mersenneforum.org

mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   Factoring (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=19)
-   -   Pascal's OPN roadblock files (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=19066)

RichD 2017-01-24 02:38

All the easy ones are now gone. It takes me a couple days to do a single number.

This [URL=http://www.lirmm.fr/~ochem/opn/t2100.txt]file[/URL] (t2100) has some easier ones but you will want to do the last level of ECM before proceeding to NFS.

Edit: This post was really meant for others if they are interested in favoring these numbers.

wombatman 2017-01-24 03:24

[QUOTE=RichD;451467]All the easy ones are now gone. It takes me a couple days to do a single number.

This [URL=http://www.lirmm.fr/~ochem/opn/t2100.txt]file[/URL] (t2100) has some easier ones but you will want to do the last level of ECM before proceeding to NFS.

Edit: This post was really meant for others if they are interested in favoring these numbers.[/QUOTE]

I guess now's as good a time as any to say that I started on t2100.txt. I haven't gotten far and am currently factoring:
[CODE]11631194393088792859842873946687015232225553151591153476380898256002252323964088836953804424786287610024987111057589267012201[/CODE]

If somebody want to throw more firepower at this, I'm quite alright with stopping after this number. Otherwise, I'll let this chug on in the background. :smile:

lavalamp 2017-01-24 11:15

[QUOTE=RichD;451467]All the easy ones are now gone. It takes me a couple days to do a single number.[/QUOTE]I don't really mind spending a few days to factor a number, but which numbers are more valuable to the project to have factored?

I assume the numbers in the tXXXX file with the lowest XXXX are preferred? If so then there are a couple of interesting candidates in the t500 and t600 file worth having a go at. For example, [URL="http://www.factordb.com/index.php?query=1727870509%5E23-1"]1727870509^23-1[/URL] which I estimate might take me 1 - 2 weeks to crack.

However I don't know if there are others working on these numbers elsewhere. For the time being I still have four more P32^7-1's to be working on.

RichD 2017-01-24 17:36

I haven’t worked on t2100.txt in quite a while. Proceed as you wish.

I am currently working on four numbers in the t600.txt file, all GNFS.
13739597803^23-1
108541^43-1
1861441475983^17-1
850534…^3-1
Two are over half done, one is just starting and the last I have a poly generated. I’ve skipped some easier SNFS numbers - meaning, they’re available.

That’s my goal to clear out t480, t490 and eventually t500. I have some at yoyo@Home and others at NFS@Home. 1727870509^23-1 is available (not sure of the ECM level) and 26010319^29-1 (similar difficulty) just finished up ECM at yoyo. Both are available.
Edit: Both are two small for NFS@H.

The preferable ones come from the Most Wanter Road Blocks (mwrb2000.txt) file but those are pretty big. I did pick a few out for yoyo with the hopes to eventually get them to NFS@H, if they survive ECM.

Stargate38 2017-01-24 17:52

Can someone please tell me why I can't download t2100.txt? Firefox simply says "Connecting...", and stays like that forever. I tried using JDownloader, but it keeps timing out and saying "Host Offline?" and waits 15 seconds before attempting to download it again.

Edit: Now it's working in FF with an extremely long delay, but JD still won't download it. What's wrong with my connection?

lavalamp 2017-01-25 11:37

[QUOTE=RichD;451508]The preferable ones come from the Most Wanter Road Blocks (mwrb2000.txt) file but those are pretty big. I did pick a few out for yoyo with the hopes to eventually get them to NFS@H, if they survive ECM.[/QUOTE]I took a look through mwrb2000.txt and most of the numbers in there are well outside my range, however I did find 8178376117^23-1 and 12301^59-1. Without sieving I'd estimate those numbers to take 2 and 4 months to complete respectively.

I'd like to reserve these two numbers for now and see how it goes:
26010319^29-1 (mentioned in your last post)
8178376117^23-1

A lot of the numbers in mwrb2000.txt didn't have many (large) factors. Does that mean that there hasn't been much ECM done for them or just that they are very difficult nuts to crack? If it is from lack of ECM then I could run some on the second number.

lavalamp 2017-01-25 13:09

Just got a very nice split:
[URL="http://factordb.com/index.php?query=%2824590837369596000747323534000451%5E7-1%29%2F24590837369596000747323534000450"](24590837369596000747323534000451^7-1)/24590837369596000747323534000450[/URL] = c44 * p73 * p73

RichD 2017-01-25 19:03

Looking a little closer at the t600.txt file I see some interesting facts.

As of today there are 456 numbers in the file. The largest number is C282. I doubt any of the bigger numbers have had much ECM, so I don’t think a GNFS job is lurking in the last bunch. Reviewing the last few numbers it looks like the most difficult job is an SNFS-299. Everything might be within reach. (Well, not by you or me :smile:).

Since whatever is in t600 is also in t800 and since anything below a C183 from t800 has 10,000 @ 43e6, we can assume the same for t600. The first 100 records fall into that category. If there are any GNFS jobs above, say 160, they will need a little more ECM.

That sounds like a good idea to target the first quarter of the t600 file with personal boxes.

RichD 2017-01-25 19:04

[QUOTE=lavalamp;451543]A lot of the numbers in mwrb2000.txt didn't have many (large) factors. Does that mean that there hasn't been much ECM done for them or just that they are very difficult nuts to crack? If it is from lack of ECM then I could run some on the second number.[/QUOTE]

If the numbers made it to this file I would think they have quite a bit of ECM. But do they have enough? Probably not.

Chris2be8 ran some of these numbers (above SNFS-200) until he ran out of resources or patience. He did find an occasional ECM hit. I would say do the last complete level or the equivalent before starting SNFS.

chris2be8 2017-01-26 16:47

[QUOTE=lavalamp;451543] A lot of the numbers in mwrb2000.txt didn't have many (large) factors. Does that mean that there hasn't been much ECM done for them or just that they are very difficult nuts to crack? If it is from lack of ECM then I could run some on the second number.[/QUOTE]

As far as I know roadblocks are numbers with no known non-trivial factors. So if a factor was found it would be removed from the file. Eg 11^311-1 isn't in it now even though it's not fully factored in factordb.

Chris

wombatman 2017-02-02 16:09

Edit: Nevermind. :smile:

RichD 2017-02-05 04:59

I'll take the first two 19ers next in the t600 file. Namely...

