving if someone gets some good parameters and siever to use.

Andi47 2009-09-13 04:29

[QUOTE=smh;189624]Will this do?
# alpha -7.30
# Murphy_E 2.03e-011
[/QUOTE]

This looks *very* good.

my guess for the params would be:

r/alim around 15-18M
lpbr: 28
lpba: 28
mfbr: 56
mfba: 56
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6

siever: 14e(?)

henryzz 2009-09-13 06:11

for the other one we used 16M for alim and rlim

10metreh 2009-09-13 06:34

Could someone do a test? I expect the siever will be 14e.

smh 2009-09-13 09:11

Haven't found anything better after another 12 hours. I'll quit the poly search

jrk 2009-09-13 19:30

I did some testing.

rlim & alim = 7.5M vs 9M vs 12M vs 16M with siever 13e:
[code]
rlim: 7500000
alim: 7500000
lpbr: 28
lpba: 28
mfbr: 56
mfba: 56
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6
[/code]
[code]
$ for i in `seq 2000000 2000000 24000000`; do ~/ggnfs/trunk/bin/gnfs-lasieve4I13e -a test.poly -f $i -c 500; done
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 1999999.
total yield: 617, q=2000503 (0.02741 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 3999999.
total yield: 736, q=4000511 (0.02538 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 5999999.
total yield: 783, q=6000503 (0.02547 sec/rel)
total yield: 1041, q=8000507 (0.02598 sec/rel)
total yield: 677, q=10000511 (0.02985 sec/rel)
total yield: 493, q=12000509 (0.03221 sec/rel)
total yield: 682, q=14000507 (0.02977 sec/rel)
total yield: 524, q=16000507 (0.03265 sec/rel)
total yield: 442, q=18000527 (0.03464 sec/rel)
total yield: 431, q=20000503 (0.03956 sec/rel)
total yield: 526, q=22000501 (0.03821 sec/rel)
total yield: 499, q=24000517 (0.03661 sec/rel)
[/code]

[code]
rlim: 9000000
alim: 9000000
lpbr: 28
lpba: 28
mfbr: 56
mfba: 56
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6
[/code]
[code]
$ for i in `seq 2000000 2000000 24000000`; do ~/ggnfs/trunk/bin/gnfs-lasieve4I13e -a test.poly -f $i -c 500; done
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 1999999.
total yield: 629, q=2000503 (0.02820 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 3999999.
total yield: 750, q=4000511 (0.02605 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 5999999.
total yield: 797, q=6000503 (0.02610 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 7999999.
total yield: 1089, q=8000507 (0.02632 sec/rel)
total yield: 736, q=10000511 (0.02990 sec/rel)
total yield: 547, q=12000509 (0.03165 sec/rel)
total yield: 749, q=14000507 (0.02939 sec/rel)
total yield: 583, q=16000507 (0.03199 sec/rel)
total yield: 483, q=18000527 (0.03443 sec/rel)
total yield: 462, q=20000503 (0.04015 sec/rel)
total yield: 577, q=22000501 (0.03785 sec/rel)
total yield: 535, q=24000517 (0.03725 sec/rel)
[/code]

[code]
rlim: 12000000
alim: 12000000
lpbr: 28
lpba: 28
mfbr: 56
mfba: 56
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6
[/code]
[code]
]$ for i in `seq 2000000 2000000 24000000`; do ~/ggnfs/trunk/bin/gnfs-lasieve4I13e -a test.poly -f $i -c 500; done
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 1999999.
total yield: 645, q=2000503 (0.03006 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 3999999.
total yield: 774, q=4000511 (0.02739 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 5999999.
total yield: 820, q=6000503 (0.02756 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 7999999.
total yield: 1114, q=8000507 (0.02782 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 9999999.
total yield: 792, q=10000511 (0.03072 sec/rel)
total yield: 620, q=12000509 (0.03245 sec/rel)
total yield: 834, q=14000507 (0.03068 sec/rel)
total yield: 665, q=16000507 (0.03256 sec/rel)
total yield: 536, q=18000527 (0.03599 sec/rel)
total yield: 529, q=20000503 (0.04079 sec/rel)
total yield: 665, q=22000501 (0.03821 sec/rel)
total yield: 609, q=24000517 (0.03798 sec/rel)
[/code]

