I believe we shall see an increase of ECM activity on Yoyo. One of his projects is about to end, tiny amount of work to be done. Not sure what would be for our case the impact of more CPU deployed but overall all ECM projects might receive a little nice boost.

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but I saw this thread pop up on the new posts and figured I'd ask here, is there a current record of ECM done for various Cunningham numbers? Or a general rules for what can realistically be expected to have been performed?

I've attempted to fill out [URL="https://oeis.org/w/index.php?title=OEIS_sequences_needing_factors&stable=0&shownotice=1"]this page[/URL]'s ECM status of Cunningham numbers, but for higher bases (or large n, for that matter) I'm not certain enough to make up data, especially if it seems no factors have been found via ECM (>30 digit seemingly non-algebraic factors). FWIW, I've checked all the places listed in the "Sources" section.

If there are any ECM figures that seem inaccurate on that page, let me know and I can update them. I mostly just want to make sure I'm not wasting cpu time if I attempt to factor Cunningham numbers starting at the work listed there.

[QUOTE=Tyler Busby;626140]Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but I saw this thread pop up on the new posts and figured I'd ask here, is there a current record of ECM done for various Cunningham numbers? Or a general rules for what can realistically be expected to have been performed?[/QUOTE]

There is no official record, but a general rule of thumb is that everything in the [URL="https://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~ssw/cun/pmain22.txt"]main Cunningham tables[/URL] (bases 2-12, upper limits depending on base but generally ~400 digits) has had at least t60. Many have had substantially more. This applies to lots of the base 3-12 numbers in that OEIS list.

Kurt Beschorner's page has some [URL="https://www.kurtbeschorner.de/ecm-efforts.htm"]data[/URL] on ECM efforts for base 10 though it looks to be incomplete.

[QUOTE=swellman;624197]2,2206L is currently sieving, personally I’m hoping for it to be factored by mid March but it’s not a race.[/QUOTE]
And it is. It involved solving a >152M matrix on eight A100's in about 70 hours. Everything went surprisingly smoothly.

[PASTEBIN]TBp0NEBE[/PASTEBIN]

2,1108+ sieving is almost done, less than a week?! Still have Wu's for a few days.

2,1108+ is done. The 159M matrix took a little under 78 hours on eight A100's.

[PASTEBIN]tTSNJQWA[/PASTEBIN]

Fantastic Greg and NFS@Home pace is great too.

FWIW, Yoyo is still working through the Gang of 31. Only 20 numbers left to process.

I now estimate completion by Yoyo in September 2024 (worst case).

Despite its title this thread seems to be used for general comments about Cunningham number status, and I will make one in reply to the last.

Is it intended that the 'Gang of 31' be the next numbers processed on the big siever, and no others? It seems this would not be possible at current memory limitations; I think the limit has practically been reached with the two base-2 numbers in progress now. Further, the 31 combined would likely take more effort than M1277 would, and based on the perennial interest I'm guessing that most people with any opinion on the matter would rather see it tackled first rather than a list set by an arbitrary limit from the 1980s. There are plenty of other Cunninghams remaining to SNFS 335 or GNFS 220, including all but one of the non-base-2 numbers of Wagstaff's Most/More Wanted lists.

This is to be taken only as an opinion, and I won't venture to suggest any specific numbers as I'm sure I'm sure all possible candidates are known to those that would make a decision on it.

[QUOTE=Andrew Usher;628870] I think the limit has practically been reached with the two base-2 numbers in progress now. Further, the 31 combined would likely take more effort than M1277 would, and based on the perennial interest I'm guessing that most people with any opinion on the matter would rather see it tackled first rather than a list set by an arbitrary limit from the 1980s.[/QUOTE]

I don't know why you think the limit has been reached, and I think your view on M1277 is in the minority- you have an amazing capacity to assume that whatever you think is what everyone else thinks, and it's often quite misguided.

Besides, if your first quoted statement is true, then M1277 is way way out of reach by Greg and is thus wholly irrelevant; in fact, the limits can be a bit higher than the jobs in progress *and* M1277 still be well beyond those limits.

[QUOTE=Andrew Usher;628870]Despite its title this thread seems to be used for general comments about Cunningham number status, and I will make one in reply to the last.

