Just to be sure on the exponent with confusion, I've run

M3321929759 no factor from 2^2 to 2^62.

[QUOTE=wblipp]Just to be sure on the exponent with confusion, I've run

M3321929759 no factor from 2^2 to 2^62.[/QUOTE]

Thank you William.

Uncwilly, I'll wait for your next report before updating the page :surrender

Now we have a lot of work to do :banana: :banana:

Luigi

M3321929861 has a factor: 12413327709847303 (taken to 60)

All the rest are now at 64.

Sorry for the trouble for WB and Luigi.

I plan to do more trailblazing, but will not be posting more expos for the project until we need them.

taking 3321929701
 

Hemster, will you take it to 70 or 71?

Did you finish M3321929621 up to 71?

Luigi

[QUOTE=Uncwilly]M3321929861 has a factor: 12413327709847303 (taken to 60)

All the rest are now at 64.

Sorry for the trouble for WB and Luigi.[/QUOTE]

No problem for me :-)

BTW, M3321929759 was already taken to 55, did you raise it to 64?

Luigi

Taking M3321928171 to 71 bits.

Luigi

-929701
 

[QUOTE=ET_]Hemster, will you take it to 70 or 71? I will take it to 71.

Did you finish M3321929621 up to 71? Done in a few hours.... 70.9

Luigi[/QUOTE]

OK, Hemster, thanks :smile:

Luigi

[QUOTE=ET_]BTW, M3321929759 was already taken to 55, did you raise it to 64?[/QUOTE]

Everything on you site that doesn't have a factor is now at least to 64 bit level, ...759, ...579 inclusive.


Looks like I will have to pick my expo up from 70 :surprised

M3321928307 > taking to 71

tempted to buy that box that I saw for ~230 Euro (plus taxes) (Ath. 1800 complete 'Lindows' Linux box with...)

Couple of issues:

There are some 'active' exponents that have had no progress report in a while. If we get progress reported by around mid next week, I will update the graph. M3321928307 will be to 70.5 within 12 hours.


My Results.txt spliting program is working. I found out that less, but smarter code is more. I was able to 'stack' the factors easy (put several for a single expo. on one line) and arrays and associated pointers were eliminated.
Currently there are somethings that are hardcoded that will change (filenames and factoring levels, but they are easy.
MERS format output of the factors ( C: lines only at present ) as a user choice has been implemented. H: lines will be added later. H: lines for no factor found will later be available, either in with the factors or in a seperate file.

No provision is currently planned for mixed run Results.txt (different bit level runs in the same file) as there is no way of extracting data that is not included. It is intended for LMH type runs, not individual expos one at a time.
Nor, is support for any merging and sorting planned (avoids holding data in RAM, so it will run on -ANYTHING- :ernst: ).

It is written in good old basic (fast write, test, change, retest cycles are great), but with out dependance on line numbers and goto's, so porting over to plain vanilla C should be not to hard. :geek:

Anyone interested in seeing it, or using it for LMH work (in the area beyond P95's capability), PM me. :whistle:

2 done to ^71
 

M3321929701 completed to2^ 71 no factors
M3321929621 completed to2^ 71 no factors
I will take:
M3321928601 to ^71 done by next week...

Hemster

M3321928307 no factor from 2^70 to 2^71.

I know we will never come close...but anyways...what would be the "desired factoring depth" for our numbers? At what bit level will we stop (in the year 37150) an will start LL-testing?

Not as much as you might think. Using the data from the chart at [url]http://www.mersenne.org/math.htm[/url], and then fitting it with a logarithmic curve (R^2 = 0.9912), the desired factoring depth for a billion-digit exponent is about 85.557 bits.

Fitting with a power (y = ax^b) curve (R^2 = 0.9943) gives 88.625 bits.

I could give a better answer if I had two formulae:

1) A formula for the amount of CPU power needed to factor exponent n to a depth of d bits.

2) A formula for the amount of CPU power needed to LL test exponent n.