[code]rlim: 16000000
alim: 16000000
lpbr: 28
lpba: 28
mfbr: 56
mfba: 56
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6
[/code]
[code]
$ for i in `seq 2000000 2000000 24000000`; do ~/ggnfs/trunk/bin/gnfs-lasieve4I13e -a test.poly -f $i -c 500; done
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 1999999.
total yield: 664, q=2000503 (0.03256 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 3999999.
total yield: 796, q=4000511 (0.02959 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 5999999.
total yield: 844, q=6000503 (0.02942 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 7999999.
total yield: 1141, q=8000507 (0.02967 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 9999999.
total yield: 807, q=10000511 (0.03281 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 11999999.
total yield: 633, q=12000509 (0.03449 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 13999999.
total yield: 892, q=14000507 (0.03259 sec/rel)
total yield: 721, q=16000507 (0.03538 sec/rel)
total yield: 591, q=18000527 (0.03858 sec/rel)
total yield: 594, q=20000503 (0.04286 sec/rel)
total yield: 728, q=22000501 (0.04140 sec/rel)
total yield: 691, q=24000517 (0.03961 sec/rel)
[/code]

Looks like alim & rlim = 9M will yield enough relations (estimating it needs about 26~28M raw relations with 28-bit) in the shortest time, narrowly faster than 7.5M and a few % faster than 12M.

Now siever 14e:
[code]
rlim: 9000000
alim: 9000000
lpbr: 28
lpba: 28
mfbr: 56
mfba: 56
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6
[/code]
[code]
$ for i in `seq 2000000 2000000 18000000`; do ~/ggnfs/trunk/bin/gnfs-lasieve4I14e -a test.poly -f $i -c 500; done
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 1999999.
total yield: 1244, q=2000503 (0.04027 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 3999999.
total yield: 1511, q=4000511 (0.03546 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 5999999.
total yield: 1661, q=6000503 (0.03359 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 7999999.
total yield: 2285, q=8000507 (0.03277 sec/rel)
total yield: 1512, q=10000511 (0.03747 sec/rel)
total yield: 1155, q=12000509 (0.03855 sec/rel)
total yield: 1569, q=14000507 (0.03615 sec/rel)
total yield: 1244, q=16000507 (0.03862 sec/rel)
total yield: 991, q=18000527 (0.04323 sec/rel)
[/code]

Siever 14e is about 15~20% slower.

So I'd say use siever 13e with this poly file and sieve from about Q=2M to Q=22M:
[code]
n: 161818370141252907391386685666692953983163029128862580047588960936905659626354555038482327603399885860070700423649548753039700027221666945941
skew: 218408.79
c5: 1345500
c4: 903520513230
c3: 950442088171805794
c2: -39197370380948423635871
c1: -12819943941628451031444312634
c0: -18634757145877289097221229821275
Y1: 11907265150855129
Y0: -654678024469607953754065014
rlim: 9000000
alim: 9000000
lpbr: 28
lpba: 28
mfbr: 56
mfba: 56
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6
[/code]

Greebley 2009-09-15 01:38

So is there going to be a new thread for this so we can start?

10metreh 2009-09-20 10:17

We now have a c155 :sad:

According to the database, kar_bon has run 800 curves at 25e4, which is nearly 2*t30. I have run another ~350 at 25e4, plus P-1 with B1=1e8 and B2=1.27e13. If you want to run ECM, it should now be with 35-digit bounds (B1=1e6), as we have done nearly 3*t30.