7215061951^19-1
14702780467^19-1

wombatman 2017-02-15 01:38

I'm running a t40 on the entire t2100.txt file. As you might imagine, it's moving somewhat slowly, but I have gotten 2 hits so far. Both are listed below:

[CODE]73802780172859282526116255621169276883646159966413123442560015634653799890363179438487451848036117488820521055886954004260307189996609 = 3008821578312230732251914616889344993079941 * P92
780565034031341960526550488535367837174341398367771667265788905406909717438208818896496367366297012578007823830369096228615852710359 = 5780422878835334240683125606227585959304479 * P90[/CODE]

RichD 2017-02-15 02:06

[QUOTE=wombatman;452980]I'm running a t40 on the entire t2100.txt file. As you might imagine, it's moving somewhat slowly, but I have gotten 2 hits so far.[/QUOTE]

I don't know if you can filter it but if the composite also appears in t800.txt AND it is < C183, those already have a t50-plus run on them.

wombatman 2017-02-15 02:27

[QUOTE=RichD;452982]I don't know if you can filter it but if the composite also appears in t800.txt AND it is < C183, those already have a t50-plus run on them.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll grab the t800 file and check them against each other.

Quick check using [CODE]grep -F -x -f t800.txt t2100.txt[/CODE] and [CODE]awk 'NR==FNR{arr[$0];next} $0 in arr' t800.txt t2100.txt[/CODE] gives some common lines (thanks StackOverflow!).


Edit: Do you know the status of the other t-files (e.g. t1000, t1200, and t1600)? I'd like to remove any from them that have been tested higher as well.

RichD 2017-02-15 03:38

[QUOTE=wombatman;452983]Do you know the status of the other t-files (e.g. t1000, t1200, and t1600)? I'd like to remove any from them that have been tested higher as well.[/QUOTE]

No, that's all I know. It all goes back to [URL=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=448503&postcount=445]this post[/URL].

I believe if a number appears in a lower numbered t-file it will also appear in all consequent higher t-files.

Additionally, it would be nice if you report your work so any future ECMers/NFSers would know the status of the previous work performed.

wombatman 2017-02-15 03:47

Absolutely. For now my work consists of running a t40 on the t2100.txt file (without the numbers from the t800 file that have been tested higher). Any hits I get will be reported here. :smile:

RichD 2017-02-15 04:10

Actually, you can just report factors directly to FDB. Pascal (or someone) seems to remove them within a day.

I was referring to the no-finds, so re-work is not duplicated later on.

wombatman 2017-02-15 12:42

Got it. Given that I'm moving through them somewhat quickly, perhaps I can post a "checkpoint" of where I'm at or something every so often.

RichD 2017-02-20 23:54

I'll start working the P47^5-1 numbers from [URL=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=450998&postcount=484]post #484[/URL].

RichD 2017-03-04 04:59

Taking these (GNFS) numbers next from the t600 file.

567661^37-1
8737481256739^17-1
33991...49^3-1
285996443195311^17-1
75882...57^3-1

lavalamp 2017-03-11 11:19

[URL="http://www.factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000126356463"]26010319^29-1[/URL] has been factored! Phew, total time: 1037.52 hours.

Progress on [URL="http://www.factordb.com/index.php?query=8178376117%5E23-1"]8178376117^23-1[/URL] has been quite slow so far, but is continuing.

RichD 2017-04-23 17:26

Update on t800 file
 
Here is the latest update to the easiest SNFS jobs in the t800 file which are ready for NFS.

P48^5-1 (~SNFS-191)
[CODE]112460652744378364853759012694282455494813080061^5-1
107927376183745108366689702165024524322958067003^5-1
447502945934301283161776096917629148402454445541^5-1[/CODE]

P33^7-1 (~SNFS-196)
[CODE]704635516394998559259828961524553^7-1
378113344089458052918622653774119^7-1
127409164457691533608671725623243^7-1
706691267287327023948550632285277^7-1
640992247445482576119970066870663^7-1
118085024551805774505651739081667^7-1
244431668748815002725611352036937^7-1
337597253482952933496880218453677^7-1
110733802113174771476533550595851^7-1[/CODE]

P21^11-1 (~SNFS-206)
[CODE]970244551306876240403^11-1
283355944507855047853^11-1
660195026475300218611^11-1
182252042272959813223^11-1
103737625617657751921^11-1
373760264642068615009^11-1[/CODE]

P17^13-1 (~SNFS-199)
[CODE]33565630407553129^13-1
78372732118311223^13-1
39383509906716221^13-1[/CODE]

RichD 2017-05-24 02:49

Looking at a quote from 2017-01-25.
[QUOTE=RichD;451555]Looking a little closer at the t600.txt file I see some interesting facts.

As of today there are 456 numbers in the file. ...[/QUOTE]
As of today the remaining number of composites is 375.

On a side note, Pascal is running his massive accumulation job and should have new t-files sometime in early-to-mid June.

RichD 2017-05-27 03:37

[QUOTE=lavalamp;451236]I'll work on that batch of P32^7's, but it will take me longer now as I have to use these machines for other things too.[/QUOTE]

Are you still working on [URL=http://www.factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000438441876]43380497318350653332411961196681^7-1[/URL]?

lavalamp 2017-05-28 02:19

[QUOTE=RichD;459823]Are you still working on [URL=http://www.factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000438441876]43380497318350653332411961196681^7-1[/URL]?[/QUOTE]Seems I just forgot to report the result. I've added it now.

Progress for 8178376117^23-1 has slowed quite a bit, but I do have over 50% of the estimated minimum relations now.

RichD 2017-05-28 14:53

[QUOTE=lavalamp;459893]Seems I just forgot to report the result. I've added it now.

Progress for 8178376117^23-1 has slowed quite a bit, but I do have over 50% of the estimated minimum relations now.[/QUOTE]

Thank you.

And Pascal also thanks you.

RichD 2017-07-15 14:11

t600 File
 
As of today, the number of remaining composites in the [URL=http://www.lirmm.fr/~ochem/opn/t600.txt]t600[/URL] file is 350.

Additionally, there is a new [URL=http://www.lirmm.fr/~ochem/opn/t550.txt]t550[/URL] created which contains 91 numbers.

RichD 2017-09-26 12:22

Pascal has created a new Most Wanted Road Blocks [url=http://www.lirmm.fr/~ochem/opn/mwrb2100.txt]file[/url] for the OPN project. Many new numbers have only low level ECM. I have identified all the new numbers below C200. Below is a summary of this list. I will take the two C150s.

11 - C130s
31 - C140s
2 - C150s
9 - C160s
9 - C170s
3 - C180s
12 - C190s

chris2be8 2017-09-30 16:02

I'm going to switch to the Most Wanted numbers for a while once my current reservation on the Brent tables has finished.

As a starter I'll do the C120-149 ones (43 numbers).

Do you think it's worth posting results here as well as in factordb?

Chris

RichD 2017-09-30 16:44

[QUOTE=chris2be8;468891]I'm going to switch to the Most Wanted numbers for a while once my current reservation on the Brent tables has finished.

As a starter I'll do the C120-149 ones (43 numbers).

Do you think it's worth posting results here as well as in factordb?

Chris[/QUOTE]

I've don't a few in the C130s & C140s. Check FDB before starting a number.

Since these are relatively easy, no need to post here - just FDB. Pascal will pick them up automatically.

