What's next?
 

So, by the looks of things, we'll have reached the goal for 3_491P easily by the end of the month. Then what?

Also, out of curiousity, how are things going with the factorization of 10_223P and 11_206P? The nfsnet website home page said the linear algebra could be done by the middle of June, but I haven't found any more current info.

[QUOTE=scottsaxman]
Also, out of curiousity, how are things going with the factorization of 10_223P and 11_206P? The nfsnet website home page said the linear algebra could be done by the middle of June, but I haven't found any more current info.[/QUOTE]

They have been factorized. Check the sticky threads at the top of the forum.

[QUOTE=scottsaxman]So, by the looks of things, we'll have reached the goal for 3_491P easily by the end of the month. Then what?

Also, out of curiousity, how are things going with the factorization of 10_223P and 11_206P? The nfsnet website home page said the linear algebra could be done by the middle of June, but I haven't found any more current info.[/QUOTE]

I'd like to see some numbers from the 2+ table(s) done. These tables
have lagged behind others. Possible targets include

2, 709+, 2,716+, 2, 719+, 2,736+, 2,764+, 2,772+ although the first 3 may be a little small.

Other possibilities include the first two holes in the 2- table: M739, & M743.

I intend to do 2,667+, 2,689+ and 2,697+ as soon as I finish 2,1238L (80%
sieved) and 2,1262L. But I only have a very small number of machines (6).

There are also 3 numbers on the 'Most Wanted' list that have been there
for quite a while: 7,232+, 7,233+, and 6,251+, although these may be
a little small as well. Paul Leyland is doing the last number with exponent
less than 200: 11,199-. :banana: :banana:

[QUOTE=Bob Silverman] Paul Leyland is doing the last number with exponent less than 200: 11,199-.[/QUOTE]

Actually, Paul reserved that number for NFSNET. It is going to be our next number.

[QUOTE=Wacky]Actually, Paul reserved that number for NFSNET. It is going to be our next number.[/QUOTE]

Hi,

Will you use x^5 - 11 or 11x^6 - 1? The latter should be better.

Bob

Yes, we will be using the 6th degree polynomial.

[QUOTE=Bob Silverman]I'd like to see some numbers from the 2+ table(s) done. These tables
have lagged behind others. Possible targets include

2, 709+, 2,716+, 2, 719+, 2,736+, 2,764+, 2,772+ although the first 3 may be a little small.[/QUOTE]

I'm currently doing 3,437+.c190, but I only have 5 machines to help sieving. Nevertheless I should finish that in about 3 weeks. After that I would like to have a swing at 2,709+ :smile:


Jes Hansen

[QUOTE=JHansen]I'm currently doing 3,437+.c190, but I only have 5 machines to help sieving. Nevertheless I should finish that in about 3 weeks. After that I would like to have a swing at 2,709+ :smile:


Jes Hansen[/QUOTE]

Hi,

What machines are you using? They seem a lot faster than mine. (1 GHz
Pentium III's).

Bob

[QUOTE=Bob Silverman]Hi,

What machines are you using? They seem a lot faster than mine. (1 GHz
Pentium III's).

Bob[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure they are. :smile:

I'm using the idle time on our servers at the math dept. As far as I can recall they are a two-processor 1GHz and a four-processor 2GHz machine (I'm using the last processor for a ECM run :smile: ). Usualy there are a lot of other using them, so my available processing power is very fluctuating. However, since our summer holliday lasts until september, there aren't that many users right now.

I'm using Frankes lattice sievers with CWI post-processing tools, maybe that has some influence too?


Jes

what's the estimated time for 11,199- ?
in what using the 6th degree polynomial is better then the 5th ? it takes less time ?

[QUOTE=junky]what's the estimated time for 11,199- ?
in what using the 6th degree polynomial is better then the 5th ? it takes less time ?[/QUOTE]
Estimated time: I don't know at the moment.

Now that we no longer have access to the cluster at Microsoft Research to run the linear algebra, I chose parameters for 11,199- which will make the matrix much smaller than would normally be the case but at the cost of requiring more sieving effort. There is no point in sieving rapidly if as a result we would have a matrix that could not be processed with the resources available.

The sextic polynomial does indeed make for less sieving than the quintic. This holds true irrespective of whether one optimizes for matrix size of sieving effort.


Paul