mersenneforum.org

mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   Cunningham Tables (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=51)
-   -   Contributing to Cunningham Project (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=24211)

R.D. Silverman 2019-10-24 16:56

[QUOTE=swellman;528787]Not to my knowledge. Doesn’t mean Greg didn’t find his own poly I suppose.

I am also confused about 2,2210M being run as a SNFS job. But that decision is pending LA on 2,2150M to verify smoothness(?)

Moving forward with ECM, I am planning to enqueue the following in with Yoyo:
[CODE]
2,1115+
2,1135+
2,1180+
2,1139+
3,748+
[/CODE]
Any comments or objections? The last composite is a GNFS job we can run locally if there’s interest.[/QUOTE]

I too am confused about 2,2210M. However, I believe running it as SNFS is based
on Greg's experience with 2,2150M. Sieving it was easy.

With respect to YoYo: I thought the objective was to run the remaining base 2 numbers,
so I wonder why 3,748+ is included.

With respect to the base 2 numbers: Queue them in any order that you find convenient.
I don't think the order matters.

swellman 2019-10-24 18:40

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;528810]
With respect to YoYo: I thought the objective was to run the remaining base 2 numbers,
so I wonder why 3,748+ is included.

With respect to the base 2 numbers: Queue them in any order that you find convenient.
I don't think the order matters.[/QUOTE]

I threw 3,748 into the mix because it was a Cunningham the group could tackle as discussed [url= https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=24548]here[/url] and [url=https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=24211&page=6]this page[/url]. Otherwise there’s very little to do in this subproject but watch Yoyo’s progress. But we can drop it if no one is interested or we want to avoid mission creep.

Understood that the order doesn’t really matter so long as a feasible candidate for NFS@Home is produced occasionally from Yoyo’s ECM preprocessing. I can just throw the remaining 46 composites in Yoyo’s queue, 12,000 curves at a time and tweak it every year or so. Deep or wide?

R.D. Silverman 2019-10-24 19:28

[QUOTE=swellman;528824]I threw 3,748 into the mix because it was a Cunningham the group could tackle as discussed [url= https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=24548]here[/url] and [url=https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=24211&page=6]this page[/url]. Otherwise there’s very little to do in this subproject but watch Yoyo’s progress. But we can drop it if no one is interested or we want to avoid mission creep.

Understood that the order doesn’t really matter so long as a feasible candidate for NFS@Home is produced occasionally from Yoyo’s ECM preprocessing. I can just throw the remaining 46 composites in Yoyo’s queue, 12,000 curves at a time and tweak it every year or so. Deep or wide?[/QUOTE]

I do see 3,748+ as mission creep.

I recommend breadth first.

VBCurtis 2019-10-24 20:00

My interest remains in 3,748+. Please continue with ECM on it; I think your reasons for making that an exception to the mission are valid.

R.D. Silverman 2019-10-24 22:29

[QUOTE=swellman;528824]

<snip>

Understood that the order doesn’t really matter so long as a feasible candidate for NFS@Home is produced occasionally from Yoyo’s ECM preprocessing. [/QUOTE]

Why? There is no shortage of candidates of candidates for NFS@Home.

R.D. Silverman 2019-10-25 11:51

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;528835]My interest remains in 3,748+. Please continue with ECM on it; I think your reasons for making that an exception to the mission are valid.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. It is still mission creep regardless of how you spin it.

VBCurtis 2019-10-25 15:35

Notice he said "we can drop it if no one is interested or we want to avoid mission creep."

So, you state that you think it's mission creep. I, independently, state that I am interested; I also use the word "exception" to indicate that I'm not arguing a case that this is not mission creep, rather that I don't think that should keep us from progressing on this candidate.

You repeat that is it mission creep. Thanks? My comments addressed both halves of his "or". I'm not trying to disagree with you, as I don't care what label you give your mission. Sean also didn't claim it wasn't creep. He asked whether that mattered, or should stop us from ECM.

swellman 2019-10-25 17:01

No worries - I have reached out to Ryan and he has agreed to ECM 3,748+ to t65.