P.S. I am finishing 61403^29-1 then completing C150s before moving to C160s.

chris2be8 2017-10-07 15:33

I've factored all the C120-149 numbers. So I'll reserve some more:

(32237^47-1)/32236 (208 digits, for my main system)
(6980910082227886540820089867^7-1)/48866370575595205785740629062 (167 digits)
(48847^37-1)/48846 (169 digits)

Although I won't start for a couple of days, so post here if they are being worked on.

Chris

RichD 2017-10-07 15:44

I'm finishing up ECM on 48847^37-1 and will start SNFS tonight.
Then I will move to the 8 - C170s.

chris2be8 2017-10-07 16:19

OK, I'll leave 48847^37-1 to you and start on the C180s.

So reserving:
(41719^41-1)/41718 (185 digits)
(42017^41-1)/42016 (185 digits)

Chris

RichD 2017-10-07 21:16

There are still a few C160s unclaimed.

2137166671^19-1 (C168)
49169^37-1 (C169)
941623117^19-1 (C162)

lorgix 2017-10-08 11:45

[QUOTE=RichD;469390]There are still a few C160s unclaimed.

2137166671^19-1 (C168)
49169^37-1 (C169)
941623117^19-1 (C162)[/QUOTE]

49169^37-1 is now factored through ECM.
p43= 1661267604335356263058956914861437468385021

lavalamp 2017-10-08 18:50

A small update on [URL="http://www.factordb.com/index.php?query=8178376117%5E23-1"]8178376117^23-1[/URL]. I have passed 100% of the estimated minimum relations, but alas, it is not yet enough.

chris2be8 2017-10-11 16:01

It's time for me to reserve a few more. So taking the last two C160s:
2137166671^19-1 (C168)
941623117^19-1 (C162)

And two larger ones:
(42467^41-1)/42466 (186 digits)
(32299^47-1)/32298 (208 digits)

Chris

chris2be8 2017-10-11 17:24

(32299^47-1)/32298 didn't take long: [code]
********** Factor found in step 2: 467908890092950393150264099367583419
Found prime factor of 36 digits: 467908890092950393150264099367583419
Prime cofactor 5656524432655905841720089110429558281847908529067694445184472323016778628113357863508018683626345269950627609623337633134442863355839517172723912603546160186922395188283079 has 172 digits
[/code]
So reserving:
(32941^47-1)/32940

Chris

RichD 2017-10-12 15:41

I will take the following for timing.
(37021^43-1)/37020 (192 digits)

chris2be8 2017-10-15 15:31

Reserving:
(457204531267692121^13-1)/457204531267692120 (212 digits)

Chris

chris2be8 2017-10-15 21:17

(457204531267692121^13-1)/457204531267692120 was factored by ECM, so reserving:
(33073^47-1)/33072 (208 digits)

Chris

chris2be8 2017-10-16 07:12

(33073^47-1)/33072 was also factored by ECM: [code]
********** Factor found in step 2: 213085058008081642844199070767992452867051
Found prime factor of 42 digits: 213085058008081642844199070767992452867051
Prime cofactor 36918607731301054890976693104067607186107380200657743635425564999188167826818865364836102317161411436159965393934816169190617747688161721836568217142493988786723939293 has 167 digits
[/code]
So reserving:
(33091^47-1)/33090 (208 digits)

Chris

chris2be8 2017-10-17 15:36

Reserving:
(33211^47-1)/33210 (208 digits)

Chris

chris2be8 2017-10-21 11:51

Reserving:
(33223^47-1)/33222 (208 digits)

Chris

chris2be8 2017-10-23 07:02

Reserving:
(33349^47-1)/33348 (209 digits)

Chris

chris2be8 2017-10-23 08:38

(33349^47-1)/33348 didn't take long: [code]
********** Factor found in step 2: 658651666656608991582349816527666869
Found prime factor of 36 digits: 658651666656608991582349816527666869
Prime cofactor 17505186882055503390092614707533281644128740227899600559754642023582212236832685329480106062929997630721369718975812858961375611412093594395184453675359732614504786759416279 has 173 digits
[/code]
So reserving:
(33377^47-1)/33376 (209 digits)

Chris

Dubslow 2017-10-24 03:11

I made a small 50 liner to sort the roadblock file (by snfs difficulty, though it's easily modifiable).

[url]https://gist.github.com/dubslow/057407e71a8edda2bcb7541e73c0bb6e[/url]

Converting it to work on the t files should be as easy as modifying lines 16, 36, and 37; sorting by gnfs difficulty=composite size or by weight is as easy as modifying 32.

Use:

[code]~/bin/opnmwrb.py mwrb2100.txt[/code]

Produces a file like this:

[code]191.9 37061 42 784388695330716900771170096480988973005830723232107299697475621426513989873061008555282384073388226321803928933416388081593151224660348524992844148971603053313236676761419552193033320821972823 7664
191.9 37159 42 876396116090714396558420078062922119306410076385704958320808957537778333091710532960420213604871752011171460023978518864019176478133494453791289504318149159585303105687734545161585263044149241 7635
192.0 37357 42 1095557828772018565687220080568900129455534619899066565428037274941069624795136647230404258478820753887222130964715308748755071944598351534052991762339852377630846575362608823587594944213005807 7555
192.1 37579 42 1405111403113046564091848915217579549732907545872623745714206554806518469573984278015738210385558957299917670876230591404364083564234989592256205171503808311778802929475053684017693323957483221 7445
192.3 37963 42 2153542700277426322806628402306391647249337954598406122204410973737162467315378586068681093373336984608814656690764195112277672496396223219883087269159570803528563536676614518977172521488558933 7301
192.4 38201 42 2799948874300447193499429338951864218461443073704662492184415059215590978708379869945846347174593850307395483283659228363247828010139818528390688620587552911795454782357330294227869974195334643 7068
192.6 38609 42 4374520788915611783928926894258473024707394567213344390918595879879608782512632058958461202175180384716622300764397426821231009110500686475138531224002039473380793677602301386482296390900995291 7296
192.6 38611 42 4384048360332353056824962929986041980826686311051394163106911890674664752919230877203860851787810638165096052740237867784040763799866669600413313986701087962345568488954270033915893955813500973 6668
193.5 40387 42 28983959764350993564252226480619774740077727215130334275246439080399386008023932258487521762071647024121142367351887269895161705811022025912045039367228647239377148178926261175659341618744328957 5682
193.8 41051 42 57492037526464693435356125097863799883352511849137705880393011974042125959882188408185934401148693359321947911159049237818160408690003656189484933893983470840707706658330492730089694976000770693 5441
203.7 5366319547249 16 472960072945324790649011915544651834111300001518282847576455281830793231297779413258575139633668465686989918552066685480742698827004361914871104648190206574311733982073446748764526700801777229738140122001 17609
208.1 33377 46 11983639990375960260092491260445478429221096882037356842717302226458312981463051179725832105037633578036678321243978821561802000908623059315507055775866049788910782378264339527929032801235479706285647785149327 5432
212.9 671717139553 18 775096433203518536044933353171710557475540401430117459326084334844306873036759431760612632327979348785118615047871598479663542525065118826315208419605410714190495159843711804117366552926395923017505967925465157683 11396[/code]

Not coincidentally, I would like to reserve 37061^43-1 to factor. (I have a 6 year old quad core only, so small numbers for me! Even this will probably take more than a month.)

