[QUOTE=Jwb52z;311009]P-1 found a factor in stage #2, B1=490000, B2=10657500.
UID: Jwb52z/Clay, M45721331 has a factor: 2068776071860350403687

70.809 bits

I don't know why this one was not found earlier unless it was just barely missed by the earlier testing. I'm also puzzled as to why I suddenly got a 45M exponent when I had been getting 57M to 59M range numbers.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/exponent.php?exponentdetails=45721331"]James' site[/URL] says it was only TFd to 61.

[QUOTE=flashjh;311103][URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/exponent.php?exponentdetails=45721331"]James' site[/URL] says it was only TFd to 61.[/QUOTE]Ah, thank you. I don't have all these helpful related sites saved to check, yet.

[QUOTE=flashjh;311103][URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/exponent.php?exponentdetails=45721331"]James' site[/URL] says it was only TFd to 61.[/QUOTE]

Actually, [URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/exponent.php?exponentdetails=45721331"]James' site[/URL] says it was TF'd to 70. :wink:

No, it says 61. See the table called "TF results". In the table above it, the 68 (and respective 70) are the "limits" up to which TF has to be done by P95 (respective mfakt*).

[QUOTE=LaurV;311218]No, it says 61. See the table called "TF results". In the table above it, the 68 (and respective 70) are the "limits" up to which TF has to be done by P95 (respective mfakt*).[/QUOTE]

Umm... to 61 is the only result that was directly reported to Mersenne-aries, as opposed to trawled off of PrimeNet. But on PrimeNet it was TFd to 70. (Note that it says "Actual" just left of the 70.)

hm... That makes sense too. Maybe James can enlighten us... How is it?

[QUOTE=Dubslow;311220]Umm... to 61 is the only result that was directly reported to Mersenne-aries, as opposed to trawled off of PrimeNet. But on PrimeNet it was TFd to 70. (Note that it says "Actual" just left of the 70.)[/QUOTE]

Actually, many intermediary results disappeard from James site a while ago (a month maybe), but to the best of my knowledge the table is still acurate: "Trial Factoring; Limit" / "Actual".

Maybe it was a case of reducing the size of the database?

"That escalated quickly!"
 

M435503 has a factor: 201346837275660859617983 (78 bits)

k = 7 * 139 * 281 * 845,482,271,069

ECM B1=50k

P-1 found a factor in stage #1, B1=530000.
UID: Jwb52z/Clay, M57650287 has a factor: 6203229201487897920327616351

92.325 bits.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;311416]P-1 found a factor in stage #1, B1=530000.
UID: Jwb52z/Clay, M57650287 has a factor: 6203229201487897920327616351

92.325 bits.[/QUOTE]

[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=57650287"]Everyone[/URL] [URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/exponent.php?exponentdetails=57650287"]knows[/URL].

Unless it's exceptional, there's no need to tell us....

[QUOTE=chalsall;311448][URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=57650287"]Everyone[/URL] [URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/exponent.php?exponentdetails=57650287"]knows[/URL].

Unless it's exceptional, there's no need to tell us....[/QUOTE]

>90 bits is rather exceptional... and that's what this thread is for anyways, exceptional or not. (It had been de facto P-1 factors only for a while, but recently TF factors have started reappearing.)