GPU72 Largest 100 Factors Found
I was clicking around the site and found the "Largest 100 Factors Found" page interesting:
[URL]https://www.gpu72.com/reports/largest_factors/[/URL] Is that uptodate? If so, does it update automatically or is it something Chris updates manually? I only ask because the largest as of this writing is: 734277451864747167510502805298930545450478445879 I found a factor today of exponent [URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/default.php?exp_lo=105032111&full=1"]105032111[/URL]: 499400852887245323683941126088449355702834653807158087 Unless of course, I am completely reading that wrong, which is entirely possible. It is all just so fascinating, and I have such a small grasp of it. 
[QUOTE=LOBES;563450]I was clicking around the site and found the "Largest 100 Factors Found" page interesting:
Unless of course, I am completely reading that wrong, which is entirely possible. It is all just so fascinating, and I have such a small grasp of it.[/QUOTE] That list is automatically updated. And while your find is impressive, it is, unfortunately, a "composite factor". BTW, it's a complete fluke that I'm at the top of the list. There are many others putting in far more P1 efforts than myself; I just got lucky there. 
[QUOTE=LOBES;563450]I was clicking around the site and found the "Largest 100 Factors Found" page interesting:
[URL]https://www.gpu72.com/reports/largest_factors/[/URL] Is that uptodate? If so, does it update automatically or is it something Chris updates manually? I only ask because the largest as of this writing is: 734277451864747167510502805298930545450478445879 I found a factor today of exponent [URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/default.php?exp_lo=105032111&full=1"]105032111[/URL]: 499400852887245323683941126088449355702834653807158087 Unless of course, I am completely reading that wrong, which is entirely possible. It is all just so fascinating, and I have such a small grasp of it.[/QUOTE] Congrats! However: [CODE]? factor(499400852887245323683941126088449355702834653807158087 ) [ 290582744822559701357207 1] [1718618403140893608084889221841 1] [/CODE] 
Adding to it, that list only contains factors which are prime and were discovered for assignments taken with GPU72 (if that's not understood).
To see a list with ever largest factors found, with the method used to find them, see [URL="https://www.mersenne.ca/userfactors/any/1/bits"]mersenne.ca[/URL] list. 
Thanks so much for the responses. That is what I was expecting.
Me: See really long number, longer than the other numbers, think I'm onto something... Reality: Nah. Not really. 
Wow, those bit levels are way higher than anything that can be (reasonably) done on TF. Those top factors are all from P1?

[QUOTE=ZFR;564207]Those top factors are all from P1?[/QUOTE]
Yes. 
[QUOTE=chalsall;564251]Yes.[/QUOTE]
And unlike TF, P1 is better done on CPU than GPU, right? So if I want to devote one of my CPU workers to P1 instead of PRPs, I can just get a list from GPU72, copy it under that worker in mprime's worktodo, and that's it? B1 and B2 will be chosen automatically by mprime? 
[QUOTE=ZFR;564259]And unlike TF, P1 is better done on CPU than GPU, right?[/QUOTE]
There's some excellent GPU P1 software available now. But Prime95/mprime (CPU) is by far the easiest to work with. [QUOTE=ZFR;564259]So if I want to devote one of my CPU workers to P1 instead of PRPs, I can just get a list from GPU72, copy it under that worker in mprime's worktodo, and that's it? B1 and B2 will be chosen automatically by mprime?[/QUOTE] Contemporaneous P1 work is available from both Primenet and GPU72. Know that GPU72 is currently working at higher ranges (105M) than Primenet (101M) for P1 assignments. And so the work takes slightly more compute (and, thus, time). 
Thanks. Going to grab some from GPU72 when the next PRP finishes next week. Let's see if I can get my name on that top 100 page.

[QUOTE=chalsall;564251]Yes.[/QUOTE]
Doh, nevermind. 