Dubslow 2017-10-24 03:16

By the way, here's the top ten most wanted:

[code]300.6 6115909044841454629 16 3831565799519436303487742350308454794716675157894098584352121252263510024611805907320592374654433186020517108665467143471934035839395496243353321245760019611207664487665420776742726779780862993590544596916020496510980740067901995154639576852120198067468078357247366647828551141390739467161074462608561 81382873
319.4 7 378 32659228027539788057125459334018479874155217938127877980451913319162777604994771738501582274233230378287579532526016917730016702269303059082184404020740072962004543179729605908690888370788938305104834307494684070833024585565877997711976066964501392018218930102340439652378125512757118393715607952926448341239872063776857 44750779
343.7 11 330 50231805376049596631820685866210796229177935753938552911186809956414816600066561080962695239770426026723364698292328197470387911075676202539623423774798834486148386204131623950780297626046160114576438460656977450890504071673236180892236065865431442427746499804001930166673809250928496230908288781474418503703449380725550307006218226204967040981 43329265
403.9 127 192 85851443031020402459916022782253429654856767828204335090318945987240265838806179457239747864944435665238937964488225430538269515835272783413335573137369212604931191873427018692271477737721124514479181113412325656062413597781582744851337887113276871065296883609731412095703318662083194709829646521558022042244158706349819821766762868746518007742208131426642175810781006092066620580646615524682126566871041 35584286
314.9 3 660 1191569488375391761422316708311832329323047924684951342165364109511027686030789771622876473142043734928559994549621677139543361921791066414668706169009983622158125528969002296695563188871769577090031434166551994332171157149175662724075624628446300194055704435628333691794534362537401647968222588095028738658072947801 27383757
327.4 19 256 2423276327386376542516082113757511515025481634833724390650794476798812358013130525181690151871051000263062255114774806695536798670292267801252401467683649120932784578462283235470118000511961453809967975137354882794376221770198133225809970388891186207294659617755036854015145379525705307975120255562269401393110207755042957207041 17268228
385.4 7 456 27017989970625580911264011972787984914441271437567657860633858855515492242329802844335892591999361025480674799299240633801324650265575942183550615430879545566643234002801457324693975012255035877809481298338948145794461637633180773498387333587605450938300798091500608072444682706111038508156203660170191795362763877240803338749239259482365673457291733891822019828709234788700313875839201 12319379
414.2 61 232 1598454605013723420458971549735664092195543826759998266258000933120966564916680467648754238806693538202120433279861381839253888908440963244839103852599238333067417847326985775072687812263737000837569651511212842842899525623406252615157085060582960539606820375829981817585974354502261074314152029887238584896442868024480858868289642083562731660543391076332383523286997680401218147884774663081221094201911250793063513 5173797
307.3 48037081 40 18325860845546750340888544228803145186613829499639462841249282087061998424363540557429872122894306088565872820589960521347915526907181560893858289543763886788068526483050678624543662108162733171264810911698332148152035876792472591373061633047866351740415410220243853536847456460091582695552186202909912549641 4995191
408.4 3 856 3907376849755223427106815110905259947580541006135280112191548606196828922890495633681522570457311943416392351928053946971749894135703557877068816678462406552386602269093795191855402808350631128629284192511506474605096934757855940355700916452975052177814495121635894894230810773377707519399250182996267017264999698929528659257798070550540169992051688455423118451968407560322309618585904806061043485569839811281 3520878[/code]

Made by changing line 32 to this:
[code] # Edit this to compare by snfs or gnfs
return self.weight > other.weight[/code]

Someone more industrious than I could perhaps use an estimate for SNFS-size-to-time-required to sort the list by an estimated "most weight per computation".

chris2be8 2017-10-24 19:31

1 Attachment(s)
[QUOTE=Dubslow;470256]Someone more industrious than I could perhaps use an estimate for SNFS-size-to-time-required to sort the list by an estimated &quot;most weight per computation&quot;.[/QUOTE]

See attachment...

I've excluded numbers that have already been factored.

To get them in order of difficulty run:
sort -n -k 4 order.txt

And in order of size run:
sort -n -k 9 order.txt

The CPU hours are for a rather slow CPU, it will probably take about half as many core hours on a modern CPU. And are only a rough estimate so run times could vary from them by a factor of 2 or more.

Chris

chris2be8 2017-10-25 15:32

Now (33377^47-1)/33376 is done so reserving:
(38611^43-1)/38610 (193 digits)
(40387^43-1)/40386 (194 digits)
(41051^43-1)/41050 (194 digits)

Chris

chris2be8 2017-10-26 06:57

(41051^43-1)/41050 is done: [code]
********** Factor found in step 2: 2982981355357371177230019251568589
Found prime factor of 34 digits: 2982981355357371177230019251568589
Prime cofactor 19273347928645351655888034437698379505364424753644373537031721673376217020145994871728299430578386386627329284383936262557550096164253565058906477448103781066137 has 161 digits
[/code]
So reserving as a replacement:
(38609^43-1)/38608 (193 digits)

Chris

chris2be8 2017-10-26 10:52

(38609^43-1)/38608 is done [code]
********** Factor found in step 2: 3530350888111166213197842160828082913604759
Found prime factor of 43 digits: 3530350888111166213197842160828082913604759
Composite cofactor 1239117846230888238341472467525684383316800590779964840237898614429194679168783893040197711964834768005126638980343546362030241892920451575619639481949 has 151 digits

********** Factor found in step 2: 4571178357181278070929046812740442780551
Found prime factor of 40 digits: 4571178357181278070929046812740442780551
Prime cofactor 271071865809883745348753037572673618169804465772659502195654514895950174525337353146881477172459624170431637499 has 111 digits
[/code]
So reserving:
(38201^43-1)/38200 (193 digits)

Chris

chris2be8 2017-10-26 11:11

And (38201^43-1)/38200 didn't last long: [code]
********** Factor found in step 2: 48682068331336971273552171332894267837
Found prime factor of 38 digits: 48682068331336971273552171332894267837
Prime cofactor 57514994129739994523964080725493743816495824404737192508967647713389969483279350091226882084281825032722002617331390154584484482008474557236487719015197039 has 155 digits
[/code]
So I'll take the 4 remaining smallish numbers:
(37159^43-1)/37158 (192 digits)
(37357^43-1)/37356 (193 digits)
(37579^43-1)/37578 (193 digits)
(37963^43-1)/37962 (193 digits)

Chris

Dubslow 2017-10-26 11:38

That's... an incredible string of luck, is it not?

