Exponents with only high TF work

[mattmill30]

Is there minimum starting TF for expontents of different ranges?

I've noticed that both 332210677 and 332229943 have only been factored from ^68 and the latter doesn't have a P-1, but have now been assigned for LL-100M; whilst 75683039 and 73511407 have a complete TF history and have been assigned for LL-NF.

Also, would 332210677 and 332229943 qualify for LL-NF since they don't have a complete TF history and the latter doesn't have a P-1?

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by mattmill30

Is there minimum starting TF for expontents of different ranges?

I've noticed that both 332210677 and 332229943 have only been factored from ^68 and the latter doesn't have a P-1, but have now been assigned for LL-100M; whilst 75683039 and 73511407 have a complete TF history and have been assigned for LL-NF.

Also, would 332210677 and 332229943 qualify for LL-NF since they don't have a complete TF history and the latter doesn't have a P-1?

in theory yes in that 2p+1 is the minimum a mersenne factor ( assuming the mersenne number itself in question is composite) can be and this grows as p grows. however I do see that in theory the minimum factor possible for those 332 M exponents should be about 30 bits at last check. anyways I'm not going to start another k discussion there are many already. edit: this assumes a prime exponent p.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by mattmill30

Is there minimum starting TF for expontents of different ranges?

No.

[LaurV]

Originally Posted by mattmill30

332210677 and 332229943

You may have found a small "history bug" in the sense that the full history is not displayed.
Anyhow, these two exponents can not have factors under 2^30 for the first (which is 1 mod 4, therefore its smaller factor can be 6p+1) and 2^29 for the second (which is 3 mod 4, so its smallest factor can be 2p+1). Running a 29 to 69 bits factoring is very fast at this size (like it can be done in minutes on some average GPU cards). If you are going to reserve them, I can run TF for "missing" bits (which actually, I suspect are not missing, just not displayed by the history, they may have the same reporting time, or whatever)

[mattmill30]

Originally Posted by LaurV

You may have found a small "history bug" in the sense that the full history is not displayed.
Anyhow, these two exponents can not have factors under 2^30 for the first (which is 1 mod 4, therefore its smaller factor can be 6p+1) and 2^29 for the second (which is 3 mod 4, so its smallest factor can be 2p+1). Running a 29 to 69 bits factoring is very fast at this size (like it can be done in minutes on some average GPU cards). If you are going to reserve them, I can run TF for "missing" bits (which actually, I suspect are not missing, just not displayed by the history, they may have the same reporting time, or whatever)

I currently have them reserved, but I'd appreciate you running the TF for both. I also have 332210881 and 332230189 also missing TF below ^68, if you wouldn't mind also testing those.

I just don't want to waste ~200 days on each expontent if a factor can be easily discovered.

[ATH]

UID: athath/titanblack, no factor for M332229943 from 2^1 to 2^68 [mfaktc 0.21 75bit_mul32_gs]
UID: athath/titanblack, no factor for M332210677 from 2^1 to 2^68 [mfaktc 0.21 75bit_mul32_gs]
UID: athath/titanblack, no factor for M332210881 from 2^1 to 2^68 [mfaktc 0.21 75bit_mul32_gs]
UID: athath/titanblack, no factor for M332230189 from 2^1 to 2^68 [mfaktc 0.21 75bit_mul32_gs]

[Madpoo]

Originally Posted by chalsall

No.

Expanding on that... LOL

I always assumed "someone" had done the trivial trial factoring already, for the low bit levels, but the history of those checks simply wasn't recorded.

The reason I assume this is the presence of factors for exponents that would have been found during that initial low-effort check.

However, to what bit level these hypothetical checks had been done, I have no idea. What would have been trivially easy back in 2008 before the v5 primenet server went live and the work history started being logged?

[Mark Rose]

James might be the best to ask as he's been involved with that kind of work extensively.

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by Madpoo

I always assumed "someone" had done the trivial trial factoring already, for the low bit levels, but the history of those checks simply wasn't recorded.

Bingo. Rest assured that the trivial TF levels were done whether they appear in the full history or not.