Is it intended that the 'Gang of 31' be the next numbers processed on the big siever, and no others?
[/QUOTE]

It will shortly become the 'gang of 24'. And I think it is obvious that the answer to your question is NO.
I am guessing that Greg will select numbers from other bases when the current two are done.

[QUOTE]
It seems this would not be possible at current memory limitations; I think the limit has practically been reached with the two base-2 numbers in progress now.
[/QUOTE]

Ask Greg. He is the expert. You have insufficient knowledge and experience to make such an assessment.

[QUOTE]
Further, the 31 combined would likely take more effort than M1277 would
[/QUOTE]

Adding roughly 7 digits doubles the run time at this level. M1277 is 27 digits more than W1187 --> 4 doubings,
thus 16 times harder. There will only be 24 numbers to do, many of which are smaller. W1123 and W1124 and
2,2246M will take less than 2% of the effort as M1277. It seems that these 24 would be easier in the aggregate,
[b]especially[/b] if one uses a factory approach.

[QUOTE]
, and based on the perennial interest I'm guessing that most people with any opinion on the matter would rather see it tackled first rather than a list set by an arbitrary limit from the 1980s.
[/QUOTE]

More ignorance. Not the 1980's. The early 1960's. This limit that [i]you[/i] call "arbitrary"
[you can't stop from making judgments based on your limited experience, can you?]
was established by Dick Lehmer and John Selfridge. I will leave it to others to decide whether their choices or yours command more respect.

And you fail to say what is so <expletive deleted> important about M1277. Is it simply because it has no known
factors?? I can name a number of other candidates with no known factors that would be easier.

Also, please specify who you think are these "most people with any opinion on the matter". The ones
whose opinions matter are the ones providing the resources to do the work. Everyone else is just
a bystander.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;628916]It will shortly become the 'gang of 24'. And I think it is obvious that the answer to your question is NO.
I am guessing that Greg will select numbers from other bases when the current two are done.

<snip>
Ask Greg. He is the expert. You have insufficient knowledge and experience to make such an assessment.

<snip>

More ignorance. Not the 1980's. The early 1960's. This limit that [i]you[/i] call "arbitrary"
[you can't stop from making judgments based on your limited experience, can you?]
was established by Dick Lehmer and John Selfridge. I will leave it to others to decide whether their choices or yours command more respect.

<snip>

And you fail to say what is so <expletive deleted> important about M1277. Is it simply because it has no known
factors?? I can name a number of other candidates with no known factors that would be easier.

Also, please specify who you think are these "most people with any opinion on the matter". The ones
whose opinions matter are the ones providing the resources to do the work. Everyone else is just
a bystander.[/QUOTE]

Are you going to answer the questions? No pithy comebacks?

Just to share with you all Yoyo ecm subproject has been chosen as one of the disciplines for the boinc penthalon. We shall see some nice boost for 14 days.

2,2222M is done. The 166.4M matrix took 84 hours to solve using 8x A100 gpus.

[PASTEBIN]RyZ9gN1m[/PASTEBIN]

[QUOTE=pinhodecarlos;629892]Just to share with you all Yoyo ecm subproject has been chosen as one of the disciplines for the boinc penthalon. We shall see some nice boost for 14 days.[/QUOTE]Yoyo became so concerned at the rate the tasks were being deleted that he mailed some of us asking for more work to be uploaded.

Nothing had happened with the CW queue for months; turned out that it had been disabled because the queue had drained and never been re-enabled at the end of last year when I uploaded more work.

There are now 20K jobs at B1=260M (i.e. t60) for each of 150-ish GCW numbers lying in the range 210 through 229 digits. I doubt that lot will be cleared out any time soon but will be paying attention in case I am pleasantly surprised.

Those parameters were carefully chosen to ensure that the cofactor will be either prime or an easy GNFS runt.

One factor, a p65, has already been found.

From yoyo's status page.

5 May 2023 2:20:21 UTC: 222 numbers and [I]49,021,203,178,191,588,779,805,498,404,773,459,890,685,805,986,392,540,314,833,570,519,033,561,936,348,293,019,006,003,065,518,083,046,626,000,225,179,047,533,500,450,802,266,461,291,958,188,220,613,345,012,477,374,857,379,363,181,514,099,488,463,232,269,399,297,607,712,564,312,724,508,293,640,879,079,424[/I] curves are waiting in input queue.
CPU Years: 3,371.39 Credits: 5,906,676,334 GFlop: 2,551,684,176,288

10[sup]229[/sup] curves is just plain silly. I suspect that someone put a number-to-be factored into the number-of-curves column.