Dubslow 2017-10-26 15:26

[QUOTE=Dubslow;470255]
Not coincidentally, I would like to reserve 37061^43-1 to factor. (I have a 6 year old quad core only, so small numbers for me! Even this will probably take more than a month.)[/QUOTE]

Evidently my memory fails me. ~3 days, though I perhaps got slightly unlucky with the ECM: Yafu found the P45, but not the P42 or P43, and thus switched to SNFS and probably overall wasted time... but hindsight is in this case 40/20.

[code]P45 = 151391679468422393528867290915149240097250107
P64 = 1486558991225034419006760671754467301035250060013637466479042797
P43 = 7085347601112630074165665314424610195957819
P42 = 491910406011895000965792057486858753525323
[/code]

I'll take the next three smallest available:

5366319547249^17-1
671717139553^19-1
24671431560073^17-1

chris2be8 2017-10-26 15:43

[QUOTE=Dubslow;470379]That's... an incredible string of luck, is it not?[/QUOTE]

It's not that lucky. I'm factoring about half of them by ECM, so 3 in a row is a 1 in 8 chance.

Chris

Dubslow 2017-10-26 15:50

[QUOTE=chris2be8;470389]It's not that lucky. I'm factoring about half of them by ECM[/QUOTE]

Really? I didn't realize the pickings were quite that good. What's the smallest factors you see? 20 digits, 30, 35?

chris2be8 2017-10-26 15:54

[QUOTE=Dubslow;470387]I'll take the next three smallest available:

5366319547249^17-1 # SNFS diff: 254.593, degree 6, GNFS diff: 203.675, CPU hours: 21607, weight: 17609, ratio 0.814961120629172
671717139553^19-1 # SNFS diff: 248.370, degree 6, GNFS diff: 212.889, CPU hours: 13379, weight: 11396, ratio 0.851726491726239
24671431560073^17-1 # SNFS diff: 267.843, degree 6, GNFS diff: 214.275, CPU hours: 59948, weight: 30973, ratio 0.516657121787173 [/QUOTE]

Those are a lot harder. I've added SNFS difficulty and CPU hours etc estimated by my script to your post. Compare with:
37061^43-1 # SNFS diff: 207.601, degree 6, GNFS diff: 191.895, CPU hours: 579.188, weight: 7664, ratio 13.2323092955755

So if that took 3 days you are doing the equivalent of about 200 CPU hours per day. So the next 3 might take you 100 days, 66 days and 300 days respectively. They are probably more suited to NFS@Home.

In practice I'm not planning to do any more myself.

Chris

chris2be8 2017-10-26 16:00

[QUOTE=Dubslow;470392]Really? I didn't realize the pickings were quite that good. What's the smallest factors you see? 20 digits, 30, 35?[/QUOTE]

I've posted nearly all the ECM factors I found to this list (mainly to show why I was reserving another number so quickly). The smallest factor was 34 digits.

I'm using my GPU to do stage 1 so ECM is quite fast for me.

Chris

Dubslow 2017-10-26 16:15

[QUOTE=chris2be8;470393]Those are a lot harder. I've added SNFS difficulty and CPU hours etc estimated by my script to your post. Compare with:
37061^43-1 # SNFS diff: 207.601, degree 6, GNFS diff: 191.895, CPU hours: 579.188, weight: 7664, ratio 13.2323092955755

So if that took 3 days you are doing the equivalent of about 200 CPU hours per day. So the next 3 might take you 100 days, 66 days and 300 days respectively. They are probably more suited to NFS@Home.

In practice I'm not planning to do any more myself.

Chris[/QUOTE]

Aww crud. First order SNFS difficulty estimation: smote. I'm rusty on my SNFS techniques, but this is because of the relatively large base? Especially for the 17s, multiplying by one factor of the base to get the degree 6 poly is a significant penalty.

But actually, for the middle one, shouldn't it be doable with a degree 6 without any penalty multiplications? Something like c6=671717139553, c0=-1, m=671717139553^3, and the difficulty stays at merely the size of the composite? What am I forgetting?

chris2be8 2017-10-26 16:42

I've checked what my script does, it adds a penalty to the SNFS difficulty for the large coefficients so the estimated CPU time isn't too far out. So the SNFS difficulty is smaller that it says. But the CPU time is probably about right.

I should fix it to print the real SNFS difficulty, then adjust it before calculating CPU time. But that's really a cosmetic fix.

If you want to do them do some test sieving to get a better estimate of how long they will take.

Sorting by estimated CPU time the next three would be:
(65551^47-1)/65550
(21377^53-1)/21376
(47306791574323349111302419726723197703462364929251918941^5-1)/2601873536587784201121633084969775873690430071108855541700

Those would be at the small end of jobs for NFS@Home. So feasible for 1 system if you are willing to take a few weeks for each of them.

Chris

fivemack 2017-10-26 16:51

[QUOTE=chris2be8;470398]I've checked what my script does, it adds a penalty to the SNFS difficulty for the large coefficients so the estimated CPU time isn't too far out. So the SNFS difficulty is smaller that it says. But the CPU time is probably about right.

I should fix it to print the real SNFS difficulty, then adjust it before calculating CPU time. But that's really a cosmetic fix.

If you want to do them do some test sieving to get a better estimate of how long they will take.

Sorting by estimated CPU time the next three would be:
(65551^47-1)/65550
(21377^53-1)/21376
(47306791574323349111302419726723197703462364929251918941^5-1)/2601873536587784201121633084969775873690430071108855541700

Those would be at the small end of jobs for NFS@Home. So feasible for 1 system if you are willing to take a few weeks for each of them.

Chris[/QUOTE]

In fact I've already pushed the 473xx941^5-1 to the NFS@home 15e queue. As you can see from the Q range these are small jobs for 15e, but the yield-per-second is much higher for 15e than for 14e.

fivemack 2017-10-26 17:05

The middle one looks entirely practical, with the obvious SNFS polynomial and unoptimised parameters below I get a yield with 15e at Q=134M of 4.806 rel/Q and a runtime of 0.12s/rel on one core 2.5GHz Ivy Bridge, so maybe 12000 CPU-hours sieving to get enough relations for a matrix.

(oh, I'm an idiot and was looking in the wrong column, that's pretty much the same estimate that Chris has! also I have enough cores for 10,000 CPU-hours per week)

(my guess is that the Murphy E-value computed by msieve will be closely correlated to the sieving yield and the runtime; it might be a more useful figure of merit than 'SNFS digits')

[code]
n: 775096433203518536044933353171710557475540401430117459326084334844306873036759431760612632327979348785118615047871598479663542525065118826315208419605410714190495159843711804117366552926395923017505967925465157683
skew: 93.583
c0: 671717139553
c6: -1
Y0: -1
Y1: 303081403521299656161314946389465377
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
alambda: 2.6
rlambda: 2.6
alim: 134000000
rlim: 134000000

[/code]

fivemack 2017-10-26 17:28

How much ECM has been done on (732541^47-1)/732540 ?

chris2be8 2017-10-27 17:11

[QUOTE=chris2be8;470389]It's not that lucky. I'm factoring about half of them by ECM, so 3 in a row is a 1 in 8 chance.
[/QUOTE]

That was tempting fate. I only found 1 factor for the last 4 numbers (for (37357^43-1)/37356), and the cofactor is composite. Which drags the success rate down a bit.