Stupid double-submit bug - I submitted my ~350 curves at 25e4, refreshed the page and the count increased to 700. I have only actually run about 350.

smh 2009-09-20 10:36

I've done 100 x 1M

kar_bon 2009-09-20 10:59

[QUOTE=10metreh;190422]Stupid double-submit bug - I submitted my ~350 curves at 25e4, refreshed the page and the count increased to 700. I have only actually run about 350.[/QUOTE]

same as me, sorry! (clicking on 'Factorize' to avoid this)

only done 200 x B1=5e4 and 400 x B1=25e4!

now running 200 x B1=1e6

Andi47 2009-09-20 11:28

I've done 57@1e6.

Andi_HB 2009-09-20 16:49

We have now a c135

axn 2009-09-20 17:06

[QUOTE=Andi_HB;190450]We have now a c135[/QUOTE]

Yeah. The lucky curve for the c155 was:
[CODE]Using B1=110000000, B2=776278396540, polynomial Dickson(30), sigma=174687385
Step 1 took 763511ms
Step 2 took 219470ms
********** Factor found in step 2: 14040344224729416795055954945408117
Found probable prime factor of 35 digits: 14040344224729416795055954945408117
Probable prime cofactor 6181167710774459419220476464852359568326505420559462669696762017595200688210036754059212719079959176862593459328741504567 has 121 digits[/CODE]

10metreh 2009-09-20 17:46

[QUOTE=axn;190455]Yeah. The lucky curve for the c155 was:
[CODE]Using B1=110000000, B2=776278396540, polynomial Dickson(30), sigma=174687385
Step 1 took 763511ms
Step 2 took 219470ms
********** Factor found in step 2: 14040344224729416795055954945408117
Found probable prime factor of 35 digits: 14040344224729416795055954945408117
Probable prime cofactor 6181167710774459419220476464852359568326505420559462669696762017595200688210036754059212719079959176862593459328741504567 has 121 digits[/CODE][/QUOTE]

Why were you running 55-digit curves?

axn 2009-09-20 18:14

[QUOTE=10metreh;190460]Why were you running 55-digit curves?[/QUOTE]

I figured that someone else would be doing the lower levels, so I went straight to the final level.

jrk 2009-09-21 14:47

1000 curves @ B1=11e6, B2=35133391030

axn 2009-09-21 15:06

[QUOTE=jrk;190541]1000 curves @ B1=11e6, B2=35133391030[/QUOTE]

another 2000 curve with same params. ready for gnfs?

10metreh 2009-09-21 17:04

[QUOTE=axn;190545]another 2000 curve with same params. ready for gnfs?[/QUOTE]

Yep, aliqueit suggests about 1/4 of t45, and you've done about 2/3 of it.

smh 2009-09-22 08:41

I searched for a poly over night. This is the best I've got[CODE]n: 233515345448704331188831767635577487430288807946401538680318081261615453927577744159848068718415496556100755527513286988731533493638561
skew: 139908.78
# norm 5.40e+018
c5: 1070460
c4: 722607094720
c3: 296812308178551
c2: -7218823488232420448838
c1: -232890143076540747963283048
c0: 21488507881608473524197670431360
# alpha -5.94
Y1: 1388554256181521
Y0: -46531520777776977103737373
# Murphy_E 3.76e-011
[/CODE]

axn 2009-09-22 09:50

[QUOTE=smh;190641]I searched for a poly over night. This is the best I've got[CODE]n: 233515345448704331188831767635577487430288807946401538680318081261615453927577744159848068718415496556100755527513286988731533493638561
# Murphy_E 3.76e-011
[/CODE][/QUOTE]
I'm sure I saw a 3.9 in my msieve run somewhere (I'll post it once the run completes).

axn 2009-09-22 13:53

[QUOTE=axn;190645]I'm sure I saw a 3.9 in my msieve run somewhere (I'll post it once the run completes).[/QUOTE]

The run is still going, but I have a 4.1
[CODE]# norm 5.128167e-13 alpha -7.282260 e 4.058e-11
skew: 1254739.13
c0: -395037057008070589224358816043760
c1: -28535510064887720543782442688
c2: -135722229269228350074457
c3: 34430682441748408
c4: 27658482452
c5: 7920
Y0: -124141415960610734878798301
Y1: 554190238882283

