Base 2 to 768 bits
 

Hi,

An ECM "near" miss:

2,1526L C191 = p53.p138

p53 = 81100940490524995434296633553178345665740792232320957
p138 = 189340478259936307556926821084538798956773594080872930492012919670535867070173114738309353256564597114834763985330229063415837545856579093

This finishes ALL of base 2 to 768 bits.

The linear algebra for 5,314+ is in progress and 6,281- is sieving.

> This finishes ALL of base 2 to 768 bits.

Very nice effort! :bow:

Alex

[quote=akruppa;89080]Very nice effort! :bow:[/quote]
That's just a nice effort bow.

This is a [B]very[/B] nice effort bow:

:bow wave:

nice "hot" effort ! :joe o:
what is your next milestone with the tables?

[QUOTE=Phil MjX;89107]What is your next milestone with the tables?[/QUOTE]
All the Cunningham numbers of less than 768 bits are now base 5, 6, or 7, with only 18 entries left. And it looks like work has already started on seven or eight of these numbers. I started ECM on Cunningham numbers six years ago, and am amazed at the progress made since then. :bow: :wacky: :bow:

[QUOTE=philmoore;89396]All the Cunningham numbers of less than 768 bits are now base 5, 6, or 7, with only 18 entries left. And it looks like work has already started on seven or eight of these numbers. I started ECM on Cunningham numbers six years ago, and am amazed at the progress made since then. :bow: :wacky: :bow:[/QUOTE]

Two of these (5,319- and 5,329-) are rather easy.

[QUOTE=Phil MjX;89107]nice "hot" effort ! :joe o:
what is your next milestone with the tables?[/QUOTE]

Nothing specific. Just to work on numbers that accessible with
my resources. Numbers among the first 5 holes get preference.

I'm thinking about 5,319- right now...

Alex

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;89419]Two of these (5,319- and 5,329-) are rather easy.[/QUOTE]

P.S. You left out 10,229+.

[QUOTE=philmoore;89396]All the Cunningham numbers of less than 768 bits are now base 5, 6, or 7, with only 18 entries left. And it looks like work has already started on seven or eight of these numbers. I started ECM on Cunningham numbers six years ago, and am amazed at the progress made since then. :bow: :wacky: :bow:[/QUOTE]


Progress in the last 6 years has been nothing relative to the progress made
in the period 1983-1989.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;89427]P.S. You left out 10,229+.[/QUOTE]
So I did, thanks for the correction.

5- : 311, 313, 317, 319, 323, 329
5+ : 311, 313, 314
6- : 281, 283
6+ : 283, 284, 292
7- : 263, 269, 271
7+ : 268
10+ : 229