mersenneforum.org

mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   Cunningham Tables (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=51)
-   -   6- table (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=3577)

garo 2005-01-18 14:22

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]

smh 2006-12-18 19:29

6,387-
 
[CODE]N=44031017740982928067538705953801189246013052570402834343832374510583225456135162211816299899613030974567524511477153154642766468275281718659648235588552347206547842353356774275612337 ( 182 digits)
SNFS difficulty: 200 digits.
Divisors found:
r1=396617565007083620931188002164448757655876754586218585374821747799540417379 (pp75)
r2=111016307964566649045756932943929716969554706760914531131640167955206717252780433501309849995957928482083803 (pp108)[/CODE]

Xyzzy 2007-12-27 17:14

From Raman:

6,305-
[code]prp53 factor: 24506226188880631899928133376464081634967825718604821
prp103 factor: 1068071855703783761181123461268973104294098322369041790833437139214193724057795181478916448908089214641[/code]

Raman 2007-12-31 14:58

[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 co-operate.
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?

bdodson 2008-01-01 14:46

[quote=Raman;121845] ... I can contribute many things to this forum.
...
Please give me chance to show off my good behaviour. Please co-operate.
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 re-admitting 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

xilman 2008-01-01 15:24

[QUOTE=bdodson;121908]The Gerbils, in their wisdom, didn't consult me on re-admitting 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

Raman 2008-01-01 17:13

[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.

fivemack 2009-05-03 16:02

6,347-
 
Sieving by Bruce Dodson, parameter selection and completion by Tom Womack. This may be the first job with 32-bit large primes both sides to be finished with msieve.

Polynomials x^6-6, x-6^58.

Small primes up to 160 million on both sides, sieved with 15e for Q=10M-170M algebraic side and Q=10M-260M 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: 6^347-1 = 5 * 16657 * 92013588619490399 * P58 * P96a * P96b

where

[code]
P58 = 8023776342054310550242315692074754087050026551393750990167

P96a = 112962017521735300449115732149174215721837276361901343007283764634643624748720079471271422964001

P96b = 150229032135327752933222419558205115221308398344159056674278560696885280711039602252138197654667
[/code]

frmky 2009-05-03 18:36

Wow, congratulations!

[QUOTE=fivemack;172102] 32-bit 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

Andi47 2009-05-03 18:43

[QUOTE=fivemack;172102]Sieving by Bruce Dodson, parameter selection and completion by Tom Womack. This may be the first job with 32-bit large primes both sides to be finished with msieve.

Polynomials x^6-6, x-6^58.

Small primes up to 160 million on both sides, sieved with 15e for Q=10M-170M algebraic side and Q=10M-260M 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: 6^347-1 = 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.

10metreh 2009-05-03 18:45

How much ECM was run? Was the P58 an ECM miss?

fivemack 2009-05-03 19:05

[QUOTE=frmky;172123]
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]

I'd say there was a fair amount of oversieving; initially Bruce sieved 10M-160M on both sides, getting 278146913 unique relations, and the matrix that arrived was noticeably bigger:

Tue Mar 24 21:52:20 2009 matrix is 22586885 x 22587133 (6499.2 MB) with weight 1573087910 (69.65/col)

with an ETA of about 1130 hours.

There seem to be advantages in the linear algebra as well as in sieving yield to having a fairly large small-prime bound; 2+908 had to deal with an enormous duplication rate to get its relations.

The i7 has a very good memory controller, and I think benefits significantly from being in a single-processor system so there's no requirement to check ownership of cache lines with a processor not on the same piece of silicon. I am surprised to have finished before 2+908 did.

bdodson 2009-05-03 21:34

[QUOTE=10metreh;172127]How much ECM was run? Was the P58 an ECM miss?[/QUOTE]

The number was C249, diff 270 when Tom found it, so only 2*t50. I added
7*t50, as 11020 curves with B1 = 260M (default B2). Also, Tom reports
[QUOTE]Taking out the P58 would have left a number probably slightly harder by GNFS than the SNFS was. [/QUOTE]
perhaps illustrating Bob's point that these large composites aren't very good
candidates for ecm factoring. My recollection (from late Jan/early Feb) is
that this was the last hard number before my adjusting to p59/p60 factors
found in snfs's from Greg and Tom. I'm just finishing c. 14*t50 on Serge's
2, 2068M, at c268 = diff 268. -Bruce

fivemack 2009-05-04 10:07

Timing and duplication estimates
 
I re-ran 0.01% of the sieving (Q=k*10^7 .. k*10^7+10^3) on one CPU of the i7 machine and extrapolated up (using per-ideal measures) for the yield and timings.