# norm 5.160900e-13 alpha -7.945421 e 4.123e-11
skew: 1961621.62
c0: -30221871906743529330007758282799725
c1: -46542571898730018876164434500
c2: -132986730345137014294411
c3: 37295435382966856
c4: 28665550052
c5: 7920
Y0: -124141401866998769863459328
Y1: 554190238882283

# norm 5.185762e-13 alpha -7.395020 e 4.020e-11
skew: 1676500.91
c0: 84656145541206932058167824889938527
c1: -110557669146445107172084358976
c2: -85004987739719311592251
c3: 76609624029985384
c4: 40001683652
c5: 7920
Y0: -124141243221175845987834050
Y1: 554190238882283

# norm 4.940195e-13 alpha -7.019987 e 4.006e-11
skew: 948264.70
c0: -3445305906913627771932546686653764
c1: -11136793885810423915288480818
c2: 78017854131225697445836
c3: 52382648081793707
c4: -53561324900
c5: 14700
Y0: -109698626343103870506786481
Y1: 544600877303671
[/CODE]

axn 2009-09-23 01:52

That 4.1 was the best.

jrk 2009-09-23 03:25

[QUOTE=axn;190757]That 4.1 was the best.[/QUOTE]

I did some tests:

[code]rlim: 5000000
alim: 5000000
lpbr: 27
lpba: 27
mfbr: 54
mfba: 54
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6
[/code]
[code]$ for i in `seq 1000000 1000000 16000000`; do ~/ggnfs/trunk/bin/gnfs-lasieve4I13e -a test.poly -f $i -c 500; done
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 999999.
total yield: 510, q=1000507 (0.03010 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 1999999.
total yield: 508, q=2000503 (0.02593 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 2999999.
total yield: 605, q=3000523 (0.02451 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 3999999.
total yield: 590, q=4000511 (0.02654 sec/rel)
total yield: 637, q=5000503 (0.02648 sec/rel)
total yield: 928, q=6000503 (0.02813 sec/rel)
total yield: 608, q=7000517 (0.03113 sec/rel)
total yield: 403, q=8000507 (0.03471 sec/rel)
total yield: 425, q=9000517 (0.03301 sec/rel)
total yield: 473, q=10000511 (0.03154 sec/rel)
total yield: 310, q=11000537 (0.03761 sec/rel)
total yield: 294, q=12000509 (0.03813 sec/rel)
total yield: 492, q=13000511 (0.03577 sec/rel)
total yield: 409, q=14000507 (0.03900 sec/rel)
total yield: 388, q=15000509 (0.03570 sec/rel)
total yield: 261, q=16000507 (0.04475 sec/rel)
$ for i in `seq 17000000 1000000 18000000`; do ~/ggnfs/trunk/bin/gnfs-lasieve4I13e -a test.poly -f $i -c 500; done
total yield: 226, q=17000507 (0.03721 sec/rel)
total yield: 216, q=18000527 (0.05153 sec/rel)
$ for i in `seq 19000000 1000000 20000000`; do ~/ggnfs/trunk/bin/gnfs-lasieve4I13e -a test.poly -f $i -c 500; done
total yield: 333, q=19000511 (0.03808 sec/rel)
total yield: 326, q=20000503 (0.04362 sec/rel)
[/code]

[code]rlim: 7500000
alim: 7500000
lpbr: 27
lpba: 27
mfbr: 54
mfba: 54
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6
[/code]
[code]$ for i in `seq 1000000 1000000 16000000`; do ~/ggnfs/trunk/bin/gnfs-lasieve4I13e -a test.poly -f $i -c 500; done
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 999999.
total yield: 524, q=1000507 (0.03164 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 1999999.
total yield: 524, q=2000503 (0.02697 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 2999999.
total yield: 624, q=3000523 (0.02535 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 3999999.
total yield: 609, q=4000511 (0.02764 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 4999999.
total yield: 662, q=5000503 (0.02715 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 5999999.
total yield: 1025, q=6000503 (0.02820 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 6999999.
total yield: 711, q=7000517 (0.03097 sec/rel)
total yield: 476, q=8000507 (0.03447 sec/rel)
total yield: 523, q=9000517 (0.03126 sec/rel)
total yield: 560, q=10000511 (0.03193 sec/rel)
total yield: 372, q=11000537 (0.03691 sec/rel)
total yield: 351, q=12000509 (0.03729 sec/rel)
total yield: 611, q=13000511 (0.03426 sec/rel)
total yield: 487, q=14000507 (0.03889 sec/rel)
total yield: 456, q=15000509 (0.03616 sec/rel)
total yield: 309, q=16000507 (0.04482 sec/rel)
[/code]