[QUOTE=jinydu]I could give a better answer if I had two formulae:

1) A formula for the amount of CPU power needed to factor exponent n to a depth of d bits.

2) A formula for the amount of CPU power needed to LL test exponent n.[/QUOTE]

Note that Factor3_1 is much slower than Prime95, so maybe the "desired bit depth" could be less than 88 bits if checked with this program...

Luigi

But I got those figures by extrapolating from the bit depths for smaller exponents...

You are a Genius! :w00t: :wink:

More little bumps.
M3321929579 no factor from 2^64 to 2^65.
M3321929759 no factor from 2^64 to 2^65.
M3321929789 no factor from 2^64 to 2^65.

Attached is a bad graph of the progress. I have included the numbers that have been factored out in the numbers on the bottom. This better reflects the progress.

M3321928243: no factor up to 69 bits.

The number is now taken to 70 bits

Luigi (Carlo)

M3321928777 no factor from 2^64 to 2^65.
M3321928787 no factor from 2^64 to 2^65.
M3321928921 no factor from 2^64 to 2^65. (pending the last .1)
M3321929573 no factor from 2^64 to 2^65.
M3321929827 no factor from 2^64 to 2^65.
M3321929927 no factor from 2^64 to 2^65.
M3321929909 no factor from 2^64 to 2^65.

Carlo sent me a message, saying

M3321928243 has a factor: 619406102645311603441

Now he's taking M3321928697 to 70 or 71.

Luigi

The floor on our current batch is now 65 bits.

M3321928963 no factor from 2^64 to 2^65.
M3321928927 no factor from 2^64 to 2^65.
M3321928999 no factor from 2^64 to 2^65.
M3321929041 no factor from 2^64 to 2^65.
M3321929053 no factor from 2^64 to 2^65.
M3321929059 no factor from 2^64 to 2^65.
M3321929113 no factor from 2^64 to 2^65.
M3321929173 no factor from 2^64 to 2^65.
M3321929179 no factor from 2^64 to 2^65.
M3321929197 no factor from 2^64 to 2^65.
M3321929209 no factor from 2^64 to 2^65.
M3321929411 no factor from 2^64 to 2^65.
M3321929461 no factor from 2^64 to 2^65.
M3321929519 no factor from 2^64 to 2^65.
M3321929563 no factor from 2^64 to 2^65.
[B]M3321929617 no factor from 2^65 to 2^66.
M3321929759 no factor from 2^65 to 2^66.
M3321929789 no factor from 2^65 to 2^66.[/B]

I have run every thing from 3321929927 to 3321999999 upto 57 bits (in 4 stages removing exponents with found factors at each stage.)

[QUOTE=Uncwilly]
I have run every thing from 3321929927 to 3321999999 upto 57 bits (in 4 stages removing exponents with found factors at each stage.)[/QUOTE]

Thank you Uncwilly!

Did you send the factors to Will Edgington?

Luigi

Not yet. I had not finished by the time I left the machine, but they should be done now. I will run my program to output MERS format files. Then send the results to him....

3321928601 done to 2^71
 

taking 3321928241 69-71
 

M3321928171 no factor from 2^70 to 2^71.

Luigi

We are at level 5 :exclaim: :exclaim: :banana: :banana:
:bounce: :bounce: Five expos to 71 bits.

I would like to publicly thank Arjan Koek (Koekie) for his building of Factor3_1 on powerPC MAC with OS/X (G3 and G4).

Now Project Billion Digits can be run by MAC users. :banana:

I still don't have figures on how fast the program runs on MACs; if someone would like to play a bit with it we'll set up a benchmark table for different hardwares. :whistle:

The program is available as usual at [url]http://www.gimps.it/billion/billion.htm[/url]

Luigi

I have yet another problem. The software actually works now, but it says to enter a start bit depth and finally an end one. Whenever i put that in it just does 2^2 to 2^1. Perhaps if someone wrote exactly what the second line should look like if I was doing 2^80 to 2^85 I would appreciate it.

