I'll send a bunch of factors to Paul this evening.

---
Input number is 2660657371268424046196990620563520623189351007181337136720232028400559819243019280117682107185906384530384340898997793078974674821329075159196241930286309887444190399 (166 digits)
Using MODMULN
Using B1=100000000, B2=6083968236318, polynomial x^1, x0=54610346
P = 2807805, l = 2097152, s_1 = 1013760, k = s_2 = 1, m_1 = 14
Step 1 took 282750ms
Computing F from factored S_1 took 27922ms
Computing h_x and h_y took 10516ms
Computing DCT-I of h_x took 4547ms
Computing DCT-I of h_y took 4563ms
Computing g_x and g_y took 41500ms
Computing forward NTT of g_x took 4203ms
Computing point-wise product of g_x and h_x took 1250ms
Computing forward NTT of g_y took 4218ms
Computing point-wise product of g_y and h_y took 1110ms
Adding and computing inverse NTT of sum took 4281ms
Computing gcd of coefficients and N took 4641ms
Step 2 took 109578ms
********** Factor found in step 2: 243224988352232305112317280056451837596071949
Found probable prime factor of 45 digits: 243224988352232305112317280056451837596071949
Composite cofactor 10939079036629768571800937661819151834699219955489059581211244345285774096018060454710302879479580764117771383292942029051 has 122 digits
Report your potential champion to Paul Zimmermann <zimmerma@loria.fr>
(see [url]http://www.loria.fr/~zimmerma/records/Pplus1.html[/url])
---
Should I report it to Paul Zimmermann?

[quote=unconnected;182334]I'll send a bunch of factors to Paul this evening.

---
Input number is 2660657371268424046196990620563520623189351007181337136720232028400559819243019280117682107185906384530384340898997793078974674821329075159196241930286309887444190399 (166 digits)
Using MODMULN
Using B1=100000000, B2=6083968236318, polynomial x^1, x0=54610346
P = 2807805, l = 2097152, s_1 = 1013760, k = s_2 = 1, m_1 = 14
Step 1 took 282750ms
Computing F from factored S_1 took 27922ms
Computing h_x and h_y took 10516ms
Computing DCT-I of h_x took 4547ms
Computing DCT-I of h_y took 4563ms
Computing g_x and g_y took 41500ms
Computing forward NTT of g_x took 4203ms
Computing point-wise product of g_x and h_x took 1250ms
Computing forward NTT of g_y took 4218ms
Computing point-wise product of g_y and h_y took 1110ms
Adding and computing inverse NTT of sum took 4281ms
Computing gcd of coefficients and N took 4641ms
Step 2 took 109578ms
********** Factor found in step 2: 243224988352232305112317280056451837596071949
Found probable prime factor of 45 digits: 243224988352232305112317280056451837596071949
Composite cofactor 10939079036629768571800937661819151834699219955489059581211244345285774096018060454710302879479580764117771383292942029051 has 122 digits
Report your potential champion to Paul Zimmermann <zimmerma@loria.fr>
(see [URL]http://www.loria.fr/~zimmerma/records/Pplus1.html[/URL])
---
Should I report it to Paul Zimmermann?[/quote]

Yes, do! That'll be on the top 10 P+1 ever! :party:

Parsing my logs I found a nice P-1 50-digit factor:

---
Input number is 23549093754648631210910789843196185086793695973340042445802675712359154221673734826035377854456985454308218610209730366858484341386561261457782236811585267082237421807698206640150944979 (185 digits)
Using mpz_powm
Using B1=100000000, B2=4537592002678, polynomial x^1, x0=1063597130
P = 4279275, l = 1048576, s_1 = 518400, k = s_2 = 3, m_1 = 9
Probability of finding a factor of n digits:
(Use -go parameter to specify known factors in p-1)
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
0.55 0.25 0.089 0.026 0.0064 0.0014 0.00026 4.5e-005 7.1e-006 1e-006
Step 1 took 178407ms
Computing F from factored S_1 took 20078ms
Computing h took 3875ms
Computing DCT-I of h took 3047ms
Computing g_i took 13485ms
Computing g*h took 5843ms
Computing gcd of coefficients and N took 3078ms
Step 2 took 49984ms
********** Factor found in step 2: 25632609484522666087705100095145882817298988007589
Found probable prime factor of 50 digits: 25632609484522666087705100095145882817298988007589
Probable prime cofactor 918716206747030914405009912938706033116437192536610298432737637193078557821383287728591708156910091463551873995431584822396854696703511 has 135 digits
Report your potential champion to Paul Zimmermann <zimmerma@loria.fr>
(see [url]http://www.loria.fr/~zimmerma/records/Pminus1.html[/url])
---

Just for notice - I've run P-1 and P+1 with B1=10^8 and default B2 on all composites. Found ~ 40 factors from 29 to 50 digits.

