And indeed, on the sixth dependency:

Mon Dec 29 02:46:29 2008 prp70 factor: 4268789244276949228762861690430742945199326935775238201407340720225441
Mon Dec 29 02:46:29 2008 prp88 factor: 7393720864497209547797418741987855153929288725078597776812623352014398844851509314050533
Mon Dec 29 02:46:29 2008 prp96 factor: 119206318557610125536465637952294120218272312333630042840751434567237099832651324905880534881861

I'm writing this at 3:30am my time, since the cold is somewhat keeping me from sleeping.

Congratulations!

nice! :banana:

I always like triple splits when they come :smile: Congrats to you Serge for correctly guessing this one!
Has anyone ever got a quadruple split?

[QUOTE=Batalov;155508]
I've found that I better like parallel single dependency sqrts - on 8 cpus you are then usually done after 1*8 sqrt[/QUOTE]
This is the way to go if you have the CPUs for it. Note that if there are three factors A, B, C and two dependencies find A*B and B*C respectively, the code is smart enough to stop there. Too bad it had to keep going in this case...

I've never seen a 4-way split for a nontrivial-size number; the odds of it happening (i.e. a huge number that is the product of 4 medium size numbers) are very low.

Very nice! Congrats!

fivemack,

Thank you for putting this all together, and I hope you feel better soon.

WHOO HOO!:wblipp:

Thanks Tom and everybody else. I've updated the news and status at [url]http://oddperfect.org[/url]

William

Nice to see diversity: factors of every race, color, and creed.

And, yes: don't hold your breath waiting for a 4-way split, at least while the unfactored composites are under 280 digits.

Well, four way splits do happen, but very rarely and arguably as an ECM miss. E.g. p40.p43.p43.p61 [URL]http://hpcgi2.nifty.com/m_kamada/f/c.cgi?q=51111_186[/URL] (personally, I am sure that this number begs for 50% of 45-digit ECM, at least, and then - voila - you're done or extremely unlucky... but not everyone has tons of CPUs, right?) and this is the only example I've seen.

Most reasonable Cunnigham numbers are ECMd to 25% of "size", aren't they, so there we will have to wait for c260s, true (where the ratio will fall under 25%; ...however next year people will start Cell-ECMing to t65 and this logic will fail). And even then, we'll need to see thousands of them. In smaller projects people use the 2/9 rule (even if!), then after thousands of factored numbers a [I]superfecta[/I] split could emerge. Which could be defended as not an ECM miss: c220 = p55.p55.p55.p55 (if one ECM'd to 50-digits).

I had a p55.p55.p114 once. :ermm:

[quote=Batalov;155710]I had a p55.p55.p114 once. :ermm:[/quote]

As I have seen in the Gratuitous Factors Thread. How far had that one been ECM'd? (I guess 50 digits.)