[quote=Batalov;171851]I can see that Ben[sup]2[/sup] is viciously hacking up the shrinking list.
The end is near!
The end is near! :smile:

(...and Paul knows it)[/quote]

Heh, I was wondering if anyone would notice :smile:. Averaging 2 a day in the difficulty 185 range...

Just found this one in the "update" page:

[code]3+2 461 C212 19449309718253977881711600645435744624092239929500328803.P157 B Buhrow MPQS 2009-03-02
[/code]

MPQS? How many centuries did this take? :wink:

(I guess, this should read "SNFS".)

[QUOTE=Andi47;171929]Just found this one in the "update" page:

[code]3+2 461 C212 19449309718253977881711600645435744624092239929500328803.P157 B Buhrow MPQS 2009-03-02
[/code]

MPQS? How many centuries did this take? :wink:

(I guess, this should read "SNFS".)[/QUOTE]Yes, it was a typo and Ben had already notified me.

It has been corrected in the update posted a few minutes ago.

There are now 68 composites left in the tables. Extensions are in preparation but won't be posted until the number of composites in the existing tables falls below 50.

As always, my thanks to those who have contributed factorizations and corrected my errors.


Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;172111]There are now 68 composites left in the tables. Extensions are in preparation but won't be posted until the number of composites in the existing tables falls below 50.[/QUOTE] A few more have arrived since that posting, together with a correction from Batalov --- he factored 3+2,494 and not bsquared as I had erroneously claimed.

Following a suggestion from Bob, I intend to refrain from posting extended files until all the existing composites with exponent below 175 have been completed. There are thirteen of these, one of which is the small C113 from 11+5,142. I'm sure that one must have been done (its absence has been mentioned earlier in the thread) but I don't seem to have been sent the factors.

This requirement is in addition to the earlier one that the number of composites fall below 50.

Note that 68-13 = 55 > 50 so the additional requirement should not be too onerous.


Paul

Has anyone been in contact with Hugo Platzer or Volokitin M? They both have (longstanding) reservations on a few of these numbers.

[QUOTE=bsquared;172599]Has anyone been in contact with Hugo Platzer or Volokitin M? They both have (longstanding) reservations on a few of these numbers.[/QUOTE]


I am doing one of those numbers now. (exponent 169).

It takes me a while. I only use a single, 9 yr-old PC.

[QUOTE=xilman;172598]A few more have arrived since that posting, together with a correction from Batalov --- he factored 3+2,494 and not bsquared as I had erroneously claimed.

Following a suggestion from Bob, I intend to refrain from posting extended files until all the existing composites with exponent below 175 have been completed. There are thirteen of these, one of which is the small C113 from 11+5,142. I'm sure that one must have been done (its absence has been mentioned earlier in the thread) but I don't seem to have been sent the factors.

This requirement is in addition to the earlier one that the number of composites fall below 50.

Note that 68-13 = 55 > 50 so the additional requirement should not be too onerous.


Paul[/QUOTE]I just grabbed 11^172+9^172 for finishing with SNFS. It should take me only a few days, so even the IGG people could join in on tasks of this magnitude. It has SNFS difficulty of 179 and GNFS of 139.

Paul

Finishing them off
 

I just started 10,3,178+

I dunno why. I'm not really eager to see a fresh set of composites, as they would just be more stuff to factor. Which is okay, I guess.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;173856]I just started 10,3,178+

I dunno why. I'm not really eager to see a fresh set of composites, as they would just be more stuff to factor. Which is okay, I guess.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...[/QUOTE]Fine by me. I just make them available and try to keep the tables up to date. I very rarely find any hard factorizations.

There are two numbers which have been reserved for a distressingly large time, these being 11,3,163+ and 11,7,167+. Not that I'm suggesting poaching them or anything ...


Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;173880]
There are two numbers which have been reserved for a distressingly large time, these being 11,3,163+ and 11,7,167+. Not that I'm suggesting poaching them or anything ...
[/QUOTE]
It would really be a shame if someone accidentally ran a lattice siever which was coincidentally set to find smooth ideals on the algebraic side, and smooth integers on the rational side for these. Most unfortunate.

I'll try my best to avoid doing that today, but I can't be sure I won't make a couple of typos and stumble into these two. Regrettable if it happens, but I make no guarantees. Force majeure.

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;173908]It would really be a shame if someone accidentally ran a lattice siever which was coincidentally set to find smooth ideals on the algebraic side, and smooth integers on the rational side for these. Most unfortunate.

I'll try my best to avoid doing that today, but I can't be sure I won't make a couple of typos and stumble into these two. Regrettable if it happens, but I make no guarantees. Force majeure.[/QUOTE]


I poached the other number. 11,6,169+

169 (1,13) 3719.37738395576024549674240219370859785852704025451594849591764977.20411973783510800200510140566436916387024360021947197745751583322516124463907903869372621082378967