[code]
rlim: 10000000
alim: 10000000
lpbr: 27
lpba: 27
mfbr: 54
mfba: 54
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6
[/code]
[code]$ for i in `seq 1000000 1000000 16000000`; do ~/ggnfs/trunk/bin/gnfs-lasieve4I13e -a test.poly -f $i -c 500; done
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 999999.
total yield: 533, q=1000507 (0.03415 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 1999999.
total yield: 542, q=2000503 (0.02851 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 2999999.
total yield: 636, q=3000523 (0.02714 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 3999999.
total yield: 626, q=4000511 (0.02919 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 4999999.
total yield: 675, q=5000503 (0.02890 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 5999999.
total yield: 1039, q=6000503 (0.03018 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 6999999.
total yield: 728, q=7000517 (0.03238 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 7999999.
total yield: 499, q=8000507 (0.03579 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 8999999.
total yield: 571, q=9000517 (0.03236 sec/rel)
total yield: 623, q=10000511 (0.03287 sec/rel)
total yield: 418, q=11000537 (0.03801 sec/rel)
total yield: 389, q=12000509 (0.03933 sec/rel)
total yield: 683, q=13000511 (0.03512 sec/rel)
total yield: 554, q=14000507 (0.03919 sec/rel)
total yield: 516, q=15000509 (0.03667 sec/rel)
total yield: 357, q=16000507 (0.04457 sec/rel)
[/code]

Appears that alim & rlim = 7.5M gets the needed 17M relations (for 27-bit) in about 3% less time than either 5M or 10M.

28-bit:
[code]
rlim: 7500000
alim: 7500000
lpbr: 28
lpba: 28
mfbr: 56
mfba: 56
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6
[/code]
[code]$ for i in `seq 1000000 1000000 16000000`; do ~/ggnfs/trunk/bin/gnfs-lasieve4I13e -a test.poly -f $i -c 500; done
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 999999.
total yield: 867, q=1000507 (0.01938 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 1999999.
total yield: 960, q=2000503 (0.01506 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 2999999.
total yield: 1189, q=3000523 (0.01372 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 3999999.
total yield: 1175, q=4000511 (0.01477 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 4999999.
total yield: 1288, q=5000503 (0.01436 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 5999999.
total yield: 1971, q=6000503 (0.01518 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 6999999.
total yield: 1328, q=7000517 (0.01681 sec/rel)
total yield: 976, q=8000507 (0.01717 sec/rel)
total yield: 1001, q=9000517 (0.01680 sec/rel)
total yield: 1076, q=10000511 (0.01674 sec/rel)
total yield: 743, q=11000537 (0.01903 sec/rel)
total yield: 701, q=12000509 (0.01930 sec/rel)
total yield: 1147, q=13000511 (0.01846 sec/rel)
total yield: 959, q=14000507 (0.02006 sec/rel)
total yield: 851, q=15000509 (0.01954 sec/rel)
total yield: 628, q=16000507 (0.02236 sec/rel)
[/code]

28-bit primes much better? sec/rel is about 51% of the time as for 27-bit primes, and a bit less than 2x as many rels will be needed yes? So 28-bit is better.