Chris

chris2be8 2017-10-27 17:19

[QUOTE=fivemack;470401] (my guess is that the Murphy E-value computed by msieve will be closely correlated to the sieving yield and the runtime; it might be a more useful figure of merit than 'SNFS digits')
[/QUOTE]

It would probably be much better than my script's estimate based on SNFS digits, size of largest coefficient and degree. But I don't know how to get msieve to print the E-value without doing anything else. And the script is generating polys for all the most wanted numbers so even a short delay for each number would be annoying.

Chris

RichD 2017-10-29 20:16

[QUOTE=fivemack;470405]How much ECM has been done on (732541^47-1)/732540 ?[/QUOTE]

Found this old comment.
[QUOTE=Pascal Ochem;364649]I do not keep track of the ECM work done. We can safely assume that the 37755 composites in t1600 have not been ECMed to the 40 digit level. You can work on a bunch of them, e.g. between lines 6200 and 6700, and get some factors.[/QUOTE]

If a number is in the MWRB file, I would think it has much more attention.

Dubslow 2017-10-30 05:03

[QUOTE=RichD;470564]
If a number is in the MWRB file, I would think it has much more attention.[/QUOTE]

Haven't chris2be8's ECM finds been from the MWRB file?

Dubslow 2017-10-30 06:22

[QUOTE=chris2be8;470289]See attachment...

I've excluded numbers that have already been factored.

To get them in order of difficulty run:
sort -n -k 4 order.txt

And in order of size run:
sort -n -k 9 order.txt

The CPU hours are for a rather slow CPU, it will probably take about half as many core hours on a modern CPU. And are only a rough estimate so run times could vary from them by a factor of 2 or more.

Chris[/QUOTE]

I would be interested in the code that produces this (most notably SNFS difficulty adjustments, and NFS-diff-to-CPU-time bits). I assume you track reservations/progress manually?

RichD 2017-10-30 08:53

[QUOTE=Dubslow;470584]Haven't chris2be8's ECM finds been from the MWRB file?[/QUOTE]

Yes, if it is new to the file then it has less ECM work as stated [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=468588&postcount=514]here[/url].

Dubslow 2017-10-30 10:00

[QUOTE=Dubslow;470255]I made a small 50 liner to sort the roadblock file (by snfs difficulty, though it's easily modifiable).

[url]https://gist.github.com/dubslow/057407e71a8edda2bcb7541e73c0bb6e[/url]

Converting it to work on the t files should be as easy as modifying lines 16, 36, and 37; sorting by gnfs difficulty=composite size or by weight is as easy as modifying 32.
[/QUOTE]

As much or more for my own reduction of skill rust as for future people-use, I've much improved this little [URL="https://gist.github.com/dubslow/057407e71a8edda2bcb7541e73c0bb6e"]gist[/URL]. Among other things, I realized the way I was controlling the sorting was quite stupid, and doing so is now an order of magnitude simpler. Also, it autodetects if it is passed a "t file" or "mwrb file" (which differ only in that the latter includes a weight for each number).

The costs, such as they are, include double the code length, which is in no small part due to the very-much-overkill class hierarchy I made to handle the two file types, though I like to think this is both more maintainable and extensible (not that I ever anticipate it needing extending in any way, like I said, mostly for my own benefit). Though overkill, the code is hopefully very easy to read, even for non-Pythoneers. Completely tangentially to the subject at hand, I have a mild curiosity how readable other people find it, including (or even especially?) those who aren't familiar with Python. I would welcome any such comments over PM.

Anyways.

Use:

[code]bill@Gravemind ~/bin $ ./opnfiles.py ~/Downloads/t600.txt
bill@Gravemind ~/bin $ head ~/Downloads/t600.txt.sort
159.7 159.2 70253804098533303996256039060114483059484940828633741987845788959049023444144179 2
162.1 159.5 1149986550472855579648408239822856912298581122489969299470029337872846236797481461 2
164.1 159.3 11724355815660124915535088311032487705863837675251193935172812233877609917572819351 2
171.8 165.1 75530533451743557525338385814839050445571761854876146017004062930526523488696122961481 2
177.5 172.9 54272081997719936694932737782603739858367553756705713569128530720565556404525135777737041 2
178.0 161.3 101575129733962903176164717219488895595781584956747683545056554733469676083500321620734233 2
180.8 180.3 2559748633561915802707442930459223465566261478367639818017337979434186929768942720172398161 2
183.6 175.1 62818938916943713724293329489477630385792505500459422757805502240535452147851295164091552943 2
192.3 189.8 549568273 22
192.9 162.7 2878319791561117685582532984481924989856693782709674033037185004142735435821967737094116024989323 2
[/code]

[code]bill@Gravemind ~/bin $ ./opnfiles.py ~/Downloads/mwrb2100.txt
bill@Gravemind ~/bin $ head ~/Downloads/mwrb2100.txt.sort
191.9 191.9 7664 37061 42
191.9 191.9 7635 37159 42
192.0 192.0 7555 37357 42
192.1 192.1 7445 37579 42
192.3 192.3 7301 37963 42
192.4 192.4 7068 38201 42
192.6 192.6 7296 38609 42
192.6 192.6 6668 38611 42
193.5 193.5 5682 40387 42
193.8 193.8 5441 41051 42[/code]

And although the default sort is by zeroth order SNFS difficulty (editable in the very first code line), you can also change the sort in an ad hoc manner via the command line (second argument, in quotes), this example sorting by which numbers have been the most factored so far:

[code]bill@Gravemind ~/bin $ ./opnfiles.py ~/Downloads/t600.txt "line.gnfs_difficulty() - line.snfs_difficulty()"
bill@Gravemind ~/bin $ head ~/Downloads/t600.txt.sort
243.2 145.3 127473943 30
268.6 179.3 307 108
252.6 168.2 262209281 30
248.5 164.8 506710914239632419773 12
267.4 185.7 1093 88
250.5 175.8 552781743698966779174737704265497702530829 6
252.0 178.2 1001523179 28
252.3 179.0 1024823381 28
256.7 183.6 86353 52
245.3 173.7 150332843 30[/code]

I hope to perhaps incorporate some variant of chris2be8's more sophisticated difficulty and effort estimations, which would render the ad hoc sorting eminently more useful. Perhaps also it should track (or at least not-destroy) reservation information in the file (though such would have to be entered manually).

chris2be8 2017-10-30 16:47

1 Attachment(s)
[QUOTE=Dubslow;470588]I would be interested in the code that produces this (most notably SNFS difficulty adjustments, and NFS-diff-to-CPU-time bits). I assume you track reservations/progress manually?[/QUOTE]

See attachment:

Note it uses phi to help build the .polys so you need to have that installed.

