[QUOTE=science_man_88;443405]now has 2^10 on the last iteration shown.[/QUOTE]

Not only that out.

Did any one else certainly notice away with in this unusual similarity only up?

Aliquot Sequence 660 Iteration Number 971 = 2[sup]5[/sup] × 2069 × c193.

Aliquot Sequence 4788 Iteration Number 10616 = 2[sup]10[/sup] × 2069 × c175.

GCD(Aliquot Sequence 660 Iteration Number 971, Aliquot Sequence 4788 Iteration Number 10616) = What?

[QUOTE=Raman;442554]
@ Ryan Propper: Have you automated submissions to FactorDB even when you are asleep or outside? Great job!
Factoring a c120 in 2006 would take upto 5 days. In 2016, it is only taking 5 minutes. Or 10 minutes may be? Distributed computing is being going on automatically?
Perhaps you could help out with aliquot sequences of 552, 564, 660, 1512, 1992, 5250, 9120, 11040 besides of 4788 or of 314718.

<snip>

away out off up down my own - that ever which ever a way a way ever.
away out off up down my own - that ever which ever a way a way ever.
[/QUOTE]

Aliquot Sequence 4788 Iteration Number 10615: 2[sup]6[/sup] × 113 - hopefully - not - 2[sup]6[/sup] × 127!

Consecutive Prime Numbers 113 And 127!

[QUOTE=Raman;443433]Not only that out.

Did any one else certainly notice away with in this unusual similarity only up?

Aliquot Sequence 660 Iteration Number 971 = 2[sup]5[/sup] × 2069 × c193.

Aliquot Sequence 4788 Iteration Number 10616 = 2[sup]10[/sup] × 2069 × c175.

GCD(Aliquot Sequence 660 Iteration Number 971, Aliquot Sequence 4788 Iteration Number 10616) = What?



Aliquot Sequence 4788 Iteration Number 10615: 2[sup]6[/sup] × 113 - hopefully - not - 2[sup]6[/sup] × 127!

Consecutive Prime Numbers 113 And 127![/QUOTE]

using PARI/GP to try to find the gcd of the composites that haven't been factored
( after reducing it enough I tried gcd of the two last results and got 1. so [TEX]2^5\cdot2069[/TEX] edit: okay I used iteration 971 for 660 but the point is the same.

Plodding along slowly. That 2^2 (and now 2^6) is hard to shake...

Amazing, I was just re-reading this thread that showed up in the "Similar threads" section, and 5 years ago we took ~2 weeks getting ready for a c172. Now we're having this happen:
[QUOTE=ryanp;432854 (on 4/30)]I'll handle the next C180 as well. :)[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=ryanp;432959 (on 5/2)]OK. Next C180 is done:

[CODE]Mon May 2 13:11:50 2016 prp63 factor: 852828185224582024294795864244283338007551456801212478326125773
Mon May 2 13:11:50 2016 prp117 factor: 704131409692002901688336495667355706435373199424596628222345220771103914385162349468158740451400667823527752200435477[/CODE][/QUOTE]And

[QUOTE=ryanp;432991 (again, on 5/2)]Working on the C170 now.

[CODE]linear algebra completed 733239 of 5927756 dimensions (12.4%, ETA 10h 9m)[/CODE][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=ryanp;433019 (on the next day, 5/3)]Awww. Could've had this one by ECM if I had tried harder...

[CODE]Tue May 3 08:55:24 2016 prp50 factor: 10343669734301041373937055383512171230895724608491
Tue May 3 08:55:24 2016 prp120 factor: 993739759889626805545135903141953923233113832717632966003694092677384994673520180146397186251215841015082033396156750101[/CODE][/QUOTE]We just need ryanp to get mad at [B]all[/B] the sequences!

Thanks for the yuuge assist, Ryan!!

:bow wave::bow wave:

[QUOTE=schickel;443643]We just need ryanp to get mad at [B]all[/B] the sequences!
[/QUOTE]
Well... I already made a diabolic plan: I am waiting for this sequence to get to 202 digits (and hopefully with 2^3*3*5 driver :razz:), and then I will quote Ryan's post where he said that "he is pissed off" and "he will kill it", and I will ask "did you say something?" :grin:

(well, you all jinxed it that it will terminate, and it didn't, so I try the other way around... hehe)

[QUOTE=LaurV;443650]Well... I already made a diabolic plan: I am waiting for this sequence to get to 202 digits (and hopefully with 2^3*3*5 driver :razz:), and then I will quote Ryan's post where he said that "he is pissed off" and "he will kill it", and I will ask "did you say something?" :grin:[/QUOTE]

I'll find a way... :smile:

[QUOTE=ryanp;443651]I'll find a way... :smile:[/QUOTE]

Just so that things are jinxed in a clearly defined way; what is your limit, in terms of factor size? C200? C210?

[QUOTE=flagrantflowers;443660]Just so that things are jinxed in a clearly defined way; what is your limit, in terms of factor size? C200? C210?[/QUOTE]

In September 2013, he factored RSA210. Given that was (almost exactly) 3 years ago, assuming a rate of Moore's Law at 18 months, he should be able to factor a C220 by now. From this it should be at least C220!.

Such extrapolation works fine for the sieving step, but the hurdle to really big jobs is handling the matrix. Clusters may have gotten faster in 3 years, but cluster time likely hasn't gotten easier to find. RSA numbers are interesting enough to make a case for time on a nice cluster, but "I want to kill this %$^&%ing Aliqueit sequence" might not gain similar access.

On the other hand, 64GB memory desktops are now available, and a year on one of those might solve a GNFS-215 matrix without a cluster. So, perhaps you're right about 215+, given enough patience.

So is it safe to say, "You can't over-sieve your way to less memory requirements."

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;443710]On the other hand, 64GB memory desktops are now available, and a year on one of those might solve a GNFS-215 matrix without a cluster. So, perhaps you're right about 215+, given enough patience.[/QUOTE]

In the cloud you can get 61 GiB of memory on a 4-core Xeon @ 2.5 GHz at about $1000 for a year's worth of computing time at the cheapest current spot prices. You can get 244 GiB of memory on a 16-core for maybe three times that amount.

The drawback is, spot prices fluctuate, so much of the time the spot price would exceed what you'd want to pay. So a year's worth of computing time might be way longer in wall-clock time...

Edit: Google cloud prices are similar, 4-core 52 GB preemptible @ $73/month or 16-core 208 GB preemptible @ $292/month, nonfluctuating prices and maybe a better chance of getting interrupted less often.

Are there any interesting problems that need humungous memory but considerably less than a year to solve?