So I would estimate that the A10-170 R10-260 produced 430 million R-side and 280 million A-side raw relations, for a duplicate rate of near-enough 50% (367M unique), and took about 350 million CPU-seconds: call it a hundred thousand CPU-hours. This is about 30% longer than the C180 GNFS took last year, and rather over twice as long as 109!+1 has taken to sieve.

A10-160 R10-160 would have been about 540 million raw relations (so a duplicate rate still essentially 50%, since 278M unique) in about 250 million CPU-seconds, so we used about 10^8 CPU-seconds on the cluster to save (1130-821)*3600 ~ 10^6 seconds of real-time on the linalg machine. I think the cluster's big enough that this was a saving in terms of total time.

Batalov 2009-05-04 10:28

Congratulations! Very impressive all around, and a very fast job for such a huge matrix!

The 96-96 split is a nice entry for a modern Kunstkammer.
(Sadly, there exists a [URL="http://hpcgi2.nifty.com/m_kamada/f/c.cgi?q=60001_198"]97-97[/URL] split.) But anyway!

-S

jasonp 2009-05-04 14:50

Finding 14 dependencies in the presence of those zero-character messages is also a relief. The other possibility was that too many quadratic characters generated these messages, so that you would get dependencies from the linear algebra but the square root would fail on all of them (or perhaps just half of them, with complaints that Newton iteration did not converge).

There's a fairly simple workaround to minimize the chance of that happening in the future, and it will become especially important now that jobs with 32-bit large primes are becoming more common.

bdodson 2009-05-04 14:57

[QUOTE=10metreh;172127]How much ECM was run? Was the P58 an ECM miss?[/QUOTE]

OK, that was the long version. Here's the short version: if I had
found the p58, it would have been the 2nd largest on the current
top10, after four months of global ecm effort, everyone. Factors
above p57 are a gift, not a computational objective.

On Xilman/Paul's point that ecm pretesting, on hard sieving candidates
with small and medium sized factors removed is less likely to give
a top10 factor, I now have three of these candidates with small factors
p58, p59 and p60. (As well as a bunch with smallest factor p80+.)
I'm still puzzled why untested numbers ought to be any more likely to
give up a p62+ than one of these near-term sieving candidates. -Bruce

fivemack 2009-05-04 22:51

One of the four dependencies did give me a 'Newton iteration did not converge' message, which presumably means that half of them would have but that I was lucky.

I may well not understand this correctly, but I thought the quadratic characters were there to kill off the 2-part of the unit group of the underlying number field, and that there's no reason to believe that that 2-part will be terribly large: Aoki's factorisations which say 'we found 64 dependencies and reduced by quadratic characters to 61' presumably mean that the 2-part turned out to have precisely three generators. If the groups are normally that small, I wonder if Aoki's strategy of applying the characters afterwards might not be the right way to go.

jasonp 2009-05-05 01:09

The groups typically are that small; most of the time allocating 5 quadratic characters is enough to guarantee that the square root will work correctly, and using more than the (unkown) minimum just uses up dense matrix rows. But that requires that each quadratic character doesn't divide any of the relations, and if you can't assure that then that charater is useless for guarantee purposes.

The only reasons the quadratic characters are computed at the start of the LA instead of the end are 1) the Lanczos code already has to solve a small Gauss elimination problem and that code would have to be duplicated elsewhere, and 2) the relations are already in memory when the LA starts so they don't have to be read again.

Could you print the p and r values inside the for()-loop on line 210 of gnfs/gf2.c, then exit after the loop finishes? This requires restarting the LA from scratch but only running long enough to read the relations from disk. The fact that you got a Newton failure at all, and a number of dependencies approximately equal to (expected number minus number of quadratic characters) all makes me suspect that only one or two quadratic characters are valid.

fivemack 2009-05-05 10:41

What do you mean by a quadratic character dividing a relation? I suppose these are quadratic characters chi_p for some rational prime p and the concern is that p shouldn't appear on either side in any relation, which would explain why it was hard to find one having sieved with 32-bit primes on both sides.