Here is a capture of what it should look like.

[CODE]Please enter the exponent to be factored: 2^332193937

Now enter start bit depth : 80
Finally enter end bit depth : 85

Sieving from 2^80 up to 2^85...
[/CODE]

Note: there are no 2^ entered by the user.

Also, unless you are working beyond ~10billion digit length, 80 is high.

Factor3_2!
 

here it comes... an optimized version that runs about 25% faster than version 3.1 :smile:

I hope you will enjoy it. I link it here, and on the italian Billion Number Project page.

William, if you like you can link our new versions on your page... :flex:

Feel free to test it and to tell me what you think of it.

Luigi

The software seems to work well.

I started doing 2^3321928171 from 75 to 77 bits.

[QUOTE=clowns789]I started doing 2^3321928171 from 75 to 77 bits.[/QUOTE]

3321928171 is currently being worked on by Luigi according to Billion Digit page on the ElevenSmooth site. The Italian site seems to be down...

[QUOTE=PrimeCruncher]3321928171 is currently being worked on by Luigi according to Billion Digit page on the ElevenSmooth site. The Italian site seems to be down...[/QUOTE]

The site is up and running... maybe the link to Italy is down :-P

I completed 3,321,928,171 up to 71 bits, and am going to reach 72 bits.

Clowns789, you could easily pick up a range that has not been assigned yet, and take to 72 bits. :wink:

Luigi

Ok, I'll just forget it since I was doing that on a PII. I was just getting acquainted to your software and after six hours it changed from 75 to 75.001 bit depth. :blush: That would take a long time!

Instead I would like to do 3321928699 to 65 bits.

Next time, would it be possible to shrink the file size of cygwin1.dll? I had to delete some of my sister's files (I think I can get away with it. The files, created in Dec. 2003 are obviously part of a school project. Its unlikely they would still be needed now.) to fit it onto a disk.

[QUOTE=clowns789]Ok, I'll just forget it since I was doing that on a PII. I was just getting acquainted to your software and after six hours it changed from 75 to 75.001 bit depth. :blush: That would take a long time!

Instead I would like to do 3321928699 to 65 bits.[/QUOTE]

It has already been done up to 65 bits. You can take it to 66 or 67 bit if you like :smile:

Luigi

[QUOTE=jinydu]Next time, would it be possible to shrink the file size of cygwin1.dll? I had to delete some of my sister's files (I think I can get away with it. The files, created in Dec. 2003 are obviously part of a school project. Its unlikely they would still be needed now.) to fit it onto a disk.[/QUOTE]

I'm afraid I can't manage the size of cyg*.dll: They come precompiled with the environment. :sad:

Luigi

Anyway, how about I take 3,321,928,171 from 72 up to 73 bits using a Pentium IIIR 1GHz?

[QUOTE=jinydu]Anyway, how about I take 3,321,928,171 from 72 up to 73 bits using a Pentium IIIR 1GHz?[/QUOTE]

You'd better choose another exponent, and take it from 65 to 71 (or 72) bits.

I am still working on 3321928171 from 71 to 72 :rolleyes: Your work would be wasted if I find a factor...

Luigi

OS X software
 

I have a 1 GHz eMac running OSX but know nothing about it. I tried the software but could not managed to run it. Will you please explain how I can run it?

Did you download all 3 files?

factor3_2.exe, cygwin1.dll and cyggmp-3.dll

M3321928171 has no factor from 72 to 72.0101855 bits.

How do I start on a new exponent?

[QUOTE=jinydu]M3321928171 has no factor from 72 to 72.0101855 bits.

How do I start on a new exponent?[/QUOTE]

1 - Go to the Project Billion Digits [URL=http://www.gimps.it/billion/billion.htm]page[/URL]
2 - Choose an exponent that has not yet been assigned (not active and with no factor associated)
3 - Fire your software: you'll be asked the exponent, the start bit (65 or 66) and the stop bit (72)
4 - Write a message on this thread, reserving the exponent.

