20210914, 20:29  #67  
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
1067_{16} Posts 
Quote:


20210919, 07:40  #68 
Apr 2010
3×5×13 Posts 
I have a poly with a higher score, but I'm not sure that it sieves better because of the higher skew.
Code:
# norm 6.818228e20 alpha 8.672366 e 2.910e15 rroots 5 skew: 481915633.31 c0: 16767623414186593925342335649364464889222864703360 c1: 755475814165796441796091555811675522615312 c2: 1862355782954281845249626369142333 c3: 11089326275872160438115659 c4: 6063247064396140 c5: 11642400 Y0: 2468393961149314452796772519977513714557 Y1: 38282254249238850734383 
20210919, 14:26  #69 
"Evan"
Dec 2020
Montreal
2^{3}×3^{2} Posts 
Found this one! No spin done yet apart from EdH's script, which produced no better results.
Code:
n: 533439167600904850230361756102700151678687933392166847323827307497363839257031077774321424872955045754669625577486179222154434651598903112919949771321416511589029559325246084363632977829645558547714072241 Y0: 5364063517160195101439064344720425686774 Y1: 38191391760434248123003 c0: 515349887751874687116560925109512114626453230780 c1: 17974344725264404895365666536735938178777 c2: 101346622782727207541871449878174 c3: 1497180969353527609911507 c4: 1395152266302128 c5: 240240 skew: 428721961.354 # lognorm 62.56, E 54.79, alpha 7.77 (proj 2.37), 3 real roots # MurphyE(Bf=1.000e+07,Bg=5.000e+06,area=1.000e+16)=3.496e15 Last fiddled with by Plutie on 20210919 at 14:34 Reason: Fixed optimal skew. 
20210919, 14:46  #70  
Jun 2012
2^{5}×3×5×7 Posts 
Quote:


20210919, 14:58  #71 
Jun 2012
3360_{10} Posts 
These ultra high skews associated with high escore polys may be reducible by half (or more) with Max’s script(s). He has managed this feat several times in the past.
Regardless, I’m in awe of the polys presented here. You guys are going to break the trend line! 
20210919, 16:01  #72 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
13·397 Posts 
Plutie's poly makes the job more than 1 digit easier than the previous best. Bravo!

20210919, 16:22  #73 
Apr 2020
2×3^{3}×11 Posts 

20210921, 11:22  #74  
"Max"
Jun 2016
Toronto
919 Posts 
Quote:
Code:
Y0: 2468393961212256527378692570323255399071 Y1: 114846762747716552203149 c0: 667212226291265697384319795788252764666577494660 c1: 84612198807548503754244868832804518444888 c2: 602520047946604336765528388542069 c3: 11128887296718070048380139 c4: 17902612016700420 c5: 104781600 skew: 165972817.88 # size 5.647e20, alpha 8.673, combined = 2.942e15 rroots = 5 

20210921, 11:33  #75  
Jun 2012
2^{5}×3×5×7 Posts 
Quote:
I am curious, what parameters did you use in finding this poly? One other note, when I first saw this posted it had another skew per CADO but then you edited it to match cownoise. Do you still have the old skew value? Most folks don’t bother changing the skew from the CADO result  it seems to have little effect on sieving efficiency with these big GNFS jobs. And I believe the old skew value was < 300e6 which is the upper limit on skew per an old rule of thumb. One could extend this argument further by saying if the skew is too high just lower it until it’s not too high… 

20210921, 16:00  #76  
"Evan"
Dec 2020
Montreal
48_{16} Posts 
Quote:


20210925, 16:59  #77  
"Max"
Jun 2016
Toronto
919 Posts 
Quote:
Code:
Y0: 5364063515837856467699964219012314183783 Y1: 76382783520868496246006 c0: 18657659155224957284886697922211402602218993485 c1: 2902551913126853302500286670463847876254 c2: 246726843765655051378358372520499 c3: 2602155859693914100054886 c4: 5746970445994112 c5: 1921920 skew: 216595388.25 # size 6.032e20, alpha 7.767, combined = 3.022e15 rroots = 3 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Using 16e on smaller numbers  fivemack  Factoring  3  20170919 08:52 
NFS on smaller numbers?  skan  YAFU  6  20130226 13:57 
Bernoulli(200) c204  akruppa  Factoring  114  20120820 14:01 
checking smaller number  fortega  Data  2  20050616 22:48 
Factoring Smaller Numbers  marc  Factoring  6  20041009 14:17 