Another little precious:


M190979 has a factor: 24771663822972061822220659457 / (ECM curve 65, B1=250000, B2=25000000)

94.323 bits

k= 2[SUP]7[/SUP] × 14929 × 28477 × 1191803465693

[QUOTE=lycorn;414511]Another little precious:


M190979 has a factor: 24771663822972061822220659457 / (ECM curve 65, B1=250000, B2=25000000)

94.323 bits

k= 2[SUP]7[/SUP] × 14929 × 28477 × 1191803465693[/QUOTE]

Nice one! I've moved about 6500 exponents below 1M from 62->64 bits, not a single factor so far....

0-for-6500 tells you either that factoring level is already complete (via ECM to 20-digit level, perhaps?), or that your setup is faulty.

[QUOTE=Gordon;414539]Nice one! I've moved about 6500 exponents below 1M from 62->64 bits, not a single factor so far....[/QUOTE]
Which is expected, due to the qty of P-1 and ECM done on that range, the chance for a 20-25 digits factor is extremely small.

[QUOTE=LaurV;414571]Which is expected, due to the qty of P-1 and ECM done on that range, the chance for a 20-25 digits factor is extremely small.[/QUOTE]

I don't really expect to find many (any) but it is a "levelling up" exercise to get everything up to a minimum of 64 bits.

Sub 100k exponents might have to wait though, mfaktc can't go that low and the cpu is flat out on ecm in that region...

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;414557]0-for-6500 tells you either that factoring level is already complete (via ECM to 20-digit level, perhaps?), or that your setup is faulty.[/QUOTE]

I suspect the former, the equipment is fine.

I was on the same project before, bringing everything in that region up to 62 bits and i didn't find anything either. To some folks I was joking about going to 63 next, but I really didn't want to do that but now - immedeatly somebody else took the work for himself :hello:

Isn't it vastly more productive to take everything sub-1M to t25 via ECM? That should find ~all factors to 75 bits and quite a few in 75-80 range. ECM is the way forward for finding factors of small exponents, while TF is not only redundant but a dead end.

We know that, its just that we like to see the lowest TF number being 62 and not 61 respectively 64 and not 62. Not the best use of the hardware (which is the reason why I stopped) but fun to do anyway.

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;414660]Isn't it vastly more productive to take everything sub-1M to t25 via ECM? That should find ~all factors to 75 bits and quite a few in 75-80 range. ECM is the way forward for finding factors of small exponents, while TF is not only redundant but a dead end.[/QUOTE]

Never a dead end until you actually do it and get the answer...it's really just about neatness, so when you look at the [URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/status/tf/0/0/4/0"]progress chart[/URL] eventually everything will be at least 64 bits.

As to the ecm, as you know I am working on that as well, taking everything to a T35 equivalent, which for exponents in the sub 20k bracket means 533 curves, B1=3M,B2=500M

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;414660]Isn't it vastly more productive to take everything sub-1M to t25 via ECM? That should find ~all factors to 75 bits and quite a few in 75-80 range. ECM is the way forward for finding factors of small exponents, while TF is not only redundant but a dead end.[/QUOTE]

Ok, to return to my previous post before going on holiday about the [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_ecm/?txt=0&ecm_lo=16649&ecm_hi=16649&ecmnof_lo=1&ecmnof_hi=2500"]detailed ecm progress report[/URL] being mainly a work of fiction...

Go to that report and notice the number of curves required for each level

T25 -280
T30 - 640
T35 - 1580
T40 - 4700
T45 - 9700
T50 - 17100

now scroll down to the entry for M16649 and you will see the following

T25 -Done
T30 - Done
T35 - Done
T40 - Done
T45 - 1864
T50 -

So that means that this exponent must have had 9064 curves run right?

We can [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=16649&exp_hi=&full=1&ecmhist=1"]check that here[/URL]

Oh dear, it's only has 915 curves in total as follows

T25 - none
T30 - none
T35 - 564
T40 - 100
T45 - 151
T50 - 100

So whatever data the detailed ecm progress report uses for it's data it sure isn't coming from the results database and the information presented is to all intents and purposes useless.

Why can't the report show the actual number of curves run at each level as I have summarised above, you can then use this to plan where to put the effort in.