10, 323-

sweety439 · 2019-06-28, 23:42

10, 323- is the first hole of the 10- table as of 2014 (almost 5 years), and until now nobody factored it, currently it is one of the "most wanted" number in the Cunningham project (see http://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~ssw/...dir150/want135)

The composite cofactor of this number is C271 (i.e. 271 digits), currently there are 3 C271 composite numbers that are being factored (2,1072+, 3,763- and 5, 449-) see http://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~ssw/cun/who), but not including 10, 323-, is there any interest for this number?

R.D. Silverman · 2019-06-29, 00:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweety439

10, 323- is the first hole of the 10- table as of 2014 (almost 5 years), and until now nobody factored it, currently it is one of the "most wanted" number in the Cunningham project (see http://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~ssw/...dir150/want135)

The composite cofactor of this number is C271 (i.e. 271 digits), currently there are 3 C271 composite numbers that are being factored (2,1072+, 3,763- and 5, 449-) see

You are confused. This is C324 not C271 via SNFS. C271 is way way out of reach
for GNFS. All of these numbers are being done by SNFS. The size of the composite
cofactor is irrelevant. e.g. 2,1072+ is a C323 via SNFS.

Quote:

http://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~ssw/cun/who), but not including 10, 323-, is there any interest for this number?

NFS@Home is currently working on several base 2 numbers after which I anticipate
it will start on C318's. It should get to 10,323- in perhaps a year or two.

VBCurtis · 2019-06-29, 00:38

OP could do some ECM curves at B1=850M or bigger; if a factor of 60 or more digits is found, any remaining C211 or smaller cofactor is then a GNFS candidate, and one we might be interested in.

This number deserves a t65 or so anyway, so running a few tens of thousands curves on ECM is productive work. Go for it, sweety!

R.D. Silverman · 2019-06-29, 00:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by VBCurtis

OP could do some ECM curves at B1=850M or bigger; if a factor of 60 or more digits is found, any remaining C211 or smaller cofactor is then a GNFS candidate, and one we might be interested in.

This number deserves a t65 or so anyway, so running a few tens of thousands curves on ECM is productive work. Go for it, sweety!

Pointless. Bruce already did *extensive* ECM on the Wanted numbers. If you want
to run ECM start at B1 = 3G or more. I would not bother. The number is ready for NFS.

R.D. Silverman · 2019-06-29, 00:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Pointless. Bruce already did *extensive* ECM on the Wanted numbers. If you want
to run ECM start at B1 = 3G or more. I would not bother. The number is ready for NFS.

It is probable that Propper ran some curves on this number as well. Ask both
Bruce and Ryan......

VBCurtis · 2019-06-29, 04:08

Thank you for the correction. I guessed that this was tested only slightly further than the smaller-but-needed C204 in the other active thread.

How high in SNFS difficulty do you think NFS@home can go with 16f/33LP? I wonder when we run out of yield within the Q-range that GGNFS can test. SNFS-340? 350?

R.D. Silverman · 2019-06-29, 10:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by VBCurtis

Thank you for the correction. I guessed that this was tested only slightly further than the smaller-but-needed C204 in the other active thread.

How high in SNFS difficulty do you think NFS@home can go with 16f/33LP? I wonder when we run out of yield within the Q-range that GGNFS can test. SNFS-340? 350?

Sieving is not the binding constraint. LA is.

kurtb · 2019-06-29, 17:06

I can put in the YOYO-queue some/a lot of curves with B1=2e9.
But is that useful if NFS@home starts R323-snfs in about 1 year?
Kurt

VBCurtis · 2019-06-29, 19:05

No, as Mr Silverman explained it's ready for NFS already. There are more difficult numbers that haven't had t65+ and make sense for yoyo. I think running 3e9 curves on this number would be for the glory of a 70ish-digit factor rather than necessity.

R.D. Silverman · 2019-06-29, 20:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by VBCurtis

No, as Mr Silverman explained it's ready for NFS already. There are more difficult numbers that haven't had t65+ and make sense for yoyo. I think running 3e9 curves on this number would be for the glory of a 70ish-digit factor rather than necessity.

I thought that YoYo was going to run the remaining base 2 numbers with index < 1200???
There are plenty of numbers in that list!

sweety439 · 2020-09-22, 22:48

10, 323- still not be started to factor (see https://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~ssw/cun/who.txt), however, 10, 323- is the third most wanted number in https://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~ssw/cun/want137.txt now, I think we (or NFS@home) should factor it, it is more important than 3,667-, 6,451-, 7,376+ (which are started) etc.

2019-06-28, 23:42	#1
sweety439 "99(4^34019)99 palind" Nov 2016 (P^81993)SZ base 36 5531₈ Posts	10, 323- 10, 323- is the first hole of the 10- table as of 2014 (almost 5 years), and until now nobody factored it, currently it is one of the "most wanted" number in the Cunningham project (see http://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~ssw/...dir150/want135) The composite cofactor of this number is C271 (i.e. 271 digits), currently there are 3 C271 composite numbers that are being factored (2,1072+, 3,763- and 5, 449-) see http://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~ssw/cun/who), but not including 10, 323-, is there any interest for this number? Last fiddled with by sweety439 on 2019-06-28 at 23:43

2019-06-29, 04:08	#6
VBCurtis "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 4,861 Posts	Thank you for the correction. I guessed that this was tested only slightly further than the smaller-but-needed C204 in the other active thread. How high in SNFS difficulty do you think NFS@home can go with 16f/33LP? I wonder when we run out of yield within the Q-range that GGNFS can test. SNFS-340? 350? Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 2019-06-29 at 04:09

2019-06-29, 00:38	#3
VBCurtis "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 4,861 Posts	OP could do some ECM curves at B1=850M or bigger; if a factor of 60 or more digits is found, any remaining C211 or smaller cofactor is then a GNFS candidate, and one we might be interested in. This number deserves a t65 or so anyway, so running a few tens of thousands curves on ECM is productive work. Go for it, sweety!

2019-06-29, 17:06	#8
kurtb "Beschorner Kurt" Jul 2016 Germany 10100₂ Posts	I can put in the YOYO-queue some/a lot of curves with B1=2e9. But is that useful if NFS@home starts R323-snfs in about 1 year? Kurt

2019-06-29, 19:05	#9
VBCurtis "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 1001011111101₂ Posts	No, as Mr Silverman explained it's ready for NFS already. There are more difficult numbers that haven't had t65+ and make sense for yoyo. I think running 3e9 curves on this number would be for the glory of a 70ish-digit factor rather than necessity.

2020-09-22, 22:48	#11
sweety439 "99(4^34019)99 palind" Nov 2016 (P^81993)SZ base 36 2905₁₀ Posts	10, 323- still not be started to factor (see https://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~ssw/cun/who.txt), however, 10, 323- is the third most wanted number in https://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~ssw/cun/want137.txt now, I think we (or NFS@home) should factor it, it is more important than 3,667-, 6,451-, 7,376+ (which are started) etc.