"Adopt a Level"
 

[QUOTE=lavalamp;251094]In reality though, 1 candidate is already at 82 bits, and there are 14 candidates at 81 bits, and 16 candidates at 80 bits.

Taking one of the 80 bit candidates to 81 bits, and then taking all the 81's to 82 would take 47,616 minutes or 33 days, assuming no factors are found along the way. There is approximately a 17.84% chance that a factor would be found.[/QUOTE]
lavalamp,

What amazes me is the thought that now a single person could take OBD to the next level all by him/herself in a reasonable amount of time. Shows you how much computing power has increased in the last decade or so. It'd take many years for my PII to do the same thing.

And several successive levels could be reached the same way, still within a time frame short enough for the contributor to remember at the end of it what he was using that program for. :wink:

Maybe some of the participants with faster processors would like to approach their work this way -- "Adopt an OBD Level." It would take little more coordinating to ensure that no two people take the same level, than it does to make sure that two people don't take the same exponent.

Rodrigo

[QUOTE=Rodrigo;251141]lavalamp,

What amazes me is the thought that now a single person could take OBD to the next level all by him/herself in a reasonable amount of time. Shows you how much computing power has increased in the last decade or so. It'd take many years for my PII to do the same thing.

And several successive levels could be reached the same way, still within a time frame short enough for the contributor to remember at the end of it what he was using that program for. :wink:

Maybe some of the participants with faster processors would like to approach their work this way -- "Adopt an OBD Level." It would take little more coordinating to ensure that no two people take the same level, than it does to make sure that two people don't take the same exponent.

Rodrigo[/QUOTE]
...or you could even have multiple people "adopting" the same level (one or a few exponents at a time). That way it would finish even faster. :smile:

[QUOTE=Rodrigo;251141]What amazes me is the thought that now a single person could take OBD to the next level all by him/herself in a reasonable amount of time. Shows you how much computing power has increased in the last decade or so. It'd take many years for my PII to do the same thing.[/QUOTE]There was an attempt recently to co-ordinate the level work. 16 exponents at 76 (or higher if there are no more at 76) would be taken to 82. Then 17 at 76 (or whatever is the current lowest unfactored in the classic range (3321928097 to 3321933971)) taken to 83. And continue. There are 103 exponents still unfactored in that range 38 at 76 (enough for level 16 then 17).
Here is what that would look like (assuming no factors found, for ease of calculation.)[attach]6182[/attach]

Maybe something like that would do.

here is my daily bunch
no factor for M3321932359 from 2^76 to 2^77 [mfaktc 0.14-Win barrett79_mul32]
no factor for M3321932161 from 2^76 to 2^77 [mfaktc 0.14-Win barrett79_mul32]
no factor for M3321932143 from 2^76 to 2^77 [mfaktc 0.14-Win barrett79_mul32]
no factor for M3321932123 from 2^76 to 2^77 [mfaktc 0.14-Win barrett79_mul32]
no factor for M3321932111 from 2^76 to 2^77 [mfaktc 0.14-Win barrett79_mul32]
no factor for M3321932869 from 2^76 to 2^77 [mfaktc 0.14-Win barrett79_mul32]
no factor for M3321932567 from 2^76 to 2^77 [mfaktc 0.14-Win barrett79_mul32]
no factor for M3321932491 from 2^76 to 2^77 [mfaktc 0.14-Win barrett79_mul32]

I'll wait a few day to see if anyone want to deal with the 76-77 level. Otherwise, I'll resume monday.