That's all :smile:

Luigi

I mean, how do I stop the current test (preferably without loss of information)?

Also, the second column ("Digits") means the bit depth that the exponent has already been factored to, right?

[QUOTE=jinydu]I mean, how do I stop the current test (preferably without loss of information)?[/QUOTE]
[Ctrl]+[C]

[QUOTE=drakkar67]I have a 1 GHz eMac running OSX but know nothing about it. I tried the software but could not managed to run it. Will you please explain how I can run it?[/QUOTE]

To work with a MAC you'll have to download the MAC version of Factor3_1 (version 3.2 is not yet available, the link will be updated automatically when compiled) [URL=http://www.gimps.it/billion/billion.htm]here[/URL].

No Cygwin libraries should be needed AFAIK.

Luigi

[QUOTE=jinydu]I mean, how do I stop the current test (preferably without loss of information)?

Also, the second column ("Digits") means the bit depth that the exponent has already been factored to, right?[/QUOTE]

1 - Yes, Ctrl-C works fine. You can restart the search with "factor3_2 -r"
2 - Yes.

Luigi

[QUOTE=ET_]1 - Yes, Ctrl-C works fine. You can restart the search with "factor3_2 -r"
2 - Yes.

Luigi[/QUOTE]

What's factor3_2 -r?

[QUOTE=jinydu]What's factor3_2 -r?[/QUOTE]

factor3_2 is the name of the program to invoke.

"-r" is the resume switch: it permits to resume from a previously saved file without loosing data.

Luigi

Its not working. When I run factor 3_2, it first asks:

"Please enter the exponent to be factored: 2^"

When I type in "-r", it just closes the window.

[QUOTE=jinydu]Its not working. When I run factor 3_2, it first asks:

"Please enter the exponent to be factored: 2^"

When I type in "-r", it just closes the window.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, maybe my English is not clear :sad:

IF
you are starting a new exponent
THEN
you must enter "./factor3_2" and provide exponent, start bit and stop bit
ELSE IF
you have stopped a range still to be completed (Ctrl-C or power-off)
THEN
you can restart it from saved data typing "./factor3_2 -r" from the command line.

-r is an argument you may or may not provide on the command line to resume your previous work.

Luigi

[QUOTE=ET_]It has already been done up to 65 bits. You can take it to 66 or 67 bit if you like :smile:

Luigi[/QUOTE]

I'll do that from 66 to 67 bits.

[QUOTE=ET_]Sorry, maybe my English is not clear :sad:

IF
you are starting a new exponent
THEN
you must enter "./factor3_2" and provide exponent, start bit and stop bit
ELSE IF
you have stopped a range still to be completed (Ctrl-C or power-off)
THEN
you can restart it from saved data typing "./factor3_2 -r" from the command line.

-r is an argument you may or may not provide on the command line to resume your previous work.

Luigi[/QUOTE]

I finally got it to work. Sigh, Command-line interfaces are so difficult to work with...

Anyway, is it possible to have two saved files simultaneously (i.e. does starting a new exponent make it impossible to resume the old exponent?)

[QUOTE=jinydu]I finally got it to work. Sigh, Command-line interfaces are so difficult to work with...

Anyway, is it possible to have two saved files simultaneously (i.e. does starting a new exponent make it impossible to resume the old exponent?)[/QUOTE]

Consider starting two instances from two different directories... :rolleyes:

I'm not (yet) planning the management of a .INI file to configure the savefile name. Maybe in Version 4.0 :w00t:

BTW, did you choose an exponent for Billion or 100Million projects? :whistle:

Luigi

Hmm, my calculations say it would probably take well over a month to take an exponent up to 71 bits. How about a shallower bit depth? Can I use set a bit depth that is not an integer? (Sorry I'm asking so many questions non-stop).