Think you'll be surprised, you might need to add more. Look now at [url]https://www.rechenkraft.net/yoyo/y_status_ecm.php#tabs-3[/url]

At the moment there are more than 200,000 Wu's ( for all ECM projects) in progresswhere each Wu covers for 5 (I think) ECM curves.

[QUOTE=xilman;630078]From yoyo's status page.

5 May 2023 2:20:21 UTC: 222 numbers and [I]49,021,203,178....................[/I] curves are waiting in input queue.
CPU Years: 3,371.39 Credits: 5,906,676,334 GFlop: 2,551,684,176,288

I suspect that someone put a number-to-be factored into the number-of-curves column.[/QUOTE]
Unless this mistake has been made more than once you should be able to extract the number they were attempting to factor by grabbing the first 200 digits of this number and searching a database of numbers of these forms needing to be factored.

[QUOTE=pinhodecarlos;630081]Think you'll be surprised, you might need to add more. Look now at [url]https://www.rechenkraft.net/yoyo/y_status_ecm.php#tabs-3[/url]

At the moment there are more than 200,000 Wu's ( for all ECM projects) in progresswhere each Wu covers for 5 (I think) ECM curves.[/QUOTE]I hope I will be surprised.

At the moment I have 3M curves still to be done at B1=260M. Each curve takes 1-2 core-hours on typical systems, according to my ECMNET server logs scaled by a factor of 260/43 to allow for the higher B1. If my arithmetic is correct, 3M curves comes to around 8200 core-years in total.Im am only 1 of six functioning projects right now, so unless one or more of the others run dry, something like 50M core-years will have been run by the time my inpout queue runs dry.

As noted previously, I will be paying attention.

Paul, my baseline reference are the 20 numbers I see from that link I've posted before, not the 150 if all were added to it. Think there's another link to follow up all the queue but can't seem to remember where it is. Looking forward to see for all ECM projects yesterday picture and within 13 days. I can see some.of the heavy hitters not showing expected output so they might be holding for some of the challenge days ahead nuances

Yes, the 'gang of 31' are now 24 (after the in-progress number, 1109+, finishes), while I'd assumed 31. These are, of course, the remaining numbers from the print editions (the last higher-base number from the third edition was done last year). Just one can marginally use an algebraic factor (1139+ is planned as the /17 octic, though even at that size it can't be that much better than the sextic), and their sizes range from 338 to 361. Directly adding those difficulties, using the estimates here and the theoretical formula, makes the total of the 24 still pretty close to that of M1277, but probably a bit less. Surely, though, this depends on memory allocated for sieving, as larger numbers must benefit more from extra memory. At the current limits both would take many years; the factory approach has promise, and has been demonstrated, but would require at least as big a change as raising the limits.

Calling the limit of the exponent list 'arbitrary' was not an judgement but a fact - it has no mathematical basis. If it was established in the 1960s (before complete factorisations to that level were at all conceivable) that hardly makes it less so.

Greg doesn't post here himself, so I have no basis to predict his decision, which will be needed promptly as just that one number in progress remains.

[QUOTE=Andrew Usher;630168]Just one can marginally use an algebraic factor (1139+ is planned as the /17 octic, though even at that size it can't be that much better than the sextic)...[/quote]

I'm not aware of it being planned one way or the other. The sextic and octic will need to be carefully test-sieved when the time eventually comes to do it.

[quote]Greg doesn't post here himself...[/QUOTE]

He's made 21 posts in this thread, though you're right that he rarely gives any indication of his plans.

[QUOTE=xilman;630078]From yoyo's status page.

...

10[sup]229[/sup] curves is just plain silly. I suspect that someone put a number-to-be factored into the number-of-curves column.[/QUOTE]Looking like my tip-off to yoyo worked. Now 179 numbers are waiting in the input queue.

Two factors found so far, one of which has left a C162 runt which I will complete by GNFS.

charybdis:

Well, now I can figure out Greg's username. It seems strange that on this forum there are so many users, especially the regulars, that use a login unrelated to what they are called or would like to be called. It's as if it were some kind of secret code that one has to learn (and wasted mental effort).

