Here's a preliminary poly found with Jason's new msievegpu branch.
[code]# norm 2.523819e15 alpha 7.877120 e 1.839e12 skew: 2785154.52 c0: 138570565461588730821881652221421126805 c1: 356118891405782364779335898545631 c2: 157627527368055796683392529 c3: 368273140050413578367 c4: 24904624740140 c5: 949200 Y0: 1035248474311472807522765292042 Y1: 832063911771386519 [/code] Note that msieve's final_norm cutoff for this composite is 1.835e12. 
My curvefits suggest > 1.95e12 would be good.

[QUOTE=bsquared;192729]My curvefits suggest > 1.95e12 would be good.[/QUOTE]
The previous c157 had a 2.00e12 poly. 
[quote=10metreh;192730]The previous c157 had a 2.00e12 poly.[/quote]
And it was good :wink:. 
[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] [quote]Both those figures are wrong: 314718 is at index 8908, and 4788 is at index 2448.[/quote] Yeah the index is 8908 which is 92 indices from 9000 so I mistyped that one. However, the other value (2540) is the current index + 92 i.e. we could stop at index 2540 for that is when we reach 9000 for 314718. So for that one it just wasn't clear what I was trying to say. To summarize: My suggestion is to run the sequence 4788 to index 2540 if we can. 
[QUOTE=Greebley;192736]My suggestion is to run the sequence 4788 to index 2540 if we can.[/QUOTE]
Unless we acquire the downdriver at something ridiculous like 172 digits, in which case we just [B]have[/B] to continue. :smile: 
I'll run pol51 for 0200M using following parameters:
[CODE]pol51m0b b c157_1 p 7 n 2.8e23 a 0 A 200000 pol51opt b c157_1 n 3.6e22 N 3.6e19 e 1.7e12 [/CODE] 
I left the range running overnight, and woke up to these:
[code] polysel_02500.cand:BEGIN POLY #skewness 979863.43 norm 8.85e+20 alpha 5.12 Murphy_E 2.14e12 polysel_02500.cand:BEGIN POLY #skewness 1249264.69 norm 1.13e+21 alpha 5.19 Murphy_E 2.07e12 polysel_02500.cand:BEGIN POLY #skewness 1239920.67 norm 1.08e+21 alpha 5.17 Murphy_E 2.07e12 polysel_02500.cand:BEGIN POLY #skewness 1064109.97 norm 9.82e+20 alpha 4.76 Murphy_E 1.97e12 polysel_02500.cand:BEGIN POLY #skewness 979626.75 norm 9.01e+20 alpha 4.60 Murphy_E 1.94e12 [/code] I'll let it continue to run... in the mean time, anyone care to test sieve the top 2 or 3? We can probably duplicate the siever and parameters from the last C157. details: [code] n: 1128681916333165583281832717120127496638972860118923964844791402387721331170448754199775637678274646951935918929237315749341487244542351920306209843985409563 #skewness 979863.43 norm 8.85e+20 alpha 5.12 Murphy_E 2.14e12 c5: 156600 c4: 5511109690356 c3: 2556240664351703353 c2: 2709038327031089573784479 c1: 772591600803924819123938074991 c0: 127641604647397600699119628378829341 Y1: 64393121809011209 Y0: 1484416691862834512911536697536 skew: 197324.88 rlim: 45000000 alim: 45000000 lpbr: 29 lpba: 29 mfbr: 58 mfba: 58 rlambda: 2.6 alambda: 2.6 n: 1128681916333165583281832717120127496638972860118923964844791402387721331170448754199775637678274646951935918929237315749341487244542351920306209843985409563 #skewness 1249264.69 norm 1.13e+21 alpha 5.19 Murphy_E 2.07e12 c5: 156600 c4: 5314399732356 c3: 2883058196108786471 c2: 2573465483932011297872477 c1: 2271343202342143863498206577119 c0: 23472793401947121132547837819239017 Y1: 64393121809011209 Y0: 1484416708040060932502186689770 skew: 197324.88 rlim: 45000000 alim: 45000000 lpbr: 29 lpba: 29 mfbr: 58 mfba: 58 rlambda: 2.6 alambda: 2.6 n: 1128681916333165583281832717120127496638972860118923964844791402387721331170448754199775637678274646951935918929237315749341487244542351920306209843985409563 #skewness 1239920.67 norm 1.08e+21 alpha 5.17 Murphy_E 2.07e12 c5: 156600 c4: 5335915006356 c3: 2297759499328129799 c2: 2787019491787729028389067 c1: 2123826836917266179771394505903 c0: 18333066845778520513050090022694295 Y1: 64393121809011209 Y0: 1484416706270666731434176688868 skew: 197324.88 rlim: 45000000 alim: 45000000 lpbr: 29 lpba: 29 mfbr: 58 mfba: 58 rlambda: 2.6 alambda: 2.6 [/code] I just realized all of those (and a half dozen more 1.9x 's) have the same leading coefficient! Never seen that before... 
