[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;348911]Sam seems not to have received either factor. Someone should let Bos et.al.
know so they can discontinue their NFS work on M1051.[/QUOTE]

These results from Ryan were truly awesome. Does anyone know if he
has discussed the extent of his ECM efforts? What (other) numbers has he attempted? What limits is he using?

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;350214]These results from Ryan were truly awesome. Does anyone know if he
has discussed the extent of his ECM efforts? What (other) numbers has he attempted? What limits is he using?[/QUOTE]

Perhaps Ryan himself can reply? (If he is listening, of course)

[QUOTE=Batalov;348884]See [url]http://factordb.com/index.php?query=2%5E1067-1[/url]
(and if you click on the p68 and the on "More information", it will be reported that it was added sometime on the 4th of Aug., but not "who done it.")

By the MOA (and size), this factor seems to be also Ryan's.

Ryan, the Paul Zimmermann's [URL="http://www.loria.fr/~zimmerma/ecmnet/facform.html"]report form[/URL] is easy to use and gets instantly seen by other interested parties. Your last p70 seems to have been inserted by someone else, and that someone forgot to report the sigma value - see [URL="http://www.loria.fr/~zimmerma/cgi-bin/last.cgi?date"]bottom of this list[/URL].[/QUOTE]

OK, Sam has this p68 factor of 2,1067- but the cgi-report at
ECMNET is badly garbled. I'm sure PaulZ would be happy to fix
it if ryanp requests a correction, but less certain he'd accept
a correction from one of us (3 most recent posters).

Sometimes the cgi garbles the report, or mis-reads an end-of-line
as a send; depending on browser. I've had to request that PaulZ
fix some of mine. This one, line 998, 68-digits, p68=24337...
ends at "^" instead of "2^1067-". We know it's Ryan's from
Sam's report.

Correcting the ECMNET report should put this p68 in 10th on the
Top10, replacing an out-dated p67. I suppose we can hope for
three more p7x's before 2014; but this p68 deserves it's spot on
the front page? A Very nice factorization, missed by epfl.

-BDodson

@Serge - does Ryan have another unreported p7x ecm factor, from
one of the non-Cunningham projects? There was a mention on one
of the forum threads, but I don't recall where.

I really have no way of knowing.

I only see Ryan reading these posts (every once in a while) and posting (even rarer), but if I ever see anything, then that is always on Paul's and Sam's sites, and on factordb. Paul's report form is interesting: it suggests
[QUOTE]Factor: [________________________________________]
All remaining fields are optional.
...[/QUOTE]
So someone reported just the factor for 2^1067-1 but not the associated data.

[QUOTE=Batalov;350585]I really have no way of knowing.

I only see Ryan reading these posts (every once in a while) and posting (even rarer), but if I ever see anything, then that is always on Paul's and Sam's sites, and on factordb. Paul's report form is interesting: it suggests

So someone reported just the factor for 2^1067-1 but not the associated data.[/QUOTE]

Has Ryan been on vacation? It's been ~3 weeks since his last result.

Wanted Lists?
 

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;352347]Has Ryan been on vacation? It's been ~3 weeks since his last result.[/QUOTE]

Sam put 1093 on the wanted list, but skipped 2^1081-1.

Is something happening with the latter number that hasn't been reported?

Holy <censored> Amazing!!!!
 

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;353229]Sam put 1093 on the wanted list, but skipped 2^1081-1.

Is something happening with the latter number that hasn't been reported?[/QUOTE]

It seems that Bos & Co. have signed up to do all of the remaining
Cunningham 2- table except M991.

They must have some serious source of hardware!!!!

A daunting undertaking... I wish them luck and success.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;353606]It seems that Bos & Co. have signed up to do all of the remaining
Cunningham 2- table except M991.

They must have some serious source of hardware!!!!

A daunting undertaking... I wish them luck and success.[/QUOTE]

Would anyone like to start a betting pool on a completion date for their
efforts?

Well, maybe there is a breakthrough in the air that we've been waiting for.

If they plan to do all of these in reasonable time, then there must be. And we know at least two things about them: 1. they are not from the "running other people's software and proud of it" crowd, 2. they will not give away academic results by talking too soon about them.

I guess we will have to wait and read all about it in a proper publication in due time.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;353606]It seems that Bos & Co. have signed up to do all of the remaining
Cunningham 2- table except M991.

They must have some serious source of hardware!!!!

A daunting undertaking... I wish them luck and success.[/QUOTE]Hmmm...

I'll see what I can glean, which is not likely to be very much. Even if I do discover something I may think it may be wiser not to say anything about it.

Thinking out of the box:
Might there be a benefit of, say, sieving all of them at once? (And maybe not on conventional hardware.)