[QUOTE=sweety439;520532]Currently, there is [B]NO[/B] "10,323- c271" in the page [URL="http://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~ssw/cun/who"]http://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~ssw/cun/who[/URL].[/QUOTE]

And?

If you bothered to pay attention over the last few years you would have observed that
only a few numbers get queued at a time. 10,323- has not been queued yet.

[b]SO WHAT?[/b]

You would also have observed that Greg is generally (with a few exceptions) doing
numbers in order of increasing SNFS difficulty. A small amount of effort would reveal
that there are about a dozen Cunningham numbers smaller than 10,323- that have yet
to be queued.

What is your <censored> obsession with this one number?

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;520472]You suggested this one, and were told it's going to wait until easier ones are done first. Please don't keep asking.[/QUOTE]

See his next post. He can't stop. It's an obsession.

Greg has been in contact about the current effort. He asks us to focus the ECM focus on 2_1084+, 2_2126M, and 2_2150M. He will queue them in a couple of months but they need more ECM.

[QUOTE=swellman;520647]Greg has been in contact about the current effort. He asks us to focus the ECM focus on 2_1084+, 2_2126M, and 2_2150M. He will queue them in a couple of months but they need more ECM.[/QUOTE]

Greg should add 2,1157+ to his list as well. We'll need to run more ECM. (exponent
divisible by 13 so a sextic works very well)

[QUOTE=swellman;520647]Greg has been in contact about the current effort. He asks us to focus the ECM focus on 2_1084+, 2_2126M, and 2_2150M. He will queue them in a couple of months but they need more ECM.[/QUOTE]

You might want to ask Bruce Dodson how much work he did with these numbers.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;520668]You might want to ask Bruce Dodson how much work he did with these numbers.[/QUOTE]

One data point. I know that Arjen ran 20K curves with B1 = 10^9 on all of the
base 2 numbers a number of years ago. You may want to check with him as well.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;520666]Greg should add 2,1157+ to his list as well. We'll need to run more ECM. (exponent
divisible by 13 so a sextic works very well)[/QUOTE]

Certainly, it’s all just a matter of prioritization. Even yoyo likely won’t be able to complete a full t65 on the three composites in two months. But we will do what we can.

We can weave the others into the tapestry.

[QUOTE=swellman;520647]Greg has been in contact about the current effort. He asks us to focus the ECM focus on 2_1084+, 2_2126M, and 2_2150M. He will queue them in a couple of months but they need more ECM.[/QUOTE]

These are now starting to get some ECM, well at least 2,1084+ so far. I estimate it will take until mid Oct to complete these three at the t65 level. Hoping this meshes with Greg’s queuing plans but there it is.

Planning on queuing 2,1157+, 2,1144+ and 2,2158L next.

Under yoyo is is possible to choose only to ecm from the Cunningham or is it still sending from all sub projects.

[QUOTE=swellman;522719]These are now starting to get some ECM, well at least 2,1084+ so far. I estimate it will take until mid Oct to complete these three at the t65 level. Hoping this meshes with Greg’s queuing plans but there it is.

Planning on queuing 2,1157+, 2,1144+ and 2,2158L next.[/QUOTE]

Finishing the sieving on 2,1072+ and 2,1076+ should take another 3-4 weeks.
I am guessing that Greg might then queue 2,2126M (same difficulty as 2,1063+).
This should take us to the 2nd/3rd week of September before he would be ready
for one of the currently queued YoYo ECM candidates.

[QUOTE=pinhodecarlos;522748]Under yoyo is is possible to choose only to ecm from the Cunningham or is it still sending from all sub projects.[/QUOTE]

it will still send workunits for all available ecm numbers if you select the ecm subproject