once i have finally managed to compile msievegpu i will have a CUDA gpu i can run on polynomial selection
it is proving difficult to get environment variables and such like correct all you need is a nvidia series >=8 those look good polys 
[quote=bsquared;192797]I left the range running overnight, and woke up to these:
[code] polysel_02500.cand:BEGIN POLY #skewness 979863.43 norm 8.85e+20 alpha 5.12 Murphy_E 2.14e12 polysel_02500.cand:BEGIN POLY #skewness 1249264.69 norm 1.13e+21 alpha 5.19 Murphy_E 2.07e12 polysel_02500.cand:BEGIN POLY #skewness 1239920.67 norm 1.08e+21 alpha 5.17 Murphy_E 2.07e12 polysel_02500.cand:BEGIN POLY #skewness 1064109.97 norm 9.82e+20 alpha 4.76 Murphy_E 1.97e12 polysel_02500.cand:BEGIN POLY #skewness 979626.75 norm 9.01e+20 alpha 4.60 Murphy_E 1.94e12 [/code] [/quote] I decided to do some test sieving on the top 3 as well as jrk's msieve poly. I was dissapointed by the performance of the top poly (about 1100 rels in a range of 1000 Q starting at 10M, 0.170 sec/rel), and the others were even worse in comparison. So on a whim I drug out a 1.92e12 scoring poly with a better alpha (6.44), and it beat the pants off of the 2.14e12 poly. Rough curve fits of test sieving 1k blocks from 5M to 50M in steps of 5M suggest we'll need about 43MQ and about 7 million cpu seconds (based on data from a 3.16 GHz core 2) or 81 CPU days. I think there are better polys to be found, but this is the baseline so far. Lesson to be learned: Murphy_E is a crapshoot! 
1 Attachment(s)
Data attached, if anyone is interested.

[quote=henryzz;192816]once i have finally managed to compile msievegpu i will have a CUDA gpu i can run on polynomial selection
it is proving difficult to get environment variables and such like correct all you need is a nvidia series >=8 those look good polys[/quote] i finally got it working i will start polynomial selection with it 
[QUOTE=bsquared;192817]So on a whim I drug out a 1.92e12 scoring poly with a better alpha (6.44), and it beat the pants off of the 2.14e12 poly. <snip>
I think there are better polys to be found, but this is the baseline so far. Lesson to be learned: Murphy_E is a crapshoot![/QUOTE] May I offer the following three polys for your consideration: [CODE]BEGIN POLY #skewness 492944.87 norm 2.47e+021 alpha 6.03 Murphy_E 2.00e012 X5 22783680 X4 3049889691192 X3 25115676975823063898 X2 1057549120220075124773221 X1 4015168516778629810185220755126 X0 68074828915752550906211652474462780 Y1 56460946476157681 Y0 548263756929827444068662381961 M 130374183394572597071227248002684258680753480045928203593454005872997714178038084759490414258234615905198731655011653462453390100735529354844596548096485215 END POLY BEGIN POLY #skewness 591796.65 norm 3.01e+021 alpha 6.32 Murphy_E 2.02e012 X5 22783680 X4 2209855409592 X3 25038106255076701466 X2 1612254100171446541836739 X1 7285061836793671322852863008672 X0 120437822537708031145046391210398448 Y1 56460946476157681 Y0 548263757346170463383849121655 M 130374183394572597071227248002684258680753480045928203593454005872997714178038084759490414258234615905198731655011653462453390100735529354844596548096492589 END POLY BEGIN POLY #skewness 594103.05 norm 3.05e+021 alpha 6.34 Murphy_E 2.03e012 X5 22783680 X4 2558901387192 X3 25067329196727393818 X2 1381972795712101042561075 X1 7294236258178618545696273107894 X0 164061303268787107813228616719980278 Y1 56460946476157681 Y0 548263757173174123380901987071 M 130374183394572597071227248002684258680753480045928203593454005872997714178038084759490414258234615905198731655011653462453390100735529354844596548096489525 END POLY [/CODE] 
[QUOTE=bsquared;192797]details:
[code] #skewness [B]979863.43[/B] norm 8.85e+20 alpha 5.12 Murphy_E 2.14e12 c5: 156600 c4: 5511109690356 skew: [B]197324.88[/B] #skewness [B]1249264.69[/B] norm 1.13e+21 alpha 5.19 Murphy_E 2.07e12 c5: 156600 c4: 5314399732356 skew: [B]197324.88[/B] #skewness [B]1239920.67[/B] norm 1.08e+21 alpha 5.17 Murphy_E 2.07e12 c5: 156600 c4: 5335915006356 skew: [B]197324.88[/B] [/code] [/QUOTE] Saaay... Did you just test all those goodly polynomials with wrong skew??? :glare: EDIT: Yes you did For the 2.14: Wrong skew {total yield: 1050, q=30001003 (0.33863 sec/rel)} Proper skew {total yield: 1174, q=30001003 (0.29744 sec/rel)} 
[quote=axn;192905]Saaay... Did you just test all those goodly polynomials with wrong skew??? :glare:
EDIT: Yes you did For the 2.14: Wrong skew {total yield: 1050, q=30001003 (0.33863 sec/rel)} Proper skew {total yield: 1174, q=30001003 (0.29744 sec/rel)}[/quote] Err, yes, yes I did :doh!:. Copied it over from the last C157... I get: Wrong skew {total yield: 1116, q=10001009 (0.17081 sec/rel)} Proper skew {total yield: 1341, q=10001009 (0.14201 sec/rel)} FWIW, the 1.92e12 poly was also tested wrong: Wrong skew {total yield: 1396, q=10001009 (0.14012 sec/rel)} Proper skew {total yield: 1421, q=10001009 (0.13689 sec/rel)} And here are your 3 candidates (as you posted them, top to bottom): total yield: 1078, q=10001009 (0.13871 sec/rel) total yield: 951, q=10001009 (0.14025 sec/rel) total yield: 1211, q=10001009 (0.14852 sec/rel) And my two 2.07e12 polys: total yield: 1195, q=10001009 (0.14133 sec/rel) total yield: 1038, q=10001009 (0.14251 sec/rel) And finally, jrk's msieve poly: total yield: 1163, q=10001009 (0.14720 sec/rel) I'll take the 2.14 poly, 1.92 poly, and your fastest poly and do some more trial sieving. 