[QUOTE=LOBES;578355]Doh, nevermind.[/QUOTE]
OK. 
[QUOTE=chalsall;564260]There's some excellent GPU P1 software available now. But Prime95/mprime (CPU) is by far the easiest to work with.[/QUOTE]
I agree with "easiest". I am running GPUOwl under colab. When I can get a P100 (which is virtually every day) I can do a 8GHz P1 in 30 minutes. Running a similar P1 on all 8 cores of my i77820X takes about 75 minutes. 
(Somehow missed this when PaulU OPed it:)
[QUOTE=paulunderwood;563452]Congrats! However: [CODE]? factor(499400852887245323683941126088449355702834653807158087 ) [ 290582744822559701357207 1] [1718618403140893608084889221841 1] [/CODE][/QUOTE] Ha! Real men (a.k.a. execrable masochists) factor numbers like this using the world's slowest bignum code  I mean of course *nix 'bc', which IIRC uses base10 emulation of your CPU's base2 instructions or some such ludicrously inefficient bignum implementation  and crappy bcbased functions of their own writing: [i] n = 499400852887245323683941126088449355702834653807158087; p = 105032111; pm1(n,p,10^4,5*10^6,5) Stage 1 primepowers seed = 105032111 Stage 1 residue A = 275242671610725931867172664303887659718570581548948384, gcd(A1,n) = 1 Stage 2 interval = [10000,5000000]: Using base= 3; Initializing M*24 = 120 [base^(A^(b^2)) % n] buffers for Stage 2... Stage 2 q0 = 10080, k0 = 48 At q = 209790 At q = 419790 At q = 629790 At q = 839790 At q = 1049790 At q = 1259790 At q = 1469790 At q = 1679790 At q = 1889790 At q = 2099790 At q = 2309790 At q = 2519790 At q = 2729790 At q = 2939790 At q = 3149790 At q = 3359790 At q = 3569790 At q = 3779790 At q = 3989790 At q = 4199790 At q = 4409790 At q = 4619790 At q = 4829790 Stage 2: did 23762 loop passes. Residue B = 409059575611368065569985294315721920104412510081096652, gcd(B,n) = 290582744822559701357207 This factor is a probable prime. Processed 581936 stage 2 primes, including 234294 primepairs and 113348 primesingles [80.52 % paired].[/i] Now back to work on my cuttingedge bcbased NFS implementation, with which I hope to someday factor numbers as large as the quantumcomputer folks do: "the quantum factorization of the largest number to date, 56,153, smashing the previous record of 143 that was set in 2012." 
[We open our next scene with a hand slapping the owner's forehead, accompanied by the utterance "doh!"]
Re above: In fact it seems silly to use powerful generalmodulus factoring machinery like ECM or QS on such (p1)found factorproduct composites. Here's why: say we have some product of prime factors F = f1*f2*...*fn discovered by running p1 to stage bounds b1 and b2 on an input Mersenne M(p) (or other bigum modulus with factors of a known form, allowing p1 to be 'seeded' with a component of same). BY DEFINITION, each prime factor f1fn will be b1/b2smooth, in the sense than fj = 2*p*C + 1, where C is a composite all of whose prime factors are <= b1, save possibly one outlierprime factor > b1 and <= b2. Thus if we again run p1 to bounds b1/b2, but now with arithmetic modulo the relatively tiny factor product F, we are guaranteed to resolve all the prime factors f1fn  the only trick is that we will need to do multiple GCDs along the way in order to capture the individual prime factors f1,...,fn, rather than have this secondary p1 run modulo F again produce the same composite GCD = F which the original p1 run mod M(p) did. Again, though, since in the followup p1 run we are working mod F, all the arithmetic is trivially cheap, including the needed GCDs. And since the cost of a p1 run is effectively akin to a single supercheap ECM curve, we've reduced the work of resolving the composite F to just that equivalent. 
All times are UTC. The time now is 23:27. 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000  2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.