![]() |
|
|
#144 |
|
Oct 2004
Austria
9B216 Posts |
I have the impression that for very high ECM, newly queued composites seem to get the first place in the queue.
I noticed this as there is a c296 in the queue since Friday - and it's at the rear end of the queue. What about doing very high ECM in the order of when they come in instead of in order of their size (or whatever)? BTW: I just clicked the "run now" button for the oldest composite (which did not get any curve since March 27th, ~3 p.m.), it got ~50 curves at B1=1M before it was crowded out again. Last fiddled with by Andi47 on 2009-03-29 at 07:47 |
|
|
|
|
|
#145 | |
|
Nov 2008
2×33×43 Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#146 | |
|
Just call me Henry
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)
16F916 Posts |
Quote:
look under "Is cofactor of these non-special (user-search) numbers" it is effectively a factor of 1073*2^1073-1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#147 |
|
Oct 2004
Austria
2×17×73 Posts |
I did not *start* this number, but I clicked the "run now" button because it's the oldest number in the queue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#148 |
|
Oct 2004
Austria
1001101100102 Posts |
BTW: The queue is growing quickly, I expect it to finish in mid-april...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#149 | |
|
Nov 2008
2×33×43 Posts |
Quote:
Edit: And someone (probably that person) has clicked "stop" on the C95 I was working on. ![]() I wonder: why doesn't someone make tables for 2^n+-k? I know Serge Batalov has worked on 2^n-3 (not sure about 2^n+3), but the rest are all open AFAIK. Last fiddled with by 10metreh on 2009-03-29 at 08:25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#150 | |
|
Just call me Henry
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)
588110 Posts |
Quote:
the composites will clear out eventually |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#151 | |
|
"Sander"
Oct 2002
52.345322,5.52471
29×41 Posts |
Quote:
![]() I thought you were the one that 1200 x B1=1M was to much for a c95? Last fiddled with by smh on 2009-03-29 at 08:37 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#152 | |
|
Oct 2004
Austria
2×17×73 Posts |
Quote:
Edit: Sometimes I see numbers which have more than one p-1 run with the same bounds. The P-1 method finds a factor p in the first run iff the penultimate factor of p-1 is smaller than B1 and the largest factor of p-1 is smaller than B2. So a second run at the same (or even lower) bounds is useless. P+1 finds a factor p if the largest two factors of p+1 "fit into" the B1 and B2 bounds. However, for reasons explained here, a p+1 run turns out actually be a p-1 run with a probability of 50%, so it does make sense to do more than one p+1 run with the same bounds. Last fiddled with by Andi47 on 2009-03-29 at 09:00 Reason: p-1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#153 |
|
"Sander"
Oct 2002
52.345322,5.52471
4A516 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#154 |
|
Nov 2008
2·33·43 Posts |
When you can fit a t35 into 1/4 of the sieving time (or less), that doesn't really apply!
Last fiddled with by 10metreh on 2009-03-29 at 09:16 |
|
|
|
![]() |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Database for k-b-b's: | 3.14159 | Miscellaneous Math | 325 | 2016-04-09 17:45 |
| Factoring database issues | Mini-Geek | Factoring | 5 | 2009-07-01 11:51 |
| database.zip | HiddenWarrior | Data | 1 | 2004-03-29 03:53 |
| Database layout | Prime95 | PrimeNet | 1 | 2003-01-18 00:49 |
| Is there a performance database? | Joe O | Lounge | 35 | 2002-09-06 20:19 |