I’ll place the next four base 2 numbers in Yoyo’s CN queue tonight.

R.D. Silverman 2019-11-22 14:02

[QUOTE=swellman;528926]No worries - I have reached out to Ryan and he has agreed to ECM 3,748+ to t65.

I’ll place the next four base 2 numbers in Yoyo’s CN queue tonight.[/QUOTE]

Greg is now sieving 2,1157+. Yet according to

[url]https://escatter11.fullerton.edu/nfs/numbers.html[/url]

2,1165+ is next after 2,1084+.

Doing numbers out of order does not matter at all. However, I mention it here
because it raises the possibility they Greg skipped 2,1165+ because he does not have
a polynomial for it. Is this the case? Does the forum need to give him one?

swellman 2020-01-02 18:19

Status Update
 
According to my notes, there are 68 Cunningham numbers in the current effort.

- 46 are queued with Yoyo@Home to receive 12,000 curves @B1=850M. Averaging 11 days to complete ECM of each number, suggesting wave 1 of 6 should finish in early 2021.

- 1 is currently in poly search (2,1165+)

- 9 are awaiting sieving in the NFS@Home queue

- 3 are sieved but awaiting postprocessing

- 8 have been factored

- 1 is stuck between the various phases of factoring (2,2398M) due to its high NFS difficulty.

R.D. Silverman 2020-01-02 22:35

[QUOTE=swellman;534029]According to my notes, there are 68 Cunningham numbers in the current effort.

[/QUOTE]

If you mean the base 2 effort my count differs from yours. Perhaps we should
reconcile this count?

I count 60 unfinished numbers from the 1987 hardcover edition of the Cunningham book.

Eight of them have been sieved and are waiting for or running LA:
(2,2102L, 2,2098L, 2,1063+, 2,1072+, 2,1076+, 2,2126M, 2,1084+, 2,1157+)

One of them is sieving: (2,1144+)

Several are queued to start sieving (2,1165+, 2,2158L, 2,2330M, [2,2210M is q'd but not listed on the web page]); 2,1165+ is running polysearch. This leaves 47 waiting to be
done.

Several more are "within reach",(IMO) but not currently queued:
(2,2162L?, 2,2162M?, 2,2230M?);

This would leave 44 left if they get done.

The following are queued to run 72K curves with ECM; some of this work has been done.

2,1115+
2,1135+
2,1180+
2,1139+
2,2162M
2,2162L
2_2174L
2_2174M
2_1091+1
2_1097+1
2_2194M
2_2194L
2_2206L
2_2206M
2_1109+1
2_2222L
2_1108+1
2_2222M
2_2230M
2_2246M
2_2246L
2_1124+1
2_1123+1
2_1129+1
2_2266L
2_1136+1
2_2278M
2_2278L
2_1147+1
2_1151+1
2_2306L
2_2302L
2_1153+1
2_2318M
2_1159+1
2_1163+1
2_1168+1
2_2342M
2_2350M
2_2354M
2_2354L
2_2378L
2_2374L
2_1187+1
2_2390M
2_2390L

Have I missed any thing?

[QUOTE]

- 46 are queued with Yoyo@Home to receive 12,000 curves @B1=850M. Averaging 11 days to complete ECM of each number, suggesting wave 1 of 6 should finish in early 2021.

- 1 is currently in poly search (2,1165+)

- 9 are awaiting sieving in the NFS@Home queue
[/QUOTE]

?? Here we disagree. Greg's web page shows 3 queued (plus 2,2210M which is not shown). What are the others?

[QUOTE]
- 3 are sieved but awaiting postprocessing
[/QUOTE]

We differ. See above.


[QUOTE]
- 1 is stuck between the various phases of factoring (2,2398M) due to its high NFS difficulty.[/QUOTE]

I think this is out of reach for NFS@Home.


All times are UTC. The time now is 00:36.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.