6 table
[code]Size Base Index  Diff. Ratio Notes
281 6 421  327.6 0.856 321 6 431  335.3 0.955 273 6 437  340 0.801 293 6 439  341.6 0.856 259 6 445  277 0.933 /5q 336 6 449  349.3 0.96 250 6 457  355.6 0.701 337 6 461  358.7 0.938 258 6 463  360.2 0.714 310 6 467  363.3 0.86 293 6 473  334.6 0.874 /11q 317 6 479  372.7 0.849 290 6 481  345.4 0.837 /13 299 6 485  301.9 0.988 /5q 320 6 487  378.9 0.843 301 6 491  382 0.786 276 6 493  383.6 0.718 277 6 497  331.4 0.834 /7 379 6 499  388.2 0.974[/code] 
6,387
[CODE]N=44031017740982928067538705953801189246013052570402834343832374510583225456135162211816299899613030974567524511477153154642766468275281718659648235588552347206547842353356774275612337 ( 182 digits)
SNFS difficulty: 200 digits. Divisors found: r1=396617565007083620931188002164448757655876754586218585374821747799540417379 (pp75) r2=111016307964566649045756932943929716969554706760914531131640167955206717252780433501309849995957928482083803 (pp108)[/CODE] 
From Raman:
6,305 [code]prp53 factor: 24506226188880631899928133376464081634967825718604821 prp103 factor: 1068071855703783761181123461268973104294098322369041790833437139214193724057795181478916448908089214641[/code] 
[quote=Xyzzy;121649]From Raman:
6,305 [code]prp53 factor: 24506226188880631899928133376464081634967825718604821 prp103 factor: 1068071855703783761181123461268973104294098322369041790833437139214193724057795181478916448908089214641[/code][/quote] Happy New year to everyone. I can contribute many things to this forum. Please take me in. Please give me chance to show off my good behaviour. Please cooperate. What is the purpose of factoring of 6,305 otherwise? How do you feel if I do not let you join my forum and that you are interested in joining it up then? 
[quote=Raman;121845] ... I can contribute many things to this forum.
... Please give me chance to show off my good behaviour. Please cooperate. What is the purpose of factoring of 6,305 otherwise? ...[/quote] I'm replying against my better judgement; not wishing to have my email filtering software burdened by months of email bombs from you, again. While there may be many things you can contribute, I'd like to make a suggestion, intended to be helpful: consider _not_ replying to some of the posts you have an interest in. I find many posts with things that I could comment on; but readers of the forum have heard my comments before and/or other people do just as well at replying. If you feel that you just have to post your comment on everything that floats by  without considering whether it's actually a positive (i.e., not negative) contribution  readers will tire from hearing from you sooner, rather than later. The Gerbils, in their wisdom, didn't consult me on readmitting you to the forum; if they had, I'd have suggested a somewhat longer probation; say, long enough to finish that second Cunningham you've had reserved for months. Peace, bdodson 
[QUOTE=bdodson;121908]The Gerbils, in their wisdom, didn't consult me on readmitting you to the forum; if they had, I'd have suggested a somewhat longer probation;
say, long enough to finish that second Cunningham you've had reserved for months.[/QUOTE]Mea culpa. The consultation was with me, as I'd posted an article telling him everything he needs to know to find good NFS parameters for his factorization. Posting a succinct pointer to it seemed a less bad alternative to enduring several more months of whinging. Raman: my earlier advice to you stands. Come back here [b]after[/b] you have factors and not before. Not everyone here is a soft hearted/headed (choose 1) as I am and I assure you that our collective tolerance is still extremely low. You will find period of quiet contemplation will serve you very well indeed. Meditation has a lot to recommend it. Paul 
[quote=xilman;121911]
Raman: my earlier advice to you stands. Come back here [B]after[/B] you have factors and not before.[/quote] So, you mean the factors for 7,295? BTW, it will take a long time (probably one year) unless I add up more machines for the computation. I can use additional machines besides my 2.8 GHz dual core processor anyway. (Especially my uncle's 3.06 GHz Pentium IV) Thanks. I will utilize this chance properly. 
6,347
Sieving by Bruce Dodson, parameter selection and completion by Tom Womack. This may be the first job with 32bit large primes both sides to be finished with msieve.