1 Attachment(s)
[quote=bsquared;192919]
I'll take the 2.14 poly, 1.92 poly, and your fastest poly and do some more trial sieving.[/quote] A winner is emerging: axn's 2.00e12 poly appears to be consistently faster, with a higher yield, than the others I tested. [code] n: 1128681916333165583281832717120127496638972860118923964844791402387721331170448754199775637678274646951935918929237315749341487244542351920306209843985409563 #BEGIN POLY #skewness 492944.87 norm 2.47e+021 alpha 6.03 Murphy_E 2.00e012 c5: 22783680 c4: 3049889691192 c3: 25115676975823063898 c2: 1057549120220075124773221 c1: 4015168516778629810185220755126 c0: 68074828915752550906211652474462780 Y1: 56460946476157681 Y0: 548263756929827444068662381961 skew: 492944.87 rlim: 45000000 alim: 45000000 lpbr: 29 lpba: 29 mfbr: 58 mfba: 58 rlambda: 2.6 alambda: 2.6 [/code] 
Here are the three best polys I found overnight:
[code]# norm 2.999613e15 alpha 7.053170 e 2.102e12 skew: 4947197.07 c0: 254361561800804638444888132008691713600 c1: 277567242655343801120663754660120 c2: 41169227890365677403210934 c3: 33865259805947197259 c4: 5813164911518 c5: 214800 Y0: 1393498408963548236214652730759 Y1: 581416348390623701 # norm 2.797246e15 alpha 7.634500 e 2.004e12 skew: 7829822.03 c0: 392472115828519587544012662072667953792 c1: 1135538850431039541173288486836512 c2: 215718619935831247136208602 c3: 66702913924475596555 c4: 4019834079518 c5: 214800 Y0: 1393499379793961455729608702127 Y1: 581416348390623701 # norm 2.691749e15 alpha 7.287346 e 1.958e12 skew: 7493033.63 c0: 1191940646279096538567449411970147312640 c1: 245517647645424865764025430284152 c2: 67767123827532957236661598 c3: 26904687145857425547 c4: 6126231615518 c5: 214800 Y0: 1393498239483008345741406384063 Y1: 581416348390623701 [/code] And look at the alpha on this one! [code]# norm 2.644805e15 alpha 8.500494 e 1.914e12 skew: 18761259.11 c0: 70384025424543567250040749496664182714880 c1: 34739194678189905179867695959241928 c2: 369205076515588254645800050 c3: 294264765478046013769 c4: 659280547786 c5: 214200 Y0: 1394280990497229313048382187377 Y1: 593607538600963639 [/code] 
[quote=jrk;192929]Here are the three best polys I found overnight:
[/quote] I'll do a comparison. 
I always hate it when noone mentions the siever used for testing, or bothers to test between sievers. I presume you have been using 14e for testing, but it would be good to give 15e a try, just in case.

The clear winner is now this one from jrk:
[code] n: 1128681916333165583281832717120127496638972860118923964844791402387721331170448754199775637678274646951935918929237315749341487244542351920306209843985409563 # norm 2.797246e15 alpha 7.634500 e 2.004e12 skew: 7829822.03 c0: 392472115828519587544012662072667953792 c1: 1135538850431039541173288486836512 c2: 215718619935831247136208602 c3: 66702913924475596555 c4: 4019834079518 c5: 214800 Y0: 1393499379793961455729608702127 Y1: 581416348390623701 rlim: 45000000 alim: 45000000 lpbr: 29 lpba: 29 mfbr: 58 mfba: 58 rlambda: 2.6 alambda: 2.6 [/code] I didn't test the last one with really low alpha. Anyone still have any poly selection going on? Henryzz? The above poly would need ~ 39MQ to get ~50M relations, and take a little less than 6Msec. We've chopped a million seconds of sieving time off by finding better polys (and using them correctly)... pretty nice! [edit] Using 14e siever. sorry I thought that was clear. I don't think we need 15e for this one... Feel free to test it if you want. 
i stopped my poly selection run
i suspect my gpu is rather pathetic also it seg faults every time i hibernate which makes it almost unusable for that size number 
Thanks for doing the tests, bsquared.
[quote]Anyone still have any poly selection going on?[/quote] I am going to run another overnight search. As long as we are using Jason's msievegpu branch, and there is not yet a gpu version of lasieve4, then I think it does not take away from optimality to do a bit more poly searching than usual. 
[QUOTE=jrk;192977]I am going to run another overnight search.[/QUOTE]
I have not found anything better, and I'm quitting the search. 
