3LM Table discussion
 

Phew!
There's a full update to the 3LM extension tables. (See post #2-4, merged.)
Also, added a live link to the 'massaged' FactorDB (which is still unaware of 3LM Aurifeuillian factors; had to punch them in).

Notice that it provides some nice entry level jobs for anyone.
For example: 3,1275M is difficulty only 162 (with a quartic, though).

PM me for poly, if needed. In short, it is
[FONT=Courier New]c4: 1[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New]c3: 3[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New]c2: -6[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New]c1: -18[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New]c0: -9[/FONT]
with Y1 = 3^42 and Y0 = -(3^85+1), ok? Will provide help with lims. Just ask.

Several easiest numbers are accessible to anyone armed even with a PentiumIII.

I might run 3,1275M. I'm PMing Batalov for details.

[QUOTE=Batalov;194916]Phew!
There's a full update to the 3LM extension tables. (See post #2-4, merged.)
Also, added a live link to the 'massaged' FactorDB (which is still unaware of 3LM Aurifeuillian factors; had to punch them in).

Notice that it provides some nice entry level jobs for anyone.
For example: 3,1275M is difficulty only 162 (with a quartic, though).

PM me for poly, if needed. In short, it is
[FONT=Courier New]c4: 1[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New]c3: 3[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New]c2: -6[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New]c1: -18[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New]c0: -9[/FONT]
with Y1 = 3^42 and Y0 = -(3^85+1), ok? Will provide help with lims. Just ask.

Several easiest numbers are accessible to anyone armed even with a PentiumIII.[/QUOTE]


I wish that you had not done this. Now, people will want to pick the
low hanging fruit from the extensions, rather than work on other,
unfinished tables.

[quote=R.D. Silverman;194921]I wish that you had not done this. Now, people will want to pick the
low hanging fruit from the extensions, rather than work on other,
unfinished tables.[/quote]
Ah, but you're assuming that if someone wasn't working on this, they would be working on unfinished tables. Well, I for one wouldn't. They're just too big for my small resources.

[QUOTE=Mini-Geek;194923]Ah, but you're assuming that if someone wasn't working on this, they would be working on unfinished tables. Well, I for one wouldn't. They're just too big for my small resources.[/QUOTE]

To completion? Certainly. But NFS@Home can always use contributors.

[QUOTE=Mini-Geek;194923]Ah, but you're assuming that if someone wasn't working on this, they would be working on unfinished tables. Well, I for one wouldn't. They're just too big for my small resources.[/QUOTE]

For mine too - the c153 from 2,1766M, which I did, barely fitted into my ressources. With my ressources I *can* pick some low-hanging fruit from the extended table, but on the unfinished (non-extended) tables I don't see a fruit hanging low enough to fit into my resources (especially RAM for postprocessing).

[QUOTE=Batalov;194916]Phew!
There's a full update to the 3LM extension tables. (See post #2-4, merged.)
Also, added a live link to the 'massaged' FactorDB (... had to punch them in).
[/QUOTE]

OK, I'm puzzled about this post (and the follow-ups). We're in a
sub-thread of the Cunningham Tables, on the 3+ list. There's nothing
on Sam's page about an extention/update to the 3LM tables. If the
update in question is an update to FactorDB, then please move these
posts to somewhere appropriate for FactorDB tables.

Regards, bdodson

[QUOTE]
Notice that it provides some nice entry level jobs for anyone.
For example: 3,1275M is difficulty only 162 (with a quartic, though).

Several easiest numbers are accessible to anyone armed even with a PentiumIII.[/QUOTE]

There's no shortage of entry level factoring projects. Let me
rephrase that; there's _FAR_ from a shortage of ...

(and a PS: was that an endorsement of NFS@Home in that post
of Bob's? I'd encourage anyone interested in factoring Cunningham
numbers, especially ones with increasing snfs difficulties; to have
a look at the "Status of Numbers" link on NFS@Home --- the
prospective November completions are on track to pass the October
rate; bunches of most Wanted numbers from the page 112 list
(still not yet online).

and a PPS: the bdodson contribution over there is primarily from cpu's
that weren't in the x86-64 condor pools being used for C/D, W+D,
B+D numbers, and the most recent W+mersenneforum+D number;
to the contrary, NFS@Home added a nice chunk of sieving for M941
off the books of the boinc effort.)

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;194924]To completion? Certainly. But NFS@Home can always use contributors.[/QUOTE]

Let me also note that there are quite a few Fibonacci/Lucas numbers
available via SNFS for people with limited respources. See Blair
Kelly's web pages. SNFS Quintics will work quite well for these.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;194934]Let me also note that there are quite a few Fibonacci/Lucas numbers
available via SNFS for people with limited respources. See Blair
Kelly's web pages. SNFS Quintics will work quite well for these.[/QUOTE]

Here is the URl

[url]http://home.att.net/~blair.kelly/mathematics/fibonacci/[/url]

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;194936]Here is the URl

[url]http://home.att.net/~blair.kelly/mathematics/fibonacci/[/url][/QUOTE]

The first hole in the Lucas table has SNFS difficulty 213.

[QUOTE=bdodson;194932]OK, I'm puzzled about this post (and the follow-ups). We're in a
sub-thread of the Cunningham Tables, on the 3+ list. There's nothing
on Sam's page about an extention/update to the 3LM tables.[/QUOTE]

???