[QUOTE=jinydu]Hmm, my calculations say it would probably take well over a month to take an exponent up to 71 bits. How about a shallower bit depth? Can I use set a bit depth that is not an integer? (Sorry I'm asking so many questions non-stop).[/QUOTE]

Each bit takes twice as long as the previous one, and things get pretty slow above 70 bits, expecially with slow computers the P-pro 180 I'm using. There are still many unclaimed exponents at 65 bits on [url]http://ElevenSmooth.com/Billion.html[/url].

Remember this is a whimsical project - there is no hope of getting beyond the trial factoring stage. So pick something for the silly fun of doing it and don't worry much about what.

3321928699 no factor from 66 to 67 bits.

[QUOTE=wblipp]Remember this is a whimsical project - there is no hope of getting beyond the trial factoring stage. So pick something for the silly fun of doing it and don't worry much about what.[/QUOTE]

True, but that does not mean we don't need effective management. I believe we should not go beyond 3321929879 until every previous digit is factored to at least 60 bits.

[QUOTE=clowns789]3321928699 no factor from 66 to 67 bits.[/QUOTE]

Has somebody tested this for 65 to 66?

[quote=Blipp]Has somebody tested this for 65 to 66?[/quote]
I think that this is one of those little errors that you had on your site. My spreadsheet showed it to be at 66 (I think that I did it). I will DC my mind.

I could not locate a result for xx699 between 65 and 66, so to be on the safe side I am running it. Should have an answer by 2pm GMT Friday or sooner.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly]I think that this is one of those little errors that you had on your site. My spreadsheet showed it to be at 66 (I think that I did it). I will DC my mind.[/QUOTE]

OK. I didn't anywhere it had been posted.

clowns,

Should I mark this "active" to warn other people away, or are you finished with exponent for now?

William

[QUOTE=clowns789]True, but that does not mean we don't need effective management. I believe we should not go beyond 3321929879 until every previous digit is factored to at least 60 bits.[/QUOTE]

Except for those near the end of the current range that have factors, all have been taken to at least 60 bits. All with out a factor are at 65 or above..

Is it possible to force the program to write a save file (as in when I'm about to turn off the computer)? I've noticed that it doesn't always write a save file when I push Ctrl-c.

[QUOTE=wblipp]Has somebody tested this for 65 to 66?[/QUOTE]

No factors found.


BTW, I am taking 3321928307 up to 72 (against my desire to do more to lower levels).

[QUOTE=jinydu]Is it possible to force the program to write a save file (as in when I'm about to turn off the computer)? I've noticed that it doesn't always write a save file when I push Ctrl-c.[/QUOTE]


The little bit that is not updated is so minor compared to the rest that I have never noticed any extra delay when restarting.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly]BTW, I am taking 3321928307 up to 72 (against my desire to do more to lower levels).[/QUOTE]

Is there some way to keep this fun for you and me too? You have fun doing lots of low tests, but I don't enjoy doing frequent web updates. Perhaps there is a second statistic we could track that benefits from less intense efforts? Maybe a ten-wide level that would require 10 candidates at 67 bits then 20 candidates at 68 bits then 30 at 69 bits? Or just total number of candidates to 69 bits? Or perhaps you'd like to take over maintaining the web page?

William

I downloaded and tried the program abit. I'm curious about this:

[QUOTE]I'm checking factors mod 120 instead of 1 or 7 mod 8[/QUOTE]

So you don't check all factors with 1 or 7 mod 8? Is the sourcecode to the program available? I'm not really a programmer but I would like to look at it and see if I understand how it works.

[QUOTE=ATH]I downloaded and tried the program abit. I'm curious about this:



So you don't check all factors with 1 or 7 mod 8? Is the sourcecode to the program available? I'm not really a programmer but I would like to look at it and see if I understand how it works.[/QUOTE]

I use mod 120 as an enhancement of the quadratic residues condition. ([url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=92&highlight=quadratic+residues[/url])

As E.W.Mayer wrote on this forum,

"Among other shortcuts, Prime95 trial factoring considers only the 16 congruence classes mod 120 (+-1, +-7, +-17, +-23, +-31, +-41, +-47, +-49) that might contain prime Mersenne factors. Thus it skips fourteen of the mod 120 congruence classes (+-9, +-15, +-25, +-33, +-39, +-55, and +-57) which satisfy +-1 mod 8 but are never prime."