[quote=bsquared;192943]The clear winner is now this one from jrk:
[code] n: 1128681916333165583281832717120127496638972860118923964844791402387721331170448754199775637678274646951935918929237315749341487244542351920306209843985409563 # norm 2.797246e15 alpha 7.634500 e 2.004e12 skew: 7829822.03 c0: 392472115828519587544012662072667953792 c1: 1135538850431039541173288486836512 c2: 215718619935831247136208602 c3: 66702913924475596555 c4: 4019834079518 c5: 214800 Y0: 1393499379793961455729608702127 Y1: 581416348390623701 rlim: 45000000 alim: 45000000 lpbr: 29 lpba: 29 mfbr: 58 mfba: 58 rlambda: 2.6 alambda: 2.6 [/code] [/quote] I've started sieving using this poly, 14e siever. 5M11M reserved. 
[QUOTE=bsquared;195494][CODE]
prp50 factor: 64585367109663600884438834766883466988940788491041 prp107 factor: 17475814829955286940449820582268098487907223506432350199456831446049454150141950051204743013474395998182843 [/CODE] Now on a C151.[/QUOTE] I've started a run of 1000 curves @ B1=43000000, B2=388112953420. ETA 15 hours. 
400 curves at B1=1M done.
Starting 2k curves at B1=3M (ETA 4hrs). How does one report work to the DB now? There used to be a 'report work' button that I can't find anymore. 
[B]How does one report work to the DB now? There used to be a 'report work' button that I can't find anymore.[/B]
go into the sequence,and beside the quick ecm button there is a >> button,click it,and at the bottom of the page you cant report the curves you've done. 
[quote=Dougal;195503]go into the sequence,and beside the quick ecm button there is a >> button,click it,and at the bottom of the page you cant report the curves you've done.[/quote]
Looks like you have to be logged in, as well. Thanks. 
After 2200 curves @ 11e6 I found a nice p47 :smile:
[QUOTE]Factor=12020207027570199228977626027667941677740462849 Method=ECM B1=11000000 Sigma=1642054642[/QUOTE] 
I am even luckier :smile:
[code]Input number is 685715905099648994219451416570299620797010724632513288765357600633214758490518989168523251153670344481394131623 (111 digits) Using B1=8000000, B2=23420528050, polynomial Dickson(12), sigma=4094310456 Step 1 took 23013ms Step 2 took 13485ms ********** Factor found in step 2: 4122529854091491338824929291779507173076398066909 Found probable prime factor of 49 digits: 4122529854091491338824929291779507173076398066909 Probable prime cofactor 166333763336873313888188992301635414394739143771207611922744147 has 63 digits [/code] Then, a few easy lines, and... 
[QUOTE=Batalov;195600]Then, a few easy lines, and...[/QUOTE]
A :censored: C161. :rant: 
Running 2000@1e8, should be able to say something on Monday
(other than 'at least gmpecm builds on OS X' and 'Mac Pro is fast') 
[QUOTE=10metreh;195619]A :censored: C161. :rant:[/QUOTE]
This seems to be near the crossover between the 14e and 15e sievers.... 
pp41factor of c161
[CODE]GMPECM 6.2.3 [powered by GMP 4.3.0] [ECM]
Input number is 41989040709803320172325437685122012188238989866495646783169593798391300698922442158422655234035792573779700795308983586334745780088868313272292796749799498704069 (161 digits) ... Run [B][COLOR="Red"]3[/COLOR][/B] out of 2000: Using B1=43000000, B2=240490660426, polynomial Dickson(12), sigma=2746202462 Step 1 took 855859ms Step 2 took 182687ms ********** Factor found in step 2: 17929080031745140528449157941308074577509 Found probable prime factor of 41 digits: 17929080031745140528449157941308074577509 Probable prime cofactor 2341951769720349963952569043284852276019038780750832785187060203064697177590116136874365861798306068919218595003497391841 has 121 digits[/CODE] 
I had completed 700@1e8 without finding that, which is actually quite unlucky (ecm v says 644 curves at 1e8 for a p45)
Killed them and started again on the C145 from 2459. 
Boy that factor of 3 just won't go away. I guess at this many digits the chance of at least one factor + 1 being divisible by 3 is high.

[quote=Greebley;195718]Boy that factor of 3 just won't go away. I guess at this many digits the chance of at least one factor + 1 being divisible by 3 is high.[/quote]
Hmm...if I understand this correctly, then it's going to lose the 3 on the next line! :grin: Here's the current partial factorization of line 2459: [URL="http://www.factordb.com/search.php?id=81655010"][SIZE=1][COLOR=#002099]1389005994...[/COLOR][/SIZE][/URL][SIZE=1]<168> = [/SIZE][URL="http://www.factordb.com/search.php?id=16882"][SIZE=1][COLOR=#000000]24[/COLOR][/SIZE][/URL][SIZE=1] · [/SIZE][URL="http://www.factordb.com/search.php?id=1"][SIZE=1][COLOR=#000000]3[/COLOR][/SIZE][/URL][SIZE=1] · [/SIZE][URL="http://www.factordb.com/search.php?id=13"][SIZE=1][COLOR=red]11[/COLOR][/SIZE][/URL][SIZE=1] · [/SIZE][URL="http://www.factordb.com/search.php?id=324"][SIZE=1][COLOR=#000000]593[/COLOR][/SIZE][/URL][SIZE=1] · [/SIZE][URL="http://www.factordb.com/search.php?id=595"][SIZE=1][COLOR=#000000]811[/COLOR][/SIZE][/URL][SIZE=1] · [/SIZE][URL="http://www.factordb.com/search.php?id=81655015"][SIZE=1][COLOR=#000000]81266036243201[/COLOR][/SIZE][/URL][SIZE=1]<14> · [/SIZE][URL="http://www.factordb.com/search.php?id=81655016"][SIZE=1][COLOR=#002099]6731092709...[/COLOR][/SIZE][/URL][SIZE=1]<145>[/SIZE] Notice the 11: 11+1=12, which is divisible by 3. 
