ECM on numbers with known factors - Page 2

Batalov · 2014-04-25, 00:39

Have you modified the line already after you started the test?
If so, this would be the reason.

A running P95 process:
1) does not re-read the worktodo.txt file (if it is modified while the program is running). In fact, if you modify the worktodo.txt, save it, then stop P95 and then check what is in the worktodo.txt file, you will find that it will be restored to what it was before, when P95 was started. This is done from P95 memory at the moment when it is stopped. This is unusual for new users, but once you learn this feature, you can live with it.
2) can use the intermediate save files (the "m" and "e" files) from the run before this one (and the save file doesn't know that you changed the worktodo line, and will continue from the earlier state, i.e. without the listed factors). Solution: remove these files (or move them to another directory).

I have just run your line as is in P95 several times. The known factors were not found even once (which is just what one would expect).

P.S. In fact,
ECM found a factor in curve #22, stage #2
Sigma=3698465552502853, B1=50000, B2=5000000.
M119923 has a factor: 68966518357695541070447 (ECM curve 22, B1=50000, B2=5000000)

lycorn · 2014-04-25, 01:04

Why running ECM on numbers with already known factors if we still have so many numbers without any known factors? Wouldn´t it make more sense to run ECM on those?

Batalov · 2014-04-25, 01:09

Maybe he wants to beat NOOE's PRP records? Who knows?

Just in case,

Code:

[Thu Apr 24 18:11:39 2014]
M119923/known_factors is not prime.  RES64: 3977ECB8E69C84AE. We4: F49D9B33,00000000
Known factors used for PRP test were: 1918769,8047312993,5783659875377,68966518357695541070447

Miszka · 2014-04-25, 03:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Batalov

Have you modified the line already after you started the test?
If so, this would be the reason.

No, absolutely no

Quote:

Originally Posted by Batalov

ECM found a factor in curve #22, stage #2
Sigma=3698465552502853, B1=50000, B2=5000000.
M119923 has a factor: 68966518357695541070447 (ECM curve 22, B1=50000, B2=5000000)

My congratulations!
It was not successful me

Batalov · 2014-04-25, 04:51

It was simply a free by-product of the test that I ran for you.

I agree with lycorn about ECMing numbers without known factors, if ECM is what one likes to run.

2014-04-25, 00:39	#12
Batalov "Serge" Mar 2008 Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2 2×47×101 Posts	Have you modified the line already after you started the test? If so, this would be the reason. A running P95 process: 1) does not re-read the worktodo.txt file (if it is modified while the program is running). In fact, if you modify the worktodo.txt, save it, then stop P95 and then check what is in the worktodo.txt file, you will find that it will be restored to what it was before, when P95 was started. This is done from P95 memory at the moment when it is stopped. This is unusual for new users, but once you learn this feature, you can live with it. 2) can use the intermediate save files (the "m" and "e" files) from the run before this one (and the save file doesn't know that you changed the worktodo line, and will continue from the earlier state, i.e. without the listed factors). Solution: remove these files (or move them to another directory). I have just run your line as is in P95 several times. The known factors were not found even once (which is just what one would expect). P.S. In fact, ECM found a factor in curve #22, stage #2 Sigma=3698465552502853, B1=50000, B2=5000000. M119923 has a factor: 68966518357695541070447 (ECM curve 22, B1=50000, B2=5000000) Last fiddled with by Batalov on 2014-04-25 at 01:02

2014-04-25, 01:09	#14
Batalov "Serge" Mar 2008 Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2 2×47×101 Posts	Maybe he wants to beat NOOE's PRP records? Who knows? Just in case, Code: [Thu Apr 24 18:11:39 2014] M119923/known_factors is not prime. RES64: 3977ECB8E69C84AE. We4: F49D9B33,00000000 Known factors used for PRP test were: 1918769,8047312993,5783659875377,68966518357695541070447 Last fiddled with by Batalov on 2014-04-25 at 01:12

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Does anyone track factors for Bernoulli numbers?	VBCurtis	And now for something completely different	1	2015-02-08 02:45
what's the meaning of the numbers in the FACTORS.CMP	wreck	Software	2	2006-08-30 04:46
Random numbers and proper factors	mfgoode	Math	20	2006-02-05 02:09
Factors of Mersenne Numbers	asdf	Math	17	2004-07-24 14:00
Factors of Mersenne numbers ?	Fusion_power	Math	13	2003-10-28 20:52

2014-04-25, 01:04	#13
lycorn "GIMFS" Sep 2002 Oeiras, Portugal 5C1₁₆ Posts	Why running ECM on numbers with already known factors if we still have so many numbers without any known factors? Wouldn´t it make more sense to run ECM on those?

2014-04-25, 04:51	#16
Batalov "Serge" Mar 2008 Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2 2·47·101 Posts	It was simply a free by-product of the test that I ran for you. I agree with lycorn about ECMing numbers without known factors, if ECM is what one likes to run.