Going nuts, giving replies to my own posts..

996666, now at T1140, went to 92 digits, but lost the downdriver and I think it is "in" for a "double top", or some "head and shoulders"...:smile: (traders know what I am talking about)

Still going...

Reserving 13056 (i2209), 998088 (i1076).


___
[SIZE=1]Tried 996000 and hit 2^2*7 right away; not reserving obviously.[/SIZE]

Done with 73836

Index 951, 135 Digits, 2^3*3^3*5, c119 (not ecm'ed)

With a exponent of 3 greater than 1 its reduced form is 2^3*3^2*5 which isn't a driver (the 3 cannot go to exponent 1 to make it a driver (unless 5 is higher power)

However, it would have to lose the 3^3 -> 3^2 to have a chance (which means all factors other than 2^3(15) and 5(6) can't add a factor of 3) may take a while.

As it is 135 digits already, growing very fast, and burdened with an extra power of 3 it needs to lose to even have a chance, I think I am going to give it up here.

I posted an update on everything.

Good news: [COLOR="Green"]3 downdrivers[/COLOR]!

Bad news: no one has managed to match 933436 yet......

I'm letting go of 147978. It's at iteration 440, size 148, with a 2^3 * 3^3 guide, and is ready to GNFS.

Reserving 412944. Actually I've been working on it for a while but didn't realize I didn't have it reserved.

Reserving 785970

reserving 733290 from sub-project #11...

I'm just unsure when I should change reservation away from what schickel signed me for ( which at last check wasn't up to date on the first post), I was thinking 100 more lines than it was but that seems too fast approaching as I've climbed about 70 lines ( since it started at 1630) at last check.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;275717]I'm just unsure when I should change reservation away from what schickel signed me for ( which at last check wasn't up to date on the first post), I was thinking 100 more lines than it was but that seems too fast approaching as I've climbed about 70 lines ( since it started at 1630) at last check.[/QUOTE]
Well, everything is totally up to you. After you gain some experience with how they grow, or occasionally fall, you can decide how large you would like to let them climb. Or, you can check out some of the sub-projects to see what was being sought there. I tend to jump around a lot now and I only have a couple machines up at the moment. For a little while I was searching for sociable numbers up around 10^15*, but tired of it after some time. Now I have one number I got from a sub-project and am running it for a while, since it's decreasing. I'm also doing some primo certificates for the db on a second machine. I had tried to help with 4788, but I didn't really have the power needed in the past; I might now...

All work is appreciated, but you should focus on areas that interest you. Good luck with finding that focus.

[SIZE=1]*I'm actually using a pari script you might find interesting. Maybe you could even improve it, but that woud be for a different thread.[/SIZE]

[QUOTE=EdH;275752]Well, everything is totally up to you. After you gain some experience with how they grow, or occasionally fall, you can decide how large you would like to let them climb. Or, you can check out some of the sub-projects to see what was being sought there. I tend to jump around a lot now and I only have a couple machines up at the moment. For a little while I was searching for sociable numbers up around 10^15*, but tired of it after some time. Now I have one number I got from a sub-project and am running it for a while, since it's decreasing. I'm also doing some primo certificates for the db on a second machine. I had tried to help with 4788, but I didn't really have the power needed in the past; I might now...

All work is appreciated, but you should focus on areas that interest you. Good luck with finding that focus.

[SIZE=1]*I'm actually using a pari script you might find interesting. Maybe you could even improve it, but that woud be for a different thread.[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

yeah I've seen a lot say decreased but the number of digits looks almost flat-lined ( at least to me) in the factor database (here's hoping it killed it). currently working on line 1701 in ggnfs ( okay never mind I may have to switch back to the 0 auto increasing ecm curves ( I have quite a few Gb)), polynomial selection has failed.