Anyway, the reason for assuming 1139+ was to be done as the octic was the 'gang of 31' list on the NFS@home forum, which listed its size as though it were. I certainly don't make that stuff up.

[QUOTE=Andrew Usher;630276]charybdis:

Well, now I can figure out Greg's username. It seems strange that on this forum there are so many users, especially the regulars, that use a login unrelated to what they are called or would like to be called.[/QUOTE]

Um.

This is basically true everywhere on the Internet...

[QUOTE=Andrew Usher;630276]Anyway, the reason for assuming 1139+ was to be done as the octic was the 'gang of 31' list on the NFS@home forum, which listed its size as though it were. I certainly don't make that stuff up.[/QUOTE]

You just assume *so* much, and are mistaken so often, that one wonders how you continue to make these assumptions. Why do you think we care what your reason was for having the wrong conclusion?
How many times do you have to be mistaken before you realize that your opinions and assumptions aren't helping this forum?
You seem to think you are displaying quite a lot of knowledge and insight, but it's simply not the case. Maybe try phrasing your assumptions as questions rather than facts. It's ok to not be right all the time, and to learn from a forum- but you preach like you're an expert, when you're not.

[QUOTE=Andrew Usher;630276]t seems strange that on this forum there are so many users, especially the regulars, that use a login unrelated to what they are called or would like to be called.[/QUOTE]There are a number of good reasons which you have yet to discover.

Perhaps your ignorance may be an imagination failure?

:paul:

[QUOTE=charybdis;630169]though you're right that he rarely gives any indication of his plans.[/QUOTE]

Brave of you to assume that I plan that far in advance. :smile:

2,2278M is factored!
 

Yoyo found a p70 overnight, thereby fully factoring 2,2278M.

:party:

[QUOTE=swellman;630768]Yoyo found a p70 overnight, thereby fully factoring 2,2278M.

:party:[/QUOTE]

Yep. But why is YoYo running 2,2206L when it has been already factored?

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;630769]Yep. But why is YoYo running 2,2206L when it has been already factored?[/QUOTE]It happens. It has happened to me in the past.

There is no automatic way to remove work from yoto's work queue, nor should there be in my opinion. A mail to yoyo will generally work well but the latency can be quite long if he is busy.

Have you tried mailing him, providing the factorization as evidence of your [I]bona fides[/I]?

[QUOTE=xilman;630773]There is no automatic way to remove work from yoto's work queue, nor should there be in my opinion. A mail to yoyo will generally work well but the latency can be quite long if he is busy.[/QUOTE]

Could he configure some sort of daily or twice-daily polling of factordb.com? It's not foolproof, as factors could certainly be reported to other sites, but it seems better than nothing.

[QUOTE=mathwiz;630833]Could he configure some sort of daily or twice-daily polling of factordb.com? It's not foolproof, as factors could certainly be reported to other sites, but it seems better than nothing.[/QUOTE]No use asking here.

Why don't you mail your suggestion to hiim and report back on what transpires?

2,1109+ is done.

[PASTEBIN]hMzckbDN[/PASTEBIN]

Well, the question of Greg's plans, as far as he has them, seems to have been answered - he will go back to the easiest remaining sextics. Though octics have been done on the big siever before, they will be ignored for now (again there are 38 under 300). And 'most wanted' 10,332+ was also omitted from this round of requests - I assume it has not been overlooked.

To answer the other points in passing: genuinely it _is_ surprising to see so many 'opaque' pseudonyms - I have not noticed that elsewhere on the Internet, though I'd not be surprised that there are such places, but not where I like to read. And of course I'm not an expert - I pick up some things very quickly, but never deceive. I simply can't help being interested.

Factor #6724 purports to be a [B]72[/B]-digit factor found by ECM. Yet it is not in the ECM records page, and there has been more than enough time for them to synchronise. Who is wrong here?

I think you know the answer to that question yourself.

[SIZE="1"]There are a couple of factors from Sam on page 143 that are also big enough for the top 10. Looks like everyone's slow to submit this year :)[/SIZE]

Yes, that's what I would expect. The factors on page 143 show that it's not Zimmermann not updating causing this, but whoever is supposed to report them not doing so.

