User TJAOI

[Mark Rose]

Originally Posted by Gordon

Which brings us back to the earlier discussion on another thread, when you look up a detailed report for an exponent and it says factored to whatever, say 61-63 and 66-67 how do we know the 63-66 was actually done?

With no factor found, there is no guarantee any trial factoring was actually done. I'm happy to let TJAOI do the double checking.

[alpertron]

TJAOI has just finished the 60-bit range. The latest prime factor posted was the third known of M876822497, which has 59.99999906... bits.

[flagrantflowers]

New missed factors from TJAOI 2^62->63

7763923
8154967
8613757
10635311
17458547
17458939
17977189
25257509

[LaurV]

Very interesting!
Did he report any 61 and 62 (new or not) in the past?
If yes, it would mean he indeed has a lot of power (this we knew, or we guessed) and indeed there are no factors for the exponents under 1M still standing at below 62 (this we also guessed, from the qty of ECM done in the range).
Anyhow, very well done sir! (or madam!)

[ixfd64]

It's interesting to note that P-1 missed some of those factors as well.

[Mark Rose]

I hope Madpoo can dig in the database to see who did the bad TF work revealed by TJAOI so we can redo it.

[LaurV]

The "under 64 bits" is extremely old. No much info in the DB.

[flagrantflowers]

Originally Posted by LaurV

Very interesting!
Did he report any 61 and 62 (new or not) in the past?
If yes, it would mean he indeed has a lot of power (this we knew, or we guessed) and indeed there are no factors for the exponents under 1M still standing at below 62 (this we also guessed, from the qty of ECM done in the range).
Anyhow, very well done sir! (or madam!)

2^61->62 was posted previously, I'm sure someone with database access can find the factors. It is hard to catch the new factors because he randomly posts an entire bit range in one day sometime during the 2.5 months it takes to complete the lower bit range (2^60->61 in this case).

It seems like we are doing better (in terms of lower number of factors missed) in the higher bit ranges as there are far fewer missed factors than in previous bit levels.

[LaurV]

Originally Posted by flagrantflowers

It seems like we are doing better (in terms of lower number of factors missed) in the higher bit ranges as there are far fewer missed factors than in previous bit levels.

Yes, the most "missed" factors are at those levels when switching in the factoring strategy took place, and when the GPUs were coming to the fray. After that, the things settled down quite well. Also, there were some small DB loses in the past, when the server was a kitchen computer of George or Scott. This will not happen again with the "modern" technology that Madpoo brought with him.

[Anonuser]

To the best of my knowledge, these are the exponents that were cleared by TJAOI on 2015-11-10:

17752381 18954283 88611311 113264699 118267993 124662107 129637633
132377899 147603019 153177001 156526709 258027433 259223183 262371673
271188067 272787133 347735981 363497933 389858333 404610257 404752757
408480547 413684021 483002071 502849973 748313857 750992279 764961493
767952631 773432089 775502261 807755071 828190291 838920359 864660197
887985589 906071891 906145843 912356857 917434033 925044559 991185421

[Madpoo]

Originally Posted by LaurV

This will not happen again with the "modern" technology that Madpoo brought with him.

I don't know what you're talking about... I have the website running on my smartphone in my back pocket... you didn't think it was a modern server in a datacenter, did you?

(now that I think about it, in a few more years that would be a likely scenario)