(mdettweiler: you need to have *none* of the factors 2 mod 3 to lose the 3)
[code] (job 5 out of 16) Run 12 out of 125: Using B1=100000000, B2=776268975310, polynomial Dickson(30), sigma=1209849063 Step 1 took 1004841ms Step 2 took 277472ms ********** Factor found in step 2: 1235256026055614152023140734345351300023869925971 Found probable prime factor of 49 digits: 1235256026055614152023140734345351300023869925971 Probable prime cofactor 5449147842682529938683571528241234609478304810765641311200653978116824057163714349422254281192109 has 97 digits [/code] Next line has C145, will give it the same treatment Edit: found a P30 (ten times) and P37 (once) in 16x125 @ 1e6 
[QUOTE=mdettweiler;195726]Hmm...if I understand this correctly, then it's going to lose the 3 on the next line! :grin: Here's the current partial factorization of line 2459:
<snip> Notice the 11: 11+1=12, which is divisible by 3.[/QUOTE] Which is why it can NOT lose the 3 on that iteration :sad: 
I see we've now hit 170 digits... what is the record and if not this one, what is the highest sequence?

[quote=fivemack;195731](mdettweiler: you need to have *none* of the factors 2 mod 3 to lose the 3)[/quote]
[quote=axn;195732]Which is why it can NOT lose the 3 on that iteration :sad:[/quote] Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation. :smile: 
[QUOTE=bsquared;195744]I see we've now hit 170 digits... what is the record and if not this one, what is the highest sequence?[/QUOTE]
162126 (171 digits) 
[quote=10metreh;195753]162126 (171 digits)[/quote]
looking at the database it looks like it is actually 173 digits looking at the karsten's records page it looks like 175 digits 
[QUOTE=henryzz;195758]looking at the karsten's records page it looks like 175 digits[/QUOTE]
corrected to 173 digits! 
How long are you going to extend the sequence 314718? Till iteration 9000? Is it getting difficult? Why don't we extend the sequence 1578 at iteration 7261? Is someone working on that number already?

[QUOTE=Raman;195917]How long are you going to extend the sequence 314718? Till iteration 9000? Is it getting difficult? Why don't we extend the sequence 1578 at iteration 7261? Is someone working on that number already?[/QUOTE]
1578 is under the control of a "driver" (2 * 3), which is a set of factors that persist and always push the sequence upwards. To escape 2 * 3, a line has to factor as 2 * 3^2 * p, where p is a prime of the form 4n+1. 4788 is not under the control of a driver, and although it is going up, there is a chance it will drop the 3 from 2^4 * 3, and then it will have a chance of acquiring the downdriver (2 * <something that isn't 3> * ....), after which it will go down. This means it has a much higher chance of terminating in the near future. 
C145 from 4788:2466 polynomial
4000 @ 4e7 done on the C145 from 4788:2466; time for GNFS.
I've been running a polynomial selection in parallel; won't be able to do the sieving myself, but a pretty good polynomial is [code] n: 2731277733959968169313770677931211293039092240425293759926078826637186378568780767241107236657396164773599806169440569332028429227856163376999057 type: gnfs skew: 2806664.12 c0: 537701751961052562535970119801728000 c1: 1744523195224888821560862375080 c2: 1338728504837455624301882 c3: 317279220701420893 c4: 224866274934 c5: 18480 Y0: 10812700210350163142223819967 Y1: 14144226355213709 lpbr: 28 lpba: 28 mfbr: 56 mfba: 56 alambda: 2.6 rlambda: 2.6 alim: 20000000 rlim: 20000000 [/code] Siever 14e, sieve A side 10M20M and see how much further is needed. 
[quote=fivemack;195947]Siever 14e, sieve A side 10M20M and see how much further is needed.[/quote]
Ok, thanks! I'll take the whole job. 
[code]prp68 factor: 45038238154540495578229005737573886297206834547447537402461361228041
prp77 factor: 60643529717749771496825937363787963901083989172307055129277826960716417883977 [/code] + a couple more iterations. currently on a C146, for which 3k curves at 3e6 will be done in a couple hours. 
[QUOTE=bsquared;196256][code]prp68 factor: 45038238154540495578229005737573886297206834547447537402461361228041
prp77 factor: 60643529717749771496825937363787963901083989172307055129277826960716417883977 [/code] + a couple more iterations. currently on a C146, for which 3k curves at 3e6 will be done in a couple hours.[/QUOTE] + something that could be important in the future: the 3 is squared. 