Polynomials x^66, x6^58. Small primes up to 160 million on both sides, sieved with 15e for Q=10M170M algebraic side and Q=10M260M rational side. 367372454 unique relations from something over half a billion raw (better estimate of runtime and rawrelcount coming soon). 36 hours on one CPU of a 12GB i7 running at 2.8GHz, with peak memory usage around 10GB, to get to Sun Mar 29 21:56:52 2009 weight of 19120844 cycles is about 1338865042 (70.02/cycle) and another two hours to get to Mon Mar 30 00:06:39 2009 matrix is 19036824 x 19037072 (5329.0 MB) with weight 1283623590 (67.43/col) Mon Mar 30 00:06:39 2009 sparse part has weight 1206600171 (63.38/col) The slight oddity in the filtering was 19311242 "warning: zero character" messages appearing on stderr. Then four threads of the i7 crunched fairly solidly (with one small pause caused by the system disc on the i7 machine failing) for 821 hours, using ~6.5GB RAM, to get 14 dependencies. Square root done on two threads separately (I tried four, but it needs 4.5GB RAM peak per thread), three hours per sqrt, initially two dependencies per thread, and each thread found one of the P96 factors. Oh yes, the factors: 6^3471 = 5 * 16657 * 92013588619490399 * P58 * P96a * P96b where [code] P58 = 8023776342054310550242315692074754087050026551393750990167 P96a = 112962017521735300449115732149174215721837276361901343007283764634643624748720079471271422964001 P96b = 150229032135327752933222419558205115221308398344159056674278560696885280711039602252138197654667 [/code] 
Wow, congratulations!
[QUOTE=fivemack;172102] 32bit large primes both sides 367372454 unique relations matrix is 19036824 x 19037072 (5329.0 MB) with weight 1283623590 (67.43/col) four threads of the i7 crunched fairly solidly ... for 821 hours[/QUOTE] Not much oversieving. I would have expected the matrix to be much bigger. Even our 2,908+ matrix is a bit bigger. And the i7 is fast! That matrix took only a month. The 2,908+ matrix should finish in a couple of weeks, and it will have taken about 3.5 months on a 2GHz Barcelona K10. Greg 
[QUOTE=fivemack;172102]Sieving by Bruce Dodson, parameter selection and completion by Tom Womack. This may be the first job with 32bit large primes both sides to be finished with msieve.
Polynomials x^66, x6^58. Small primes up to 160 million on both sides, sieved with 15e for Q=10M170M algebraic side and Q=10M260M rational side. 367372454 unique relations from something over half a billion raw (better estimate of runtime and rawrelcount coming soon). 36 hours on one CPU of a 12GB i7 running at 2.8GHz, with peak memory usage around 10GB, to get to Sun Mar 29 21:56:52 2009 weight of 19120844 cycles is about 1338865042 (70.02/cycle) and another two hours to get to Mon Mar 30 00:06:39 2009 matrix is 19036824 x 19037072 (5329.0 MB) with weight 1283623590 (67.43/col) Mon Mar 30 00:06:39 2009 sparse part has weight 1206600171 (63.38/col) The slight oddity in the filtering was 19311242 "warning: zero character" messages appearing on stderr. Then four threads of the i7 crunched fairly solidly (with one small pause caused by the system disc on the i7 machine failing) for 821 hours, using ~6.5GB RAM, to get 14 dependencies. Square root done on two threads separately (I tried four, but it needs 4.5GB RAM peak per thread), three hours per sqrt, initially two dependencies per thread, and each thread found one of the P96 factors. Oh yes, the factors: 6^3471 = 5 * 16657 * 92013588619490399 * P58 * P96a * P96b where [code] P58 = 8023776342054310550242315692074754087050026551393750990167 P96a = 112962017521735300449115732149174215721837276361901343007283764634643624748720079471271422964001 P96b = 150229032135327752933222419558205115221308398344159056674278560696885280711039602252138197654667 [/code][/QUOTE] :bow wave: P.S.: I just posted the factors to Syd's database. 
How much ECM was run? Was the P58 an ECM miss?

All times are UTC. The time now is 05:50. 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000  2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.