Updated list, Cunningham numbers < 768 bits:

5- : 317, 323
6- : 283
6+ : 284, 292
7- : 263, 269, 271
7+ : 268

[QUOTE=philmoore;100264]Updated list, Cunningham numbers < 768 bits:

5- : 317, 323
6- : 283
6+ : 284, 292
7- : 263, 269, 271
7+ : 268[/QUOTE]

Yup! Let's get them finished... A nice goal for NFSNET perhaps??????

For at least the time being I can't help as I have (virtually) no resources.
They total just a single PC and a laptop. [plus another PC some weekends]

An alternate goal might be to finish base 2 to 800 bits?????

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;100377]Yup! Let's get them finished... A nice goal for NFSNET perhaps??????[/QUOTE]Sounds good to me.

Paul

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;100377]
An alternate goal might be to finish base 2 to 800 bits?????[/QUOTE]

Another objective (not an alternate) would be to clear difficulty < 230.

Of course 768-bits assures difficulty < 234, but the nine remaining
are very closely grouped in difficulty, at 220 (6,283-) to difficulty
229 (7, 271-).

The two c16x's (7,263- c161 and 6,284+ c168) have had 2*t50,
and are presumably ready for sieving.

The three in c170-c189 are still running, and also at 2*t50.

Looks like two in c190-c219, and two more at c224, c225. These
are still just at 1.0*t50; suppose I could paste the four of them onto
the c170-c189, difficulty above 220 list. Not that we ought to expect
any factors; this is "ecm pretesting", rather than "ecm factoring".

Bruce ("Son, Native Oregon-born" ... A carpet-bagger then at UofO
was interviewing here, and introduced me to the term: snob. Didn't
seem very impressed with PA either.)