In which case, allowing 64-bit p and working down from 2^64 feels as if it ought to be safe for quite a while ... even Dan Bernstein doesn't propose large primes of more than 40 bits! Or is it terribly slow to compute the values of the character for large p?

jasonp 2009-05-05 14:09

64-bit p would definitely solve the problem; I'm reluctant to go that route because msieve only has optimized code to find roots of polynomials with coefficients modulo 32-bit p. The time needed to compute the characters is not a big concern.

R.D. Silverman 2009-06-01 12:59

6,335-
 
6,335- c170 = p83.p88

37844794094580139581697623770911579688837081742561513466850889366516267662341180891
1327309015857828899623999948822386264843491918815374735541893912578511688338311537475701

Batalov 2009-08-01 00:56

[B]6, 341-[/B] C224 = p94 . p130
(exp divisible by 11, and therefore a quintic with difficulty 241)

[SIZE=1]A tongue-in-cheek recipe for 'success': [/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]"If you only want long enough, any number will become the [I]1st [/I]hole." :smile:[/SIZE]

Batalov+Dodson snfs

Raman 2010-02-15 06:59

6,355-
 
1 Attachment(s)
6,355- is an ECM miss rather?

6,355- c206 = p[spoiler]58[/spoiler] * p[spoiler]148[/spoiler]

You know that every prime number of form 1 (mod 4) can be uniquely represented up as sum of two squares, right?
p[spoiler]58[/spoiler] = a[sup]2[/sup]+b[sup]2[/sup]
where
[code]
a = [spoiler]26954637581188276770322320890[/spoiler]
b = [spoiler]53660966062879867364046240361[/spoiler]
[/code]Expecting up the factors of 2,935- on February 20, 2010 itself.
That is right now being the expected completion time of that number only.

Due to post regarding this number only on 5 February 2010, I got extremely late
for my cousin sister's marriage betrothal (actually reached there when all the
function was over), and already then they have taken up the photos and videos
of all my other beloved relatives except me and my parents (family). :furious:

Very frustrating it is. :censored:

Marriage is upon the summer solstice day only. But, actually in fact that I slept off for 3 hours
before writing up that post, though, due to lack of patience in writing it up. Should
censor up irregular time sleep from now onwards. I wish that I would have gone there
earlier, before itself, instead of rather lying down, getting to sleep, and then that post could
have been done later on.
[COLOR=White]The photographs of me and then my cousins have been attached up hereby itself, only.[/COLOR]

Raman 2010-05-26 12:45

How many days are there in a year?
 
1 Attachment(s)
Mystery number - find out that candidate
by using this following hint:
How many days are there within any given year?

mystery number
number of days within any given year = 365
365 = 5 * 73
= (2^2 + 1^2) * (8^2 + 3^2)
= 19^2 + 2^2
= 14^2 + 13^2

What about that for 689, 1457, 1001, 1009...

ET_ 2010-05-26 13:05

[QUOTE=Raman;216197]Mystery number - find out that candidate
by using this following hint:
How many days are there within any given year?

mystery number
number of days within any given year = 365
365 = 5 * 73
= (2^2 + 1^2) * (8^2 + 3^2)
= 19^2 + 2^2
= 14^2 + 13^2

What about that for 689, 1457, 1001, 1009...[/QUOTE]

To be honest, there are 365.25 days in a year... :smile:

Luigi

Raman 2010-05-26 13:21

[quote=ET_;216201]To be honest, there are 365.25 days in a year... :smile:

Luigi[/quote]

I meant that calendar year, not the Earth's rotation

Earth rotates in 23 hours 56 minutes 4.09 seconds
Revolves around the sun within precisely
365 days 5 hours 48 minutes 45.51 seconds
[B]= 365.2422 days[/B]

Earth's axial tilt = 23.44 degrees

How many days does Gregorian calendar have so accurately within 10000 years
Absolutely, that is 3652425 days, no?

Thus, how many days do you think that year 10000 February should have so
in order to synchronize up with that Earth's rotation calendar?