[url]http://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~ssw/cun/3LM[/url]

Doesn't that qualify as "Sam's page"?

[QUOTE=jyb;194941]???

[url]http://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~ssw/cun/3LM[/url]

Doesn't that qualify as "Sam's page"?[/QUOTE]

Indeed it is! However, there is no official extension to the existing
tables. These were provided a while back and Sam posted them, but without
any kind of announcement that they were being added to the tables.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;194942]Indeed it is! However, there is no official extension to the existing
tables. These were provided a while back and Sam posted them, but without
any kind of announcement that they were being added to the tables.[/QUOTE]

Indeed. I make no claims as to whether these are part of the "real" tables, nor do I have any desire to join the holy war^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H debate over whether these numbers are worthwhile targets for our CPU time. I was just questioning what looked like a factual error.

[QUOTE=jyb;194941]???

[url]http://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~ssw/cun/3LM[/url]

Doesn't that qualify as "Sam's page"?[/QUOTE]

OK; I mis-typed/composed. There's nothing on Sam's page
about a _recent_ extension of the 3LM. Not to attempt to
impose a minimal attention span pre-req on forum posts; but
I was remarking on my friend Serge's post saying
[code]
Phew!
There's a full update ... [/code]
and we're discussing a collection of candidates for factorization
just brought to the forum attention, apparently by the DB. -bd

(For the purposes of discussion of The Cunningham tables, there's
a well-defined reserved term for a Cunningham Update, initiated by
Sam. I'm saying this isn't that (as far as I know); and that I'd
very much appreciate not having the thread on the 3+ Cunningham
list not littered with a bunch of non-Cunningham factors.)

Apologies for unintended sensationalism.

I simply meant that this was the [I]last[/I] local table to be cleaned up for readability (with SNFS difficulty added, minus ECM efforts); [I]per se[/I], it was always there in posts #2-4, since Jan 2005. I looked at it several times in dismay, but because of the last 3+ factor, decided to roll the sleeves and clean it. And indeed, there was a lot of vacuum cleaning. The [URL="http://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~ssw/cun/3LMext"]semi-official updates[/URL] are also housed at Sam's pages and the latest factors are fairly fresh. 'Phew' only meant what [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=72079&postcount=29"]Garo meant year ago[/URL]. (Same thread.)

As I did it, I realized that some numbers are amenable to individual contributions. But let me tone it down now.
[U]For the volunteers[/U]:
1. I totally agree that a better application of PC time is [URL="http://escatter11.fullerton.edu/nfs/"]NFS@Home[/URL]. Many other projects, too.
2. If the real fun is DIY, then it should be all of it, from start to finish; if not from writing new software, then at least from constructing a suitable polynomial and parameters.
3. The only place the contributor's results will go is that email pileup, for now. Apparently there are no reservations, a simple sandbox. Email Sam when done.
4. No holly wars. Peace!

[QUOTE=Batalov;194916]Phew!
There's a full update to the 3LM extension tables. (See post #2-4, merged.)
Also, added a live link to the 'massaged' FactorDB ...[/QUOTE]

Ah. The update to the Garo tables (including that 3LM extension he had,
that I forgot about). Actually, since posts #2 through #4 were replaced
with the new and improved Serge post #2, I spent some time puzzling about
the old posts #5 & #6 (which are the new #3 & #4). And the live link over
on the Cunningham DB thread.

Thanks!

Strange; the original 3LM's are entirely cleared (the ones in the "main
tables"), so it's the ones 1200-1800 that are in the extension (as I learned
from the DB link). Err, that's (3^[6(n-3)])+1 for n = 201 to 300,
corresponding to 1200-1800. The next DB page goes past that; and the
next; and the next ... And it's the Garo table restricted to the
Xilman/Leyland range 1200-1800. No shortage of numbers, it's like they're
infinite or something.

-Bruce

[quote=Mini-Geek;194919]I might run 3,1275M. I'm PMing Batalov for details.[/quote]
Done. c144=p68*p77. [URL="http://factordb.com/search.php?id=9964766"]3^1275+1[/URL] is now fully factored. :smile:
[code]Sun Nov 08 21:51:15 2009 prp68 factor: 28307046970942456068307849275575041770247062269862468071803789660351
Sun Nov 08 21:51:15 2009 prp77 factor: 25514712584982993649721349633001246398829959056614327094684863451960879218951
[/code]My largest NFS, but relatively quite small: it only took 35 hours on my dual-core Athlon. (almost 40 hours counting the time I paused it)
Already in the DB. Does this need to be emailed to Prof. Wagstaff or anybody?

[QUOTE=Mini-Geek;195262]Done. c144=p68*p77. [URL="http://factordb.com/search.php?id=9964766"]3^1275+1[/URL] is now fully factored. :smile:
[code] prp68 factor * prp77 factor
[/code] Does this need to be emailed to Prof. Wagstaff or anybody?[/QUOTE]

Yes, that would be good. There's a link on the bottom of

[url]http://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~ssw/cun/[/url]

Probably a reminder that it's for his file

[url]http://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~ssw/cun/3LMext[/url]

would help to get it recorded there. -Bruce

[QUOTE=bdodson;195280]Yes, that would be good. There's a link on the bottom of

[url]http://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~ssw/cun/[/url] -Bruce[/QUOTE]

Looks like Sam's taking this prospective extension ... ugh, oops,
not that Sirius thing again. With a notable degree of attention, like. -bd