[QUOTE=Andrew Usher;632087]supposed to report them[/QUOTE]
There is clearly no obligation here. They will get picked up eventually.

[QUOTE=frmky;632111]There is clearly no obligation here. They will get picked up eventually.[/QUOTE]

Sam believes that ECM factors under 70 digits are common enough that they aren't worth reporting.

[QUOTE=Andrew Usher;632087]Yes, that's what I would expect. The factors on page 143 show that it's not Zimmermann not updating causing this, but whoever is supposed to report them not doing so.[/QUOTE]

What is "supposed to"?? Who is "supposed" to do what?

These are all completely volunteer projects.

[QUOTE=mathwiz;632132][QUOTE=Andrew Usher;632087]Yes, that's what I would expect. The factors on page 143 show that it's not Zimmermann not updating causing this, but whoever is supposed to report them not doing so.[/QUOTE]What is "supposed to"?? Who is "supposed" to do what?
<snip>[/QUOTE]The real issue is - Who is doing the supposing?

Using the passive voice ("is supposed to") is often an attempt to make a personal opinion ("I suppose" or "I think") sound like something authoritative.

:sick:

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;632150]The real issue is - Who is doing the supposing?

Using the passive voice ("is supposed to") is often an attempt to make a personal opinion ("I suppose" or "I think") sound like something authoritative.

:sick:[/QUOTE]

I suppose so.

The ECM records page (which is being updated) has always in the past been the reference for that subject, and I now notice that what apparently is the second largest factor of 2023 is missing, so that at least deserves to be noted, irrespective of who if anyone should be held responsible. The 72-digit factor (#6274) I indicated, and the 71-digit factor charybdis alluded to (#6695; actually that one is a bit strange as I'd expect a remaining c148 to go immediately to gnfs) are indisputably so (and are not less than 70 digits); the next largest factor (70 digits on 2,2278M) is on the list (from yoyo).

I am not going to nit-pick about language; I think it's clear what I meant by 'is supposed to', a phrase I did think about before using.

Given his concern, I suppose that it is Andrew's responsibility to identify and report any missing record ecm factors to Paul Z.

[QUOTE=Andrew Usher;632156]...the 71-digit factor charybdis alluded to (#6695; actually that one is a bit strange as I'd expect a remaining c148 to go immediately to gnfs)...[/QUOTE]

I don't know the precise details of Sam's ECM setup, but he's running on hundreds of cores in parallel, so it's perfectly possible that the two factors were found by different threads/machines, close enough together that the input files hadn't been updated with the first factor when the second was found.

Or alternatively Sam accidentally listed it as ECM when it was actually GNFS. To err is human.

Sam told me in a mail that he has no easy measure to move data between his ECM cluster and a machine with internet access (IIRC he needs to move the data by hand i.e. move the way between systems personally). I have once helped him to mass report medium sized factors to factorDB. So he might simply be waiting for his next usual iteration to move his data.

For what it's worth, I've reported the 72-digit factor of [URL="http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1000000000016637571"]5^593+1[/URL] to Paul Zimmermann by email, but have not heard back.

And I'll add that I did e-mail him as well - though I'm not the best person to alert him, I thought it couldn't hurt.

He replied that he 'was not aware of' the p72 factor, but would - and did - immediately add it. The other would require Wagstaff's input, as discussed.

[QUOTE=Andrew Usher;632273]He replied that he 'was not aware of' the p72 factor, but would - and did - immediately add it. The other would require Wagstaff's input, as discussed.[/QUOTE]Well done!

Please continue to report any other examples to PaulZ. No great need to post status updates here.


FWIW, I've often reported other people's results over the years.

I see that 2,2354M has entered active ECM status on Yoyo. This leaves only five CNs in the ECM queue. Ignoring the tsunami of ECM that recently occurred, it’s taking 25-30 days to process a single number, so all should be done by the end of 2023.

Any notion of where we go with the 1987 list of base-2 Cunninghams next year? Is it worth running the surviving numbers through ECM @B1=25e9 for 9900 curves in reverse order in terms of SNFS difficulty? ECM stops when we collide with Greg climbing the difficulty ladder. Otherwise I don’t know what else can be done wrt ECM.