Siever 14e:
[code]
rlim: 7500000
alim: 7500000
lpbr: 28
lpba: 28
mfbr: 56
mfba: 56
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6
[/code]
[code]$ for i in `seq 3000000 1000000 8000000`; do ~/ggnfs/trunk/bin/gnfs-lasieve4I14e -a test.poly -f $i -c 500; done
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 2999999.
total yield: 2382, q=3000523 (0.02003 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 3999999.
total yield: 2362, q=4000511 (0.02089 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 4999999.
total yield: 2611, q=5000503 (0.01995 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 5999999.
total yield: 4069, q=6000503 (0.02015 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 6999999.
total yield: 2829, q=7000517 (0.02146 sec/rel)
total yield: 2080, q=8000507 (0.02181 sec/rel)
[/code]
Siever 14e is too slow.

So looks like 28-bit, alim & rlim = 7.5M using siever 13e. Sieve from Q=1M to about Q=14M to get 26M-28M rels.

axn 2009-09-23 04:56

[QUOTE=jrk;190770]So looks like 28-bit, alim & rlim = 7.5M using siever 13e. Sieve from Q=1M to about Q=14M to get 26M-28M rels.[/QUOTE]

A more interesting approach might be to sieve 2-11M, with 4-7M (the sweetspot) being sieved by 14e siever, and the rest by 13e siever!

jrk 2009-09-24 02:18

[QUOTE=axn;190777]A more interesting approach might be to sieve 2-11M, with 4-7M (the sweetspot) being sieved by 14e siever, and the rest by 13e siever![/QUOTE]
I don't think it would help. Siever 14e is just too slow for this number. I really should not have even tested it.

Mini-Geek 2009-09-26 21:05

Next line (2448) is c157, not much ECM yet. (half through with B1=5e4, which is for 25 digit factors) Edit: Finished 214@5e4, starting 25e4. I'll probably finish this and then stop (i.e. not also run any at 1e6) Also ran P-1 and P+1 at 10M unsuccessfully. Status all in DB. Edit 2: finished 25e4 (30-digit), no factors

jrk 2009-09-27 02:20

How much ECM will the c157 need before gnfs?

I will start 1000 curves @ B1=43000000, B2=388112953420. ETA monday morning unless factor is found first.

10metreh 2009-09-27 06:39

[QUOTE=jrk;191199]How much ECM will the c157 need before gnfs?

I will start 1000 curves @ B1=43000000, B2=388112953420. ETA monday morning unless factor is found first.[/QUOTE]

I think the last one had about 8000 curves at 43M.

jrk 2009-09-28 17:09

[QUOTE=jrk;191199]I will start 1000 curves @ B1=43000000, B2=388112953420.[/QUOTE]
Finished. No factors.

jrk 2009-10-05 21:29

I've queued another 1000 curves @ B1=43000000, B2=388112953420. ETA is Wednesday morning.

jrk 2009-10-07 09:51

[QUOTE=jrk;191964]I've queued another 1000 curves @ B1=43000000, B2=388112953420. ETA is Wednesday morning.[/QUOTE]
No factor was found.

Greebley 2009-10-07 14:17

I started a run of 1956 ecm curves at 43e6 (b2 is 240490660426)

Greebley 2009-10-07 16:12

I just calculated that this will take about 48 hours.

Greebley 2009-10-07 16:29

Whoops, missed a digit. Make that 20 days instead of 2.

Andi47 2009-10-07 18:21

1172 curves @ B1=43e6, B2=240490660426, no factor.
Curves already reported to the DB. I have queued some more and will keep reporting them to the DB.

P+1 (3 runs) with B1=1e9, B2 = 1e14 also found no factor.

Greebley 2009-10-08 13:50

Looks like my single processor can do a bit less than 100 tries a day, so the 20 days seems fairly accurate. I will let it run until we are to the polynomial stage or it finds a factor.

Andi47 2009-10-08 17:34

I added 413 more curves at B1=43M, no factor.
I am now taking one of two CPUs from this number, hence sequence 10212, which I am working on, has hit a c124 which needs GNFS, which I don't want to do on a P4 which is NOT running 24/7. The second CPU will run more ECM curves until tomorrow in the early morning.

