20191023, 10:39  #144 
Nov 2003
2^{2}×5×373 Posts 

20191023, 15:37  #145 
Sep 2009
100010010110_{2} Posts 
I'd use parms as suggested below. That's a cut down version of factMsieve.pl which just sanity checks the poly and reports varios stats about it. The most useful is the msieve rating which includes the escore. Which is about right for SNFS 234.
Code:
$ rate_poly.pl t.poly > __________________________________________________________ >  This is the factMsieve.tester.pl script for GGNFS.  >  This program is copyright 2004, Chris Monico, and subject >  to the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2. > __________________________________________________________ This is the tester script, it just checks the poly without sieving any relations > Starting Wed Oct 23 16:26:56 2019 > Working with NAME=t... > Selected default factorization parameters for degree 6 snfs 234.190 digit level. > Selected lattice siever: /home/chris/lasieve4_64/gnfslasieve4I15e SNFS DIFF is about 234.190, GNFS equiv is about 168.6168, GNFS DIFF is about 202.623, degree 6. > Using rlim=56000000, alim=56000000, lpbr=30, lpba=30, mfbr=60, mfba=60, rlambda=2.6, alambda=2.6, qintsize 100000 > Using calculated skew 1.75280256323576 aa is 32768, bb is 16384, degree is 6, c6 is 1, c0 is 29, Y1 is 390458526450928779826062879981346977190, Y0 is 942650270102046130733437746596776286089 sqr_lim is 7483.31477354788, sqrt(skew) is 1.32393450111241, aa is now 324646293.057838, bb is now 92607775.646598 c0 is 29, adding 1.8292906548684e+49 c1 is 72, adding 1.59213617317567e+50 c2 is 75, adding 5.81395909450559e+50 c3 is 40, adding 1.08701038969571e+51 c4 is 15, adding 1.4289859479919e+51 c6 is 1, adding 1.17074601911578e+51 > Algebraic norm is 1.95319677609365e+51. Rational norm is 2.14057657931935e+47. > Algebraic difficulty is about 51.2907. Rational difficulty is about 47.3305. msieve rating: skew 1.75, size 1.055e11, alpha 1.681, combined = 6.609e13 rroots = 0 It's probably OK 
20191118, 20:57  #146 
Feb 2011
2^{5} Posts 
Finally got Pell(613) though the parameters I used (yafu default) turned out to be far from optimal, see this other thread. The next remaining are 631 and 653.
631, the two semiprime roadblocks 709 and 787, and many of the other nearby remaining numbers can all use the same algebraic polynomial. So I wonder whether, if someone were to ever try to do 787 (301 digits), it might make sense for them to do something like the 'factorization factory' approach and knock out a bunch of the others too. 
20200626, 17:10  #147 
Feb 2011
2^{5} Posts 
I factored several numerators of harmonic numbers for the sequence of their semiprimes http://oeis.org/A153357 . (This calls them Wolstenholme numbers but that appears to contradict standard terminology & should be fixed.)
Numerator(H_371)=p49+p112 is in Numerator(H_377)=p33+p58+p71 is ruled out Numerator(H_391)=c169 has had t52 ECM (7550@43e6+5000@11e7), ready for NFS Numerator(H_421)=p33+p151 is in Numerator(H_436)=p49+p138 is in Numerator(H_472)=p40+c168 ruled out Numerator(H_476)=c207 has had t51 ECM Numerator(H_480)=p43+p168 is in It appears that 385, 414, 425, 451, 452 were already shown to be in the sequence years ago and these are all the candidates below 500. 
20200629, 03:18  #148 
Aug 2004
New Zealand
3^{2}×5^{2} Posts 

20200629, 14:19  #149  
Feb 2011
2^{5} Posts 
Quote:
Quote:


Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Sequences using ninedigit pandigital numbers as start  ChristianB  Aliquot Sequences  16  20140516 06:56 
Help wanted, Mersenne base Cunningham numbers  kosta  Factoring  24  20130321 07:17 
OEIS missing sequences  Raman  Other Mathematical Topics  20  20120822 16:05 
Any interest in all sequences/open sequences?  Greebley  Aliquot Sequences  6  20120407 10:06 
my misunderstanding of the OEIS  science_man_88  Miscellaneous Math  11  20110518 15:04 