[QUOTE=10metreh;196265]+ something that could be important in the future: the 3 is squared.[/QUOTE]
Pardon my newbielike question: How will 3^2 affect the driver? 
[QUOTE=Prime95;196279]Pardon my newbielike question: How will 3^2 affect the driver?[/QUOTE]
1. 2^4 * 3 is not a driver. It is not even a guide. 2^4 is the guide. 2. When the 3 is squared, it plays no part in proceedings as far as drivers and guides, in particular powers of 2, are concerned. This makes it easier for drivers such as 2 * 3 and 2^3 * 3 to be acquired. 
ya, sigma(3^2) is odd, as compare to 3 itself with sigma of 4 (so 2 powers of 2).
It means for example that with the square if you get a single prime equal 1 mod 4 the power of 2 can go to 2^1. If that prime wasn't equal to 2 mod 3 (i.e. 1 mod 3) you would get the down driver. If it is 2 mod 3 then you get 2*3 which is not good because the 3 term sticks around. With 3^1, the best you can get is 2^3 so one can't get the downdriver until the 3 term is lost or squared. 
I started a poly search for the c146. In about 24 hours I'll post a result.

[QUOTE=jrk;196479]I started a poly search for the c146. In about 24 hours I'll post a result.[/QUOTE]
How much ECM did this one have? I guess we should do at least t45 (7500@11e6) before doing GNFS? 
[QUOTE=Andi47;196480]How much ECM did this one have? I guess we should do at least t45 (7500@11e6) before doing GNFS?[/QUOTE]
I did some higher level curves. I'm not sure what the conversion ration is.... 
[QUOTE=schickel;196482]I did some higher level curves. I'm not sure what the conversion ration is....[/QUOTE]
According to my calculations based on the curves which have been reported to the DB, t45 is ~57% done. 
[QUOTE=Andi47;196480]How much ECM did this one have? I guess we should do at least t45 (7500@11e6) before doing GNFS?[/QUOTE]
Since we can search for polys on a GPU now but not ECM or sieving, it doesn't hurt to do poly searching early in parallel. My best poly so far is 9.198e12. I will do some testing to find the right parameters and post it later. 
This is the best from today but I will do another day of searching.
[code]n: 34128802065277683324940497060114456028128085387534241677541889565653711918779403288707008461679255695847408643283266931540024693124361473714544539 # norm 3.792523e14 alpha 7.832101 e 9.198e12 skew: 3154674.50 c0: 6160701223310457747430798454115232525 c1: 5353471580850156751287280021324 c2: 5703088353790837679214303 c3: 44415752942820154 c4: 1079694510848 c5: 53760 Y0: 14472016831258149683092208646 Y1: 27360769963746067 lpbr: 28 lpba: 28 mfbr: 56 mfba: 56 alambda: 2.6 rlambda: 2.6 alim: 20000000 rlim: 20000000 [/code] 
I had a 9.589e12 poly but it testsieved slower than the 9.198e12 one.

[quote=jrk;196618]I had a 9.589e12 poly but it testsieved slower than the 9.198e12 one.[/quote]
probably something to do with the 9.198e12 having quite a good alpha from memory someone said a while back that higher alpha means a higher chance of smaller factors and lower norms means the numbers to be factored are smaller the e value attempts to get the mix right but doesnt always 
[QUOTE=henryzz;196654]probably something to do with the 9.198e12 having quite a good alpha
from memory someone said a while back that higher alpha means a higher chance of smaller factors and lower norms means the numbers to be factored are smaller the e value attempts to get the mix right but doesnt always[/QUOTE] With degree 4, the poly with the highest e value is very often suboptimal in fact. 
[quote=10metreh;196660]With degree 4, the poly with the highest e value is very often suboptimal in fact.[/quote]
how do you find the optimal polynomial then? look for the highest alpha or the smallest norms? 
Stop GNFSing alq4788.2469...