Of course, it is true that earth's rotation is being slowed down regularly due to that
tidal friction from that moon, moon goes into a further orbit around earth, at the rate
of around 3 cm per year rather? This will continue until Earth is tidally locked with
moon as is moon with earth right now. At that point of time, rotation period of Earth
will be equal to revolution period of moon around earth at 47 days, right now from
27.3 days. This will take upto 50 billion years, but within another 5 billion years, that
Sun as a red giant star will rather swallow up both earth and moon then? If not, once
earth moon are both tidally locked up with each other, as is Pluto Charon system, then that moon
will start up moving closer to earth. Once it crosses up within that Roche limit, earth's gravity
can break up that moon into millions of fragments that will rather orbit planet in the form of
that rings.

Earth's rotation is right now being rather slowed down at the rate of about 1 second within every
500000 years.

bdodson 2010-05-26 13:35

[QUOTE=Raman;216197] ...[/QUOTE]

For those of us that don't open zip-files
[code]
5910 6, 365- c185 1552875106954286892749964394710986213899516972480933644523600802712902591
. p113 Raman snfs [/code]

Also Batalov+Dodson's c171 gnfs, p83*p89. Supose the above p73
counts as a miss ..., ah, no; not a Mersenne number, guess not.
-Bruce

Raman 2010-05-26 15:07

[quote=bdodson;216205]For those of us that don't open zip-files
[code]
5910 6, 365- c185 1552875106954286892749964394710986213899516972480933644523600802712902591
. p113 Raman snfs [/code]Also Batalov+Dodson's c171 gnfs, p83*p89. Supose the above p73
counts as a miss ..., ah, no; not a Mersenne number, guess not.
-Bruce[/quote]

No chance to be any ECM miss at all
For a p73 factor, imagine how many curves you need to run at B1=3*10[sup]9[/sup]
Certainly that it is a lot easier to factor by using SNFS
my pet algorithm that has become right now, [SIZE=1]by now itself[/SIZE]

p54 factors like that from 5,427+ can only be called as an ECM miss
I won't accept even p65 factors as an ECM miss at all.

By the way, is that Bos+Kleinjung ECM parallelization trick only applicable
to that list of Mersenne numbers, actually?
I want to know more about that case, [SIZE=1]much within that fact[/SIZE]

bdodson 2010-05-27 13:01

[QUOTE=Raman;216217] ...
By the way, is that Bos+Kleinjung ECM parallelization trick only applicable
to that list of Mersenne numbers, actually?...[/QUOTE]

Alex posted Thorsten's announcement:
[QUOTE=Thorsten]
Stage 1: we implemented arithmetic functions for Playstation3s for
Mersenne numbers. Stage 1 for 24 curves in parallel and for B1=3*10^9
took less than 23 hours on one PS3, i.e., less than one hour per curve
per PS3. [/QUOTE]
which appears to me to say that B1=3*10^9 only works for Mersenne
numbers. I'd be happy to be wrong; perhaps there's a work-around,
or the timings for non-Mersenne numbers isn't off by a full magnitude
(like 1e9, instead of 3e9?). Until we hear otherwise, p73's are only for
Mersenne numbers, due to B1=3e9 being only for Mersenne numbers.

Meanwhile, looking at the "who's" list, are we going to have a new
Smaller-but-Needed above C180 in another page or two? -Bruce

PS - Here's another version from Nmbrthry
[QUOTE=Thorsten]
Stage 1: We implemented arithmetic functions for PS3s for Mersenne
numbers. We used a recently developed 4-way SIMD carry-less
Karatsuba multiplier based on radix 212 signed digit
representation, thereby obtaining a speed-up of approximately a
factor of 2 over our previous unoptimized 4-way SIMD PS3 multiplier.
Stage 1 for 24 curves in parallel and for B1=3*10^9 took less than
23 hours on one PS3, i.e., less than one hour per curve per PS3.
[/QUOTE]
Also, the parallelization matters. They did 30,000 step 1s (and then found
that first p73 after just 8800 of the step 2s), so without any parallelizing
(an extreme case), they'd only have had 30000/24 = c. 300*4 = 1200 curves.

