Previously known P3 and P47.

ECM to 2t50 by yoyo@home
SNFS Sieving by RSALS
Post Processing by Zeta-flux

[code]
139^113-1
P85: 6437658560469344557868717838631909233665665360491680684025231072441106877364757987441
P107: 38587221696915899982431026422582428489472482726604930799246941183995480946995466005111820631579107622806187
[/code]

All of these go into Brent's list. The first two go into Brent's "extended Cunningham" table and are also on his wanted list.

ECM to t50 by yoyo@home
ECM to 2t50 by A. Bhargava & S. Pelissier (first two only)
SNFS Sieving by RSALS
Post Processing by Zeta-flux aka Pace

[code]
17^181-1:
P79: 2920902395704020651392472288257933855695106586056892291644538818873326000590289
P101: 13140173089540153390769049845563045150130241504699545998897805047945261657987004551943522467110049537

19^173-1:
P72: 390232962641934443121909700399101765647541203247373825643163920571476359
p80: 34899542992350301857787803367746606156836220192649180086062867626381729915391069

4591^59-1:
P52: 5613195567338289937559196171537339377983851711941491
P110: 61426671578049453800525286118031340097270120264786179486138118236619022373944717664575238982267383121372024397
[/code]

Factors of a C115
[code]
2462040498590885028043233860944101580966554180309716198677327^3-1
P39: 539145153443992490368704348986367636223
P76: 3496085205845091668754878425441624629158175971228706860243579685992769485659[/code]

This leaves a residual C121 that has had ECM to nearly 45 digits. Anybody want to finish it with GNFS?
[code]
179^89-1
P45: 390635438163993187429840826589785358451320139
[/code]

[QUOTE=wblipp;249310]This leaves a residual C121 that has had ECM to nearly 45 digits. Anybody want to finish it with GNFS?
[code]
179^89-1
P45: 390635438163993187429840826589785358451320139
[/code][/QUOTE]

Instead of a waste of time [strike]in a futile chase after odd perfect numbers[/strike] on stuff [I]you[/I]'re interested in
it would be better to [strike]devote the time to helping sieve 2,1031-. (and then 2,1061-)[/strike] do stuff [I]I[/I]'m interested in.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;249315]Instead of a waste of time [strike]in a futile chase after odd perfect numbers[/strike] on stuff [I]you[/I]'re interested in
it would be better to [strike]devote the time to helping sieve 2,1031-. (and then 2,1061-)[/strike] do stuff [I]I[/I]'m interested in.[/QUOTE]

Well, Greg's managed to get Bob interested in what NFS@Home is doing
(resp. may be doing next?). Maybe Alex can resolve one of our questions
on the PS3 computations at epfl --- the June version of their Cryptology
eprint Archive 2010/338 omitted M = 1061; while the November version
claimed a range of all M in 1000 < M < 1200 (with t65 for [1000, 1125] and
2t65 for [1125,1200]) having been completed. The ambiguity being
that they would have missed Paul's p55 from 2,1115-, which seems beyond
belief for t65. Perhaps they intended to complete 1115, but Paul's factor
arrived before they ran step2? (Just in case this is something of interest.)

-Bruce (with apologies to wblipp and the OP group for the distraction(s))

[QUOTE=wblipp;249310]This leaves a residual C121 that has had ECM to nearly 45 digits. Anybody want to finish it with GNFS?
[code]
179^89-1
P45: 390635438163993187429840826589785358451320139
[/code][/QUOTE]

Sure, I'll give it a spin.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;249315]Instead of a waste of time [strike]in a futile chase after odd perfect numbers[/strike] on stuff [I]you[/I]'re interested in
it would be better to [strike]devote the time to helping sieve 2,1031-. (and then 2,1061-)[/strike] do stuff [I]I[/I]'m interested in.[/QUOTE]

[i]I[/i] get [b]asked[/b] for my opinion regarding computational projects.
[i.e. asked to review both EU and NSF grant proposals]
[i]I[/i] get [b]asked[/b] to referee papers in number theory and computational
mathematics.
[i]I[/i] get [b]asked[/b] by Math Reviews to write reviews of published papers.

Why do you think this is?

Could it be that professionals value my judgment? Nah! That can't be it!

So, did the people of this project ask for your opinion?

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;249336]

Could it be that professionals value my judgment? Nah! That can't be it![/QUOTE]

Translate this: Arrogante de merda!

[QUOTE]I get asked for my opinion regarding computational projects.
[i.e. asked to review both EU and NSF grant proposals]
I get asked to referee papers in number theory and computational
mathematics.
I get asked by Math Reviews to write reviews of published papers.

Why do you think this is?[/QUOTE]Well, you probably write reviews for Math Reviews because you gave them your name and a subject area in which you felt you could write adequate reviews. Just like most mathematicians who write reviews for them.

You probably get asked to referee papers in number theory and computational mathematics because your name comes up when they look at the reference section, or because someone recommended you who knows you would be able to referee the paper.

You probably get asked your opinion on computational projects (for the EU and NSF) because you have a history of doing many computational projects.

I agree with you that they value your judgement (and rightly so).

[QUOTE]Could it be that professionals value my judgment? Nah! That can't be it! [/QUOTE]Of course they value your judgement. But people are sufficiently interested in these sorts of computations that Pascal's paper will likely be published in a decent journal.

So be explicit. What exactly are you trying to argue? These computations are not a waste of time for Pascal, as he is using them to produce a research paper. Could he get another paper which is more prestigious if he does your computations instead? I don't think so.