...I found this factor by ECM:
[CODE]Run 226 out of 2000: Using B1=43000000, B2=240490660426, polynomial Dickson(12), sigma=1163832276 Step 1 took 774079ms Step 2 took 165421ms ********** Factor found in step 2: 1590362231581241185334390845152913218796531 Found probable prime factor of 43 digits: 1590362231581241185334390845152913218796531 Probable prime cofactor 21459766452919733123897504849837291094001756254327858522371153821180836119029805033757220337331923926969 has 104 digits [/CODE] and... [code]2470. 116139550403454963217308225651624963448867441989096972645425812805257941827791127060931251649177260779207291173182882743273752673953845861192804201869628446785478569115056 = 2^4 * 3^2 * 7 * 115217807939935479382250223860739051040543097211405726830779576195692402606935641925527035366247282519054852354348097959596976859081196290865877184394472665461784294757 2471. 255322662394897022311066496075397737105843503420475090657007540849654364176969382506967910371603978062225552817235385078466900719723930980558783840618151426663313997184736 = 2^5 * 311 * 5867 * 1736734882092577 * c148[/code] The 3 is gone!! :party: 
[code]Using B1=43000000, B2=388112953420, polynomial Dickson(30), sigma=1033163144
Step 1 took 138254ms Step 2 took 77893ms ********** Factor found in step 2: 314401460320696602393783174941 Found probable prime factor of 30 digits: 314401460320696602393783174941 Probable prime cofactor 8008382854566027043204017961675695251441834519040939952694150641178698834997735974059700130106717640670945550858659647 has 118 digits [/code] 
[QUOTE=jrk;196723][code]Using B1=43000000, B2=388112953420, polynomial Dickson(30), sigma=1033163144
Step 1 took 138254ms Step 2 took 77893ms ********** Factor found in step 2: 314401460320696602393783174941 Found probable prime factor of 30 digits: 314401460320696602393783174941 Probable prime cofactor 8008382854566027043204017961675695251441834519040939952694150641178698834997735974059700130106717640670945550858659647 has 118 digits [/code][/QUOTE] Me too, but with B1=1e6: [code]Run 55 out of 950: Using B1=1000000, B2=1045563762, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=1225682356 Step 1 took 17734ms Step 2 took 7328ms ********** Factor found in step 2: 314401460320696602393783174941 Found probable prime factor of 30 digits: 314401460320696602393783174941 Probable prime cofactor 8008382854566027043204017961675695251441834519040939952694150641178698834997735974059700130106717640670945550858659647 has 118 digits [/code] 
[QUOTE=Andi47;196720]...I found this factor by ECM:[code]Found probable prime factor of 43 digits:[/code]
[/QUOTE]Wow! Congrats on that factor! :bow: :bow: 
[QUOTE=henryzz;196662]how do you find the optimal polynomial then?
look for the highest alpha or the smallest norms?[/QUOTE] You can't really except by test sieving, but luckily degree4 numbers don't take too long. 
BTW: 171 digits is a new record height for stability to be achieved. The old record was 164 in 1134 (which also holds the records for highest escapes from 2^5 * 3^2 * 7 and 2^5 * 3).

About 1/3 of t45 done on the c142 so far. In case no factor is found, here is a decent poly:
EDIT: I'm still polysearching, so a better poly may turn up later. [code]n: 2348305321333187128721643453051615911877612201981824607595341595725431644675331447201502622476698707484077353247893830745261323782457787822233 # norm 1.016167e13 alpha 7.694154 e 1.640e11 skew: 1981323.38 c0: 290064811140012999156642070938904104 c1: 619521716085998538893959511396 c2: 301271769660356610615830 c3: 758842805286610009 c4: 135175380936 c5: 76140 Y0: 1985312530063977010532771629 Y1: 7024691883228631 lpbr: 28 lpba: 28 mfbr: 56 mfba: 56 alambda: 2.6 rlambda: 2.6 alim: 12500000 rlim: 12500000 [/code] When ECM is finished, sieve with 13e from Q=2M to 20M. 
[QUOTE=henryzz;196662]how do you find the optimal polynomial then?
look for the highest alpha or the smallest norms?[/QUOTE] Why bother? Degree4 jobs are so fast that you could pick _any_ one of them (found by msieve) and you should be fine. 
About 1/2 of t45 is done on the c142.

[QUOTE=jrk;196804]When ECM is finished, sieve with 13e from Q=2M to 20M.[/QUOTE]
Have you tested against 14e? 
[QUOTE=10metreh;196855]Have you tested against 14e?[/QUOTE]
Yes [code]$ for i in `seq 2000000 2000000 20000000`; do ~/ggnfs/bin/gnfslasieve4I13e a test.poly f $i c 1000; done Warning: lowering FB_bound to 1999999. total yield: 1132, q=2001037 (0.02852 sec/rel) Warning: lowering FB_bound to 3999999. total yield: 2029, q=4001003 (0.02795 sec/rel) Warning: lowering FB_bound to 5999999. total yield: 1257, q=6001013 (0.02944 sec/rel) Warning: lowering FB_bound to 7999999. total yield: 1814, q=8001029 (0.03114 sec/rel) Warning: lowering FB_bound to 9999999. total yield: 1255, q=10001009 (0.03446 sec/rel) Warning: lowering FB_bound to 11999999. total yield: 1352, q=12001001 (0.03404 sec/rel) total yield: 1213, q=14001007 (0.03523 sec/rel) total yield: 1345, q=16001081 (0.03771 sec/rel) total yield: 1546, q=18001031 (0.03830 sec/rel) total yield: 1268, q=20001001 (0.04148 sec/rel)[/code] [code]$ for i in `seq 4000000 2000000 12000000`; do ~/ggnfs/bin/gnfslasieve4I14e a test.poly f $i c 1000; done Warning: lowering FB_bound to 3999999. total yield: 3986, q=4001003 (0.03817 sec/rel) Warning: lowering FB_bound to 5999999. total yield: 2489, q=6001013 (0.03885 sec/rel) Warning: lowering FB_bound to 7999999. total yield: 3824, q=8001029 (0.03783 sec/rel) Warning: lowering FB_bound to 9999999. total yield: 2675, q=10001009 (0.04045 sec/rel) Warning: lowering FB_bound to 11999999. total yield: 2877, q=12001001 (0.03917 sec/rel)[/code] 14e is about 85% as fast as 13e. It would lower the duplication rate, though, so maybe it would be worth the hit. I took a guess that 13e is better. 
I stopped poly searching. The best one is still the one posted earlier. I think this number is ready for sieving.