I simply implemented it before checking if 2kp+1 was prime.

If, after this, you still want to peek into my sourcecode, just drop a PM with your email, but mind that some comments are still written in old good Italian :wink:

Luigi

Your list was only 7 primes short of reaching 3,321,930,000 so I tested the program on them:

M3321929929 no factor from 2^2 to 2^65.
M3321929957 has a factor: 1921749767844329 (up to 62bit)
M3321929959 has a factor: 106494430625623 (up to 62bit)
M3321929969 has a factor: 26575439753 (up to 62bit)
M3321929971 no factor from 2^2 to 2^65.
M3321929987 no factor from 2^2 to 2^65.
M3321929993 has a factor: 245822819482001 (up to 62bit)


Now I will take 3321928319 from 69 to 72 bit if its ok, it looks free.

[QUOTE=ATH]Your list was only 7 primes short of reaching 3,321,930,000 so I tested the program on them:

M3321929929 no factor from 2^2 to 2^65.
M3321929957 has a factor: 1921749767844329 (up to 62bit)
M3321929959 has a factor: 106494430625623 (up to 62bit)
M3321929969 has a factor: 26575439753 (up to 62bit)
M3321929971 no factor from 2^2 to 2^65.
M3321929987 no factor from 2^2 to 2^65.
M3321929993 has a factor: 245822819482001 (up to 62bit)


Now I will take 3321928319 from 69 to 72 bit if its ok, it looks free.[/QUOTE]

ATH, I'm afraid Uncwilly had already worked on that range by himself :unsure:

As Wblipp and Clowns789 said, it would be better to reach 72 bits for all exponents before going farther: this should keep us tidy and compact, and make updates easier.

If Uncwilly agrees, I will credit factors to both, but this will be the last time... :razz:

Luigi

Ok, np. I was really just playing with the program, testing speed on my 2 computers.

[QUOTE=ATH]Ok, np. I was really just playing with the program, testing speed on my 2 computers.[/QUOTE]

I re-read my previous post, and it may appear somewhat misleading...

3321928319 from 69 to 72 was free, and is now assigned to you.

I meant the range up to 3321929999 had already been worked.

Luigi

[QUOTE=ET_]ATH, I'm afraid Uncwilly had already worked on that range by himself :unsure:

If Uncwilly agrees, I will credit factors to both, but this will be the last time...[/QUOTE]

I have worked on the numbers up to 3321999991 (end of the range). in checking up on this I have found an error in my Results.txt massaging program that I must fix (it drops the last expo off.) :furious:

I am not worried about the credit. There is no I in team. :cool:

[QUOTE=Uncwilly]I have worked on the numbers up to 3321999991[/QUOTE]

In hopes or warning away other newcomers, I've updated the status page to reflect the existence of these results. Were these numbers taken to 62 bits? Was Will Edgington informed about the factors?

[url]http://ElevenSmooth.com/Billion.html[/url]

William

[QUOTE=Uncwilly]

I have run every thing from 3321929927 to 3321999999 upto 57 bits (in 4 stages removing exponents with found factors at each stage.)[/QUOTE]

Uncwilly, if you wish to take all these exponents to 60 (the starting range of Operation Billion Digits) I'm here to help!

Let's share the remaining exponents.

[B]William[/B], I know Uncwilly usually sends his batch of new factors to Will Edgington.

Luigi

Carlo is going to take 2^3321928697-1 from 71 to 72 bits.

I am now working also on the following range:

[code]
3321928777,65,66
3321928787,65,66
3321928921,65,66
3321928927,65,66
3321928963,65,66
3321928999,65,66
[/code]

Luigi

What about your work on 3321928171?

[QUOTE=jinydu]What about your work on 3321928171?[/QUOTE]

In good health, Thank you! :smile:

I just passed 71,8 bits of factorization. Should be finished in a few days.