Andi47 2009-10-10 09:46

[QUOTE=Andi47;192232]I added 413 more curves at B1=43M, no factor.
I am now taking one of two CPUs from this number, hence sequence 10212, which I am working on, has hit a c124 which needs GNFS, which I don't want to do on a P4 which is NOT running 24/7. The second CPU will run more ECM curves until tomorrow in the early morning.[/QUOTE]

127 more curves @ 43e6, no factor.

bsquared 2009-10-11 03:43

4000 curves at 43M will be done tomorrow (~17hrs from now).

bsquared 2009-10-12 01:56

[quote=bsquared;192466]4000 curves at 43M will be done tomorrow (~17hrs from now).[/quote]

Done, no factor. I'll do a few curves at 110M overnight.

bsquared 2009-10-12 13:40

[quote=bsquared;192539]... I'll do a few curves at 110M overnight.[/quote]

It survived 800 curves at 110M (B2 = 776278396540) done last night. Anyone have a complete ECM curve count? Where are we now?

Mini-Geek 2009-10-12 14:20

[quote=bsquared;192577]It survived 800 curves at 110M (B2 = 776278396540) done last night. Anyone have a complete ECM curve count? Where are we now?[/quote]
43M:
jrk: 2000 curves done
Greebley: started a run of 1956 ecm curves (100/day, started 5 days ago, approx. 500 done)
Andi47: 1712 curves done
bsquared: 4000 curves

110M:
bsquared: 800 curves

total: about 8212 curves @ B1=43M and 800 curves @ B1=110M. 10metreh said the last one had about 8000 at 43M, so that should be plenty for that B1. Do we need more at 110M or should we begin poly search? Maybe someone will be able to use their GPU to find a poly super fast. [URL]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=12562[/URL] :smile:

henryzz 2009-10-12 16:50

judging by the evidence i would start gnfs now especially if we can poly select on a GPU

henryzz 2009-10-12 18:13

BTW if people think that 4788 is getting too large and slow or that it would be nice to process a smaller sequence* together at the same time

*i would suggest one that is in the top 10 for length but not size

Greebley 2009-10-13 14:17

522 attempts at 43M with nothing found. I stopped it since it sounds like we are up to the poly part.

The standard msieve -v -np <num> would be 300 hours which seems too long compared to faster methods.

bsquared 2009-10-13 14:33

[quote=henryzz;192614]BTW if people think that 4788 is getting too large and slow ...[/quote]

Maybe we should set a stopping point for this sequence. 160 digits, or iteration 2460 (whichever comes first) or something...

bsquared 2009-10-13 14:40

I don't have access to a gpu with CUDA :( But I started poly selection on 0-10000 using pol51*.

fivemack 2009-10-13 15:08

My GPU with CUDA is arriving on Thursday

Greebley 2009-10-13 15:45

I was thinking it would be neat to get 314718 to index 9000, however it is at 8902 now so that would be a long 92 indices more.
It is index 2540 for 4788.

Mini-Geek 2009-10-13 15:51

[quote=Greebley;192712]I was thinking it would be neat to get 314718 to index 9000, however it is at 8902 now so that would be a long 92 indices more[/quote]
Might be too difficult for now, but maybe we should try to get a sequence to index 10000.

10metreh 2009-10-13 16:06

[QUOTE=bsquared;192702]Maybe we should set a stopping point for this sequence. 160 digits, or iteration 2460 (whichever comes first) or something...[/QUOTE]

160 digits? We passed that a while ago.

[QUOTE=Greebley;192712]I was thinking it would be neat to get 314718 to index 9000, however it is at 8902 now so that would be a long 92 indices more.
It is index 2540 for 4788.[/quote]

Both those figures are wrong: 314718 is at index 8908, and 4788 is at index 2448.

bsquared 2009-10-13 16:09

[quote=10metreh;192716]160 digits? We passed that a while ago.

[/quote]

170 digits, then, sorry. Just thought it might be worthwhile to have a goal to work towards...

Batalov 2009-10-13 17:04

msieve143_gpu.exe -np 1200,2400
didn't find polynomials yet, but it only took 9 hrs. I'll try another interval.


All times are UTC. The time now is 15:30.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.