[QUOTE=jrk;196861]
14e is about 85% as fast as 13e. It would lower the duplication rate, though, so maybe it would be worth the hit. I took a guess that 13e is better.[/QUOTE] So  do we use 13e or 14e? 
[QUOTE=Andi47;196955]So  do we use 13e or 14e?[/QUOTE]
p1: B1=5e8, B2=5e13, no factor p+1: 3 runs at B1=1e8, B2=6e12, no factor. Running some more ECM until it is decided, whether we use 13e or 14e. 
4000 @ 4e7 completed, no factor.
Use 13e. I'll take 2M6M. 
[QUOTE=fivemack;196968]4000 @ 4e7 completed, no factor.
Use 13e. I'll take 2M6M.[/QUOTE] reserving 6M  7M 
taking 7M9M

Line 2472 is done. Line 2473, after only some very early prelim ECM (two Quick ECMs and partial aliqueit at B1=5e4) looks like 2^5*c169.
If this c169 is semiprime, what might happen to the guide? Edit: Never mind, found a p23, c147 remaining. Survived 2 Quick ECMs and 100@5e4 so far. Edit 2: Finished all 214@5e4, (25 digits) will also finish the 430@25e4 (30 digits) and do some P+1. Edit 3: Finished 430@25e4. (30 digits) Also did P1, max B1 100M, and P+1, max B1 50M. All in DB. Not working on it any more ATM. 
[code]Using B1=43000000, B2=388112953420, polynomial Dickson(30), sigma=1315477237
Step 1 took 138222ms Step 2 took 77110ms ********** Factor found in step 2: 4123290685142646964541600067761 Found probable prime factor of 31 digits: 4123290685142646964541600067761 Composite cofactor 83203877652763456216344080057649507874810835149655593949890433813292280209307613162194128906010127548847166175620653 has 116 digits [/code] I will do the c116 
[QUOTE=jrk;197327][code]Using B1=43000000, B2=388112953420, polynomial Dickson(30), sigma=1315477237
Step 1 took 138222ms Step 2 took 77110ms ********** Factor found in step 2: 4123290685142646964541600067761 Found probable prime factor of 31 digits: 4123290685142646964541600067761 Composite cofactor 83203877652763456216344080057649507874810835149655593949890433813292280209307613162194128906010127548847166175620653 has 116 digits [/code] I will do the c116[/QUOTE] 43e6  opening eggs with nuclear warheads? :wink: I have found the same c31 with B1=3e6 after 68 curves ~5 minutes ago. (I planned to run it overnight, but I stopped ECMing now, hence you started GNFS) 
c116 = p37.p37.p43
p37 = 3134160372909851723612253077515467493 p37 = 3636840079737787436938569640509488477 p43 = 7299584610785326987792600494916936890870973 
I'm doing the c109 now.

[QUOTE=jrk;197332]I'm doing the c109 now.[/QUOTE]
Done. [code] prp54 factor: 481989758002837826944000482973711890329883965855795003 prp56 factor: 16617620933533935114464391289780146092392771482229686557 [/code] 
line 2476 c121 finished:
[code] Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=3159156024 Step 1 took 8056ms Step 2 took 4090ms ********** Factor found in step 2: 13432838311461612250464777552146733002407 Found probable prime factor of 41 digits: 13432838311461612250464777552146733002407 Probable prime cofactor 130982517230425503437968877198264838192630336209630023456287838747078505224065181 has 81 digits [/code] 
Now, a c164.
[code]2477. 229836343198830452904906926072687726445274504040590457858093954259846740197541450378930115385305580707404985478037205666706877074351759707192765877028347973091075810594208 = 2^5 * 13 * 34031 * c164 [/code] 
We have a moment of truth.
2^5 * c169 
[quote=Batalov;197349]We have a moment of truth.
2^5 * c169[/quote] that is by far larger than this forum has done can we do it? 
Let's hope it cracks, but if not... there's nothing to it :whistle: 
Womack+mersenneforum had done a gnfs180, as you know. 
[quote=Batalov;197354]Let's hope it cracks, but if not... there's nothing to it :whistle: 
Womack+mersenneforum had done a gnfs180, as you know.[/quote] i meant the aliquot forum we tend to attract smaller hitters 
[QUOTE=henryzz;197353]that is by far larger than this forum has done
can we do it?[/QUOTE] First, a lot of ECM. 
Anyone like the idea of doing it in the Factoring forum to get more attention? (First I would have to get mod powers there, but I'll only ask for them if I need to.)
Meanwhile I'll run some curves on it at 3e6 (guessing SB has already done t35)... BTW, I think we would need to ECM to about t55. OK? 
[quote=10metreh;197381]Anyone like the idea of doing it in the Factoring forum to get more attention? (First I would have to get mod powers there, but I'll only ask for them if I need to.)
Meanwhile I'll run some curves on it at 3e6 (guessing SB has already done t35)... BTW, I think we would need to ECM to about t55. OK?[/quote] i think most the major hitters read this forum 
[QUOTE=10metreh;197381]Anyone like the idea of doing it in the Factoring forum to get more attention? [/QUOTE]
I do not think that would be necessary. Doing 2000@4e7 overnight. 
OK, agreed. I had forgotten that Mersenneforum+Womack has come to an end (or so we expect).

All times are UTC. The time now is 05:24. 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000  2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.