Luigi

[QUOTE=ET_]Uncwilly, if you wish to take all these exponents to 60 (the starting range of Operation Billion Digits)

[B]William[/B], I know Uncwilly usually sends his batch of new factors to Will Edgington.[/QUOTE]

I will get them all there to 60 (maybe higher)(I got them to 57). I have the factors stored away and will send the to Will E. (haven't yet.) Have no fear I will send them across to him when I give you the results.

Maybe a [COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Impact][SIZE=4]Range not yet open[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR] might keep new folks from just randomly posting hey I did the next number.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly]
Maybe a [COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Impact][SIZE=4]Range not yet open[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR] might keep new folks from just randomly posting hey I did the next number.[/QUOTE]

Done :wink:

Luigi

[code]
M3321928777 no factor from 2^65 to 2^66.
M3321928787 no factor from 2^65 to 2^66.
M3321928921 no factor from 2^65 to 2^66.
M3321928927 no factor from 2^65 to 2^66.
M3321928963 no factor from 2^65 to 2^66.
M3321928999 no factor from 2^65 to 2^66.
[/code]

I am going to proceed taking all exponents with no factor to 2^66 if nobody else does.

And M3321928171 is done at 71.90 bits

Luigi

[QUOTE=ET_]
I am going to proceed taking all exponents with no factor to 2^66 if nobody else does.
[/QUOTE]

I mean, I will post the batch I choose next Sunday.

Luigi

Some time ago, I gave up on 3321928171.

I found no factor between 2^72 and 2^72.101

How long does 71 to 72bit take you all? Im running it on a P2 450Mhz, and 69-70 is taking about 1 week, 70-71 going to take 15days, 71-72 1 month.

My "fast" *cough* computer is Athlon 950Mhz, but its doing Prime95.

[QUOTE=ATH]How long does 71 to 72bit take you all? Im running it on a P2 450Mhz, and 69-70 is taking about 1 week, 70-71 going to take 15days, 71-72 1 month.[/QUOTE]

I'm running a P-Pro 180, so it will take me about four times as long. I put serious computers on more serious projects. I'm several weeks into a 70-71 test and have reached 70.746

William

M3321928171 no factor from 2^71 to 2^72.

Luigi

Status
 

Here is a graph of the progress as reported.

I have adjusted the parameters a bit, this should be nearly the final form for future charts.[list][*]Start at 60bit, up to 73.[*]Only the exponents without factors are points online, 43 right now.[*]The tick marks across the bottom include all prime exponents (including those factored out), 88 total right now.[*]51% factored out.[/list]

Luigi,

You should start a thread in the factoring forum for your Factor3 program.

I found a problem with Factor3_2b: If the input file contains a line like this:
[code]334234212,1.50[/code]
Windows will have an error and lock up.

I found this when I edited an input file and accidently hit [color=red].[/color] and not [color=red],[/color]

[QUOTE=Uncwilly]Luigi,

You should start a thread in the factoring forum for your Factor3 program.

I found a problem with Factor3_2b: If the input file contains a line like this:
[code]334234212,1.50[/code]
Windows will have an error and lock up.

I found this when I edited an input file and accidently hit [color=red].[/color] and not [color=red],[/color][/QUOTE]

They know about the program, since I posted a few messages there. I think that talking there about Factor3 would be considered a spam-like message :grin: and I don't want to publicize anything I did: if the program works, users will talk about it.

As for the problem, I was aware that error-catching routine was not 100% reliable: I will look into it and find out a quick answer. Thank you for spotting that bug!

Luigi

Taking them from 65 bits to 66 bits.

[code]
3321929041
3321929053
3321929059
3321929113
3321929173
3321929179
3321929197
3321929209
[/code]

Luigi

My computer froze up 98.7% of the way with 3321929041. It didn't say there was afactor until that point. So if it finds a factor, do you have to wait till the end or will it say immediately in the program?