Our only reason for not objecting that the entire method looks too ad-hoc
to consider seriously is that they found the second one. I wonder whether
we'll get another 70-digit+ any time soon.

frmky 2010-06-08 07:43

1 Attachment(s)
NFS@Home has finished 6,385- by SNFS. Log is attached.

[CODE]prp84 factor: 848309686035087642620840193724699651536186090795063231766401545260286503867205343001
prp103 factor: 8069925129421512315078607836272335020663433851059267139141811772952369600025478699376883002767164883851
[/CODE]

frmky 2011-03-04 01:12

1 Attachment(s)
And 6,377- is finished.

[CODE]prp64 factor: 4163738647660343644736593693349157640855934319038312150518137743
prp77 factor: 10225045916601248647752444357593002700492832183893285320674260124721671052319
prp109 factor: 3180086558308793081180085210976696863166710882711790023757500947744933108800529269662639263040161216121494069[/CODE]

frmky 2011-05-24 07:10

1 Attachment(s)
Add 6,349- to the finished list. Actually a while ago as you can see by the date. Finals week intervened, though!

[CODE]Fri May 13 01:03:56 2011 prp68 factor: 42718986495841359540531087907270796421704343217605115730109486979483
Fri May 13 01:03:56 2011 prp141 factor: 271696650711235713248500256972633590883334525976176892387276364981832992375182426818192208801216461941493240842717505382975945252028996771663
[/CODE]

Batalov 2012-06-30 04:46

6,447- (snfs difficulty 232) is waiting for a knight in shining armor and a reasonably modern home bread maker or a pressure cooker. I heard that those have ridiculously strong CPUs recently.

Seriously, a good project for a home computer (a month on a quad-core, less on a hexa)! Write to Sam before too late.

debrouxl 2012-06-30 05:54

SNFS 232 would be in the reach of RSALS, if the polynomial is quintic or sextic; but before I reserve this, I'd like to make some test sieving.
What's the best SNFS polynomial for that number ? :smile:

Batalov 2012-06-30 06:18

Like,
[CODE]n: 616206951833849099509404360836151448327434546464783674219667801836184526666386100726932863976883607096993792653424911139417437242190871728765383549637572368393220053069548102628443735964624521073
type: snfs
skew: 1.82
Y1: 1
Y0: -808281277464764060643139600456536293376
c6: 1
c3: 6
c0: 36
rlim: 55000000
alim: 55000000
lpbr: 30
lpba: 30
mfbr: 60
mfba: 60
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6
[/CODE]
but try 3LP on both sides and see if it gets better? (For this size, maybe not.)

debrouxl 2012-06-30 08:21

On one core of an otherwise idle i7-2670QM, at q=rlim/2, 2LP sieving and 3LP sieving produce the same yield at the same speed (only the fifth digit after the comma changes, which is way below noise). It doesn't hurt to make a 3LP sieving.

I've sent an e-mail to Sam Wagstaff for reserving 6,447-.

debrouxl 2012-06-30 19:54

BTW, before I queue it to the bread makers, pressure cookers and whatever else composes RSALS: how much ECM has 6,447- received ?
I can't find the information (or at least, it's not obvious to me ^^) through [url]http://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~ssw/cun/[/url] .

Batalov 2012-06-30 20:02

Tons. Rest assured.

S.S.W. himself found very large factors in this portion while it was still in the [URL="http://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~ssw/cun/xtend/"]future extension[/URL] stage.
Also Bouvier recently added many more curves (supposedly with the GPU-GMP-ECM) and found some impressive factors. There's no direct evidence, though; but it has been observed that they ECMd even less snfs-difficult numbers very heavily in the past.

I'd like to reserve the post-processing.

jrk 2012-06-30 20:48

[QUOTE=debrouxl;303720]It doesn't hurt to make a 3LP sieving.[/QUOTE]
FYI, You might see an increase in the duplication rate, unless you also increase the large prime size.

Batalov 2013-09-12 04:49

6- tables were officially extended. (from 451 to 500)

There may be some projects accessible to home-style enthusiasts, e.g. 6,471-.

frmky 2016-08-04 04:24

6,383- is done.

[PASTEBIN]N0hgKLks[/PASTEBIN]


All times are UTC. The time now is 23:16.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.