[quote=unconnected;182337]Found probable prime factor of 50 digits: 25632609484522666087705100095145882817298988007589[/quote]

That's a shame - it's just outside the top 10. :sad:

[code]Number: 7+5_270
N=2657809683827125556177923016092999710631795033217499650462448234960019594544155805924413679660576015681045962081
( 112 digits)
SNFS difficulty: 121 digits.
Divisors found:
r1=310007757369843754005590339530637785871304296042041 (pp51)
r2=8573365087301089784763102621483863973303439658719924617742441 (pp61)
Version: GGNFS-0.77.1-20060722-pentium4
Total time: 2.16 hours.
Scaled time: 5.01 units (timescale=2.320).[/code]

[code]
Number: 7-5_285
N=9172056724761369257999478998593509231662992617611520161379838822122477798536425102689686496323080875510599322991
( 112 digits)
SNFS difficulty: 128 digits.
Divisors found:
r1=810875133012082893221542505291854800290503831 (pp45)
r2=11311305959884079902953445617930010995926062384825259840725368240361 (pp68)
Version: GGNFS-0.77.1-20060722-pentium4
Total time: 4.85 hours.
Scaled time: 11.24 units (timescale=2.319).
[/code]

Intrinsic factors
 

Paul, I have a question about your tables. In your page on how the tables are formatted, I note that you say that you omit algebraic factors (or at least that they're "not always given.") I always took this to mean that you didn't include factors of the algebraic part of the number, but that you did include all factors of the primitive part, same as the Cunningham tables.

However, unless I am misunderstanding something it appears that you are omitting factors of the primitive part if they are also factors of the algebraic part (such are referred to as "intrinsic factors" in the Cunningham book).

For example, 5+2,7 has an algebraic part 5+2 = 7, and a primitive part which is (5^7+2^7)/(5+2) = 11179 = 7*1597. Your table shows only the 1597.

Is that intentional?

[QUOTE=jyb;184350]Paul, I have a question about your tables. In your page on how the tables are formatted, I note that you say that you omit algebraic factors (or at least that they're "not always given.") I always took this to mean that you didn't include factors of the algebraic part of the number, but that you did include all factors of the primitive part, same as the Cunningham tables.

However, unless I am misunderstanding something it appears that you are omitting factors of the primitive part if they are also factors of the algebraic part (such are referred to as "intrinsic factors" in the Cunningham book).

For example, 5+2,7 has an algebraic part 5+2 = 7, and a primitive part which is (5^7+2^7)/(5+2) = 11179 = 7*1597. Your table shows only the 1597.

Is that intentional?[/QUOTE]

Yes, his tables omit the intrinsic prime factors.

[QUOTE=jyb;184350]Paul, I have a question about your tables. In your page on how the tables are formatted, I note that you say that you omit algebraic factors (or at least that they're "not always given.") I always took this to mean that you didn't include factors of the algebraic part of the number, but that you did include all factors of the primitive part, same as the Cunningham tables.

However, unless I am misunderstanding something it appears that you are omitting factors of the primitive part if they are also factors of the algebraic part (such are referred to as "intrinsic factors" in the Cunningham book).

For example, 5+2,7 has an algebraic part 5+2 = 7, and a primitive part which is (5^7+2^7)/(5+2) = 11179 = 7*1597. Your table shows only the 1597.

Is that intentional?[/QUOTE]As Bob notes, it is intentional. Those factors are extremely easy to find and their omission reduces the size of the tables.


On a very slightly related topic --- an update to the tables is overdue, but I'm swamped by its size right now. Over 200 new factors have appeared since the last update and, unfortunately, Real Life (tm) has take priority. I'll post updates ASAP.

Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;184366]As Bob notes, it is intentional. Those factors are extremely easy to find and their omission reduces the size of the tables.


On a very slightly related topic --- an update to the tables is overdue, but I'm swamped by its size right now. Over 200 new factors have appeared since the last update and, unfortunately, Real Life (tm) has take priority. I'll post updates ASAP.

Paul[/QUOTE]

Is Tom Womack working on 5,2,298+ and 5,4,298+ or did he forget
about them. They are the last 5,x numbers with exponent < 300.

[QUOTE=xilman;184366]As Bob notes, it is intentional. Those factors are extremely easy to find and their omission reduces the size of the tables.

Paul[/QUOTE]

Okay, thanks. BTW, I've found a number of Aurifeuillean factorizations that have been missed in your tables. I'll send them along shortly. It seems to me that the format of the tables--where there is no indication of Aurifeuillean splits--leads to a lot of unnecessarily wasted computing time. Is your ECMnet server handing out the composites for these numbers?