Run in the same dir as mwrb2100.txt to build .polys for all the numbers in mwrb2100.txt.

Then get stats with: [code]
grep SNFS m[0-9]* > stats
sort -gr -k 16 stats >order
sort -nr -k 14 stats >weights
sort -n -k 4 stats >diffs
sort -n -k 9 stats >gnfs
[/code]The SNFS difficulties are adjusted for coefficient size etc.

Chris

NB. I do track reservations/progress manually. But I'm not planning to do any more numbers myself.

Dubslow 2017-11-01 10:49

[QUOTE=Dubslow;470387]Evidently my memory fails me. ~3 days, though I perhaps got slightly unlucky with the ECM: Yafu found the P45, but not the P42 or P43, and thus switched to SNFS and probably overall wasted time... but hindsight is in this case 40/20.

[code]P45 = 151391679468422393528867290915149240097250107
P64 = 1486558991225034419006760671754467301035250060013637466479042797
P43 = 7085347601112630074165665314424610195957819
P42 = 491910406011895000965792057486858753525323
[/code]

I'll take the next three smallest available:

5366319547249^17-1
671717139553^19-1
24671431560073^17-1[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=chris2be8;470393]Those are a lot harder. I've added SNFS difficulty and CPU hours etc estimated by my script to your post. Compare with:
37061^43-1 # SNFS diff: 207.601, degree 6, GNFS diff: 191.895, CPU hours: 579.188, weight: 7664, ratio 13.2323092955755

So if that took 3 days you are doing the equivalent of about 200 CPU hours per day. So the next 3 might take you 100 days, 66 days and 300 days respectively. They are probably more suited to NFS@Home.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, that was perhaps more than I can chew. Having already spent the better part of a week on the first one doing ECM, yafu estimates ~40 days of sieving to hit minrels, probably closer to 50 once you account for my everyday usage. I hereby unreserve the latter two listed above, namely 671... and 246... . I will continue and complete 536... .

RichD 2017-11-21 11:34

A few more low hanging fruit has showed up in the MWRB file.
[CODE]64081603 30 C157
982015669 18 C162
2523203593 18 C170
53003 36 C171
53051 36 C171
53233 36 C171
53279 36 C171
53401 36 C171
53617 36 C171
3056720295076650541 10 C185
45289 40 C187
45953 40 C187
46183 40 C187
41341 42 C194
41953 42 C195
42013 42 C195
33403 46 C209
33589 46 C209
33827 46 C209
33997 46 C209
34039 46 C209
34171 46 C209
34301 46 C209[/CODE]

RichD 2017-11-23 14:14

I'll take 982015669^19-1 C162.

lorgix 2017-11-23 20:02

(53617^37-1)/53616 = p37*p135
(42013^43-1)/42012 = p38*c157

RichD 2017-11-24 14:56

I'll take 2523203593^19-1 C170.

RichD 2017-12-01 13:32

I'll start working on these:
53xxx 36 C171

RichD 2017-12-04 19:55

[QUOTE=RichD;472847]I'll start working on these:
53xxx 36 C171[/QUOTE]

Finishing these up - taking:
3056720295076650541 10 C185

didgogns 2017-12-07 12:34

Taking 34301^47-1.

RichD 2017-12-26 03:20

Taking:
41341^43-1
41953^43-1
33403^47-1

lorgix 2018-01-02 11:53

307^293-1 is factored
 
Some results from t2100:

307^293-1 c707 = p35*[B]p672[/B]
613^157-1 c422 = p33*c389
313^277-1 c671 = p35*c637
61^431-1 c720 p31*c690
109^389-1 c775 = p38*c737
5231^229-1 c826 = p26*c798
5231^227-1 c830 = p27*c804

lavalamp 2018-01-06 11:59

25th Jan 2017[QUOTE=lavalamp;451543]I took a look through mwrb2000.txt and most of the numbers in there are well outside my range, however I did find [URL="http://www.factordb.com/index.php?query=8178376117%5E23-1"]8178376117^23-1[/URL]. Without sieving I'd estimate 2 months to complete.[/QUOTE]

I WAS WRONG

total time: 7602.92 hours.

Remaining factors were a p97 and p122.

lavalamp 2018-01-06 19:14

I think I'll nibble on these for a little bit.
[CODE][URL="http://www.factordb.com/index.php?query=%281371982552237471%5E13-1%29%2F1371982552237470"]1371982552237471^13-1[/URL] t1200
[URL="http://www.factordb.com/index.php?query=%285469107758810639%5E13-1%29%2F5469107758810638"]5469107758810639^13-1[/URL] t1000
[URL="http://www.factordb.com/index.php?query=%2811077817343333373%5E13-1%29%2F11077817343333372"]11077817343333373^13-1[/URL] t800
[URL="http://www.factordb.com/index.php?query=%2812380278988231501%5E13-1%29%2F12380278988231500"]12380278988231501^13-1[/URL] t800[/CODE]

These are all the remaining p17^13-1 numbers currently in the OPN composite files; I will not be working on them so if anyone is interested you can have at it. SNFS difficulty 195 - 203:
[CODE] Number File Remainder
[URL="http://www.factordb.com/index.php?query=%2817312814599396059%5E13-1%29%2F17312814599396058"]17312814599396059^13-1[/URL] t1200 c147
[URL="http://www.factordb.com/index.php?query=%2819321617196953199%5E13-1%29%2F19321617196953198"]19321617196953199^13-1[/URL] t1000 c160
[URL="http://www.factordb.com/index.php?query=%2833565630407553129%5E13-1%29%2F33565630407553128"]33565630407553129^13-1[/URL] t800 c145
[URL="http://www.factordb.com/index.php?query=%2837921183808153449%5E13-1%29%2F37921183808153448"]37921183808153449^13-1[/URL] t1200 c165
[URL="http://www.factordb.com/index.php?query=%2839383509906716221%5E13-1%29%2F39383509906716220"]39383509906716221^13-1[/URL] t800 c173
[URL="http://www.factordb.com/index.php?query=%2878372732118311223%5E13-1%29%2F78372732118311222"]78372732118311223^13-1[/URL] t800 c172[/CODE]

I have no idea about the level of ECM on any of them, merely that they are in the file and I estimate that SNFS should take a few days to a week on a quad core per candidate.

RichD 2018-01-06 19:54

[B]wombatman[/B] did a bunch to t40 but not sure how far he got.

wombatman 2018-01-06 20:29

Truth be told, I think I ran into some issues shortly after I started that and had to abandon it, so I doubt I got to t40 on many of the candidates.