i double-checked the already factored 3321934000+

[quote]
found 1 factor(s) for M3321934069 from 2^ 1 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.14-Win 75bit_mul32]
found 1 factor(s) for M3321934081 from 2^ 1 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.14-Win 75bit_mul32]
found 3 factor(s) for M3321934097 from 2^ 1 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.14-Win 75bit_mul32]
found 1 factor(s) for M3321934211 from 2^ 1 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.14-Win 75bit_mul32]
found 1 factor(s) for M3321934223 from 2^ 1 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.14-Win 75bit_mul32]
found 2 factor(s) for M3321934237 from 2^ 1 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.14-Win 75bit_mul32]
found 1 factor(s) for M3321934271 from 2^ 1 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.14-Win 75bit_mul32]
found 1 factor(s) for M3321934391 from 2^ 1 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.14-Win 75bit_mul32]
found 2 factor(s) for M3321934433 from 2^ 1 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.14-Win 75bit_mul32]
found 2 factor(s) for M3321934463 from 2^ 1 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.14-Win 75bit_mul32]
found 2 factor(s) for M3321934471 from 2^ 1 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.14-Win 75bit_mul32]
found 1 factor(s) for M3321934591 from 2^ 1 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.14-Win 75bit_mul32]
found 1 factor(s) for M3321934687 from 2^ 1 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.14-Win 75bit_mul32]
found 1 factor(s) for M3321934739 from 2^ 1 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.14-Win 75bit_mul32]
found 4 factor(s) for M3321934751 from 2^ 1 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.14-Win 75bit_mul32]
found 3 factor(s) for M3321934769 from 2^ 1 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.14-Win 75bit_mul32]
found 1 factor(s) for M3321934807 from 2^ 1 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.14-Win 75bit_mul32]
found 3 factor(s) for M3321934817 from 2^ 1 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.14-Win 75bit_mul32]
found 1 factor(s) for M3321934849 from 2^ 1 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.14-Win 75bit_mul32]
found 1 factor(s) for M3321934907 from 2^ 1 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.14-Win 75bit_mul32]
found 2 factor(s) for M3321934937 from 2^ 1 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.14-Win 75bit_mul32]
found 1 factor(s) for M3321934403 from 2^60 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.14-Win 75bit_mul32]
found 1 factor(s) for M3321934579 from 2^60 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.14-Win 75bit_mul32]
found 1 factor(s) for M3321934633 from 2^60 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.14-Win 75bit_mul32]
found 2 factor(s) for M3321934709 from 2^60 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.14-Win 75bit_mul32]
found 1 factor(s) for M3321934741 from 2^60 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.14-Win 75bit_mul32]
found 1 factor(s) for M3321934843 from 2^60 to 2^71 [mfaktc 0.14-Win 75bit_mul32]
[/quote]
as you can see, no 'new' factor found

[QUOTE=mdettweiler;251158]...or you could even have multiple people "adopting" the same level (one or a few exponents at a time). That way it would finish even faster. :smile:[/QUOTE]
mdettweiler,

That would work, too.

Any takers out there, from those who have fast enough processors? Meanwhile, the rest of us (like me) can keep toiling in obscurity bringing exponents to the mid-70s.

Rodrigo

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;251199]There was an attempt recently to co-ordinate the level work. 16 exponents at 76 (or higher if there are no more at 76) would be taken to 82. Then 17 at 76 (or whatever is the current lowest unfactored in the classic range (3321928097 to 3321933971)) taken to 83. And continue. There are 103 exponents still unfactored in that range 38 at 76 (enough for level 16 then 17).
Here is what that would look like (assuming no factors found, for ease of calculation.)[attach]6182[/attach]

Maybe something like that would do.[/QUOTE]
Uncwilly,

Cool table, thanks!

How did that project go? I guess it didn't really, since I hadn't heard of it till now? Curious how much of a response the idea got.

I would just get up and say, OK, I'm taking the following 17 exponents to 83 bits (or whatever) myself -- if I had a fast enough processor. (Hmm, tempting...)

Rodrigo

aaaannnnnnnd... no new factor....

attached is the result file

[QUOTE=firejuggler;251436]aaaannnnnnnd... no new factor....

attached is the result file[/QUOTE]

I don't see where anybody has done M3321934097 from 2^70 to 2^71

William

Nice catch.

In the interests of closing the gap between the stats, Pat83 reserved this exponent on 21st Jan:[QUOTE=Pat83;247882]it seems that M3321934379 has been taken so i start M3321934951 from 79 to 80.[/QUOTE]

And can't you let gjmccrac and Rodrigo share credit for the factor in the same way that Uncwilly & ATH share credit for four factors?

[QUOTE=wblipp;251489]I don't see where anybody has done M3321934097 from 2^70 to 2^71

William[/QUOTE]
my mistake. will do.

here
no factor for M3321934097 from 2^70 to 2^71 [mfaktc 0.14-Win barrett79_mul32]