RichD 2018-01-06 20:46

One other tidbit. If the number also appears in t800 and less than a C190, then those have been ECMed to t50.

lavalamp 2018-01-07 04:06

Is there another mailing list/source/other for such information? Or are you just aware from private correspondence of work others are doing.

RichD 2018-01-07 06:40

I don't know of any other sources (other than this thread) for tracking these numbers. If there is one, I would submit what I know to their database. I am just repeating what has already been mentioned previously.

I usually keep track of several hundred numbers, that I am interested in, at any given time.

Sadly, Pascal does not keep detail records of ECM work per [URL=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=470564&postcount=553]this post[/URL].

lavalamp 2018-01-09 20:57

[QUOTE=RichD;476801]Sadly, Pascal does not keep detail records of ECM work per [URL=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=470564&postcount=553]this post[/URL].[/QUOTE]That is unfortunate. :down:

The 4 numbers reserved in my previous post are nearly complete now, and the smallest factor so far has been 46 digits, so I don't feel too bad about not trying more ECM.

I am looking at [URL="http://www.factordb.com/index.php?query=%28201663262153%5E17-1%29%2F201663262152"]201663262153^17-1[/URL] now, which appears in t800.

As I see it there are a few options here:

Degree 5, SNFS 193 with bad coefficients
Degree 6, SNFS 204 with better coefficients
Degree 8, SNFS 181 with amazing coefficients, but you know, degree 8

Degree 5 but GNFS 158

Or there's always the ECM and hope approach too.

I'm curious to know what method others here would take, I'd guess the degree 6?

I started sieving with the degree 8 poly, and on the rational side it was pretty slow. But on the algebraic side, it is muuuuuch faster. I have heard though that there can be issues in the final stages with a degree 8, and clearly a degree 8 is not optimal for numbers of this size. To that end I tested it on a SNFS 115, and it seemed to work without issue, so I remain hopeful.

I think I will continue with this number and degree 8 poly. I estimate it will take 4 days assuming no issues crop up. I may also attempt the factorisation with the degree 6 poly as well and see how the time compares.

RichD 2018-01-09 23:11

[QUOTE=lavalamp;477094]I am looking at [URL="http://www.factordb.com/index.php?query=%28201663262153%5E17-1%29%2F201663262152"]201663262153^17-1[/URL] now, which appears in t800.

As I see it there are a few options here:

Degree 5, SNFS 193 with bad coefficients
Degree 6, SNFS 204 with better coefficients
Degree 8, SNFS 181 with amazing coefficients, but you know, degree 8

Degree 5 but GNFS 158

Or there's always the ECM and hope approach too.

I'm curious to know what method others here would take, I'd guess the degree 6?[/QUOTE]

This is a tough one to call. Both SNFS-204 (6-deg) and GNFS-158 (5-deg) are easy 30-bit/14e jobs. You might be able to fit the GNFS job in as a 29-bit. The SNFS-204 would require sieving on the algebraic side. Better yet, it might turn out better if you could do 2/3 to 3/4 on the algebraic side and the small remainder on the rational side but that requires manual intervention. If you want to fire and forget then the GNFS *might* be the way to go.

I tested degree 8 with p^17-1 and found the cut-over point to be above SNFS-230. Then again, I didn't test anything this low. There might be a small window for 8-deg.

lavalamp 2018-01-10 00:45

[QUOTE=RichD;477110]This is a tough one to call. Both SNFS-204 (6-deg) and GNFS-158 (5-deg) are easy 30-bit/14e jobs. You might be able to fit the GNFS job in as a 29-bit. [/QUOTE]I'm going to assume this is something to do with the lattice sieving, I see there are many lasieve exe's, but I've no idea why or what they do. Much learnings still to do, my knowledge of GNFS is still remarkably poor.

[QUOTE=RichD;477110]The SNFS-204 would require sieving on the algebraic side. Better yet, it might turn out better if you could do 2/3 to 3/4 on the algebraic side and the small remainder on the rational side but that requires manual intervention. If you want to fire and forget then the GNFS *might* be the way to go.[/QUOTE]I'm using factmsieve.py, so it's essentially already fire and forget for me. I did a little test sieving and found that on the rational side, both the degree 6 and degree 8 poly sieved at about the same rate, but then on the algebraic side, the degree 8 is over 10 times faster. I didn't test the degree 6 on the algebraic side, perhaps I should have.

[QUOTE=RichD;477110]I tested degree 8 with p^17-1 and found the cut-over point to be above SNFS-230. Then again, I didn't test anything this low. There might be a small window for 8-deg.[/QUOTE]Do you mean use degree 6 below 230 and degree 8 above?

VBCurtis 2018-01-10 03:23

[QUOTE=lavalamp;477115]I'm going to assume this is something to do with the lattice sieving, I see there are many lasieve exe's, but I've no idea why or what they do. Much learnings still to do, my knowledge of GNFS is still remarkably poor.[/QUOTE]
Each lasieve application sieves a different area for each input Q. In a sense, this area is akin to how hard the siever tries to find relations for each Q. For easier tasks, relations come easily and it's not very valuable to search harder for each Q (rather, one just moves on to the next Q, harvesting the easy relations to be found there).
As tasks get harder, the smaller siever struggles to find relations, and doesn't find very many per Q. So, we move to a larger siever.
For GNFS tasks (the ones where poly select happens, no special form to the number), 12e is used up to about 120 digits, 13e from 120 to low 140s, 14e from low 140s to high 160s, 15e from high 160s to high 180s, and 16e above that (there isn't a 17e). These cutoffs are editable in your factmsieve file, on a line that looks like (mine is edited from default as a result of experimentation):
[code] if nfs_type == 'gnfs':
r = (95, 118, 141, 166, 185, 999)[/code]
The SNFS cutoffs are adjacent.

In general, going up one siever will find twice as many relations per Q, but use four times the memory.

Large primes choices are the other number mentioned (30 or 29); that takes a bit more to explain, but I can make an attempt if you'd like. Factmsieve makes those choices in the code just above the snippet I quoted, on lines marked "lpba" and "lpbr".

RichD 2018-01-10 14:15

I use the algebraic side for p^17-1 (and p^19-1). The curve peters off pretty quick. Once the yield drops below the rational side sieving I thought it might be advantageous to perform some sieving on that side until its curve drops off. Then back to the algebraic side.

I tried this once but it didn't work out as well as I hoped because of the high number of dups. It still solved the problem. It just needs a bit of tweeking but I moved on to other numbers at the time.

To fire and forget, the -a side would be better.

hyramgraff 2018-01-11 20:27

Hi, I'm new to this project.

I decided to throw some spare CPU cycles toward running ECM on the composites in the t2100 file and have already found six factors while running at B1=11e3. Where should I report the factors that I've found?

RichD 2018-01-11 21:55

[url]http://factordb.com[/url] is the most common repository for factors.


All times are UTC. The time now is 15:32.

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