20130304, 19:02  #1 
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
6379_{10} Posts 
M947 progress
Code:
n: 2847922034528971677290051549879038840869047309341551394654637054075417375981106395118700814298148813029564177907105065410846683443357438966188671989301877928681552715177521447358804775039379552290813448288911916720697 c6: 1 c0: 2 skew: 1.45 Y1: 1 Y0: 365375409332725729550921208179070754913983135744 lpbr: 33 lpba: 33 mfbr: 96 mfba: 66 alambda: 2.6 rlambda: 3.6 alim: 240000000 rlim: 240000000 Reservations Code:
16/03/2013 dubslow 20M26M 11/04/2013 34522766 07/03/2013 jyb 26M27M 2633 finished 20/03/2013 42664400 05/03/2013 jyb 27M28M ... 07/03/2013 jyb 28M30M ... 11/03/2013 jyb 30M33M ... 04/03/2013 batalov 33M34M 31/03/2013 6069731 *18/03/2013 pinhodecarlos 34M42M 21/04/2013 bdodson 34M67M 01/05/2013 197573666 04/03/2013 batalov 67M68M 09/04/2013 5743011 08/04/2013 mathew 68M72M 19/05/2013 22766932 04/03/2013 fivemack 72M120M 7284 finished 31/03/2013 65998911 8496 finished 20/04/2013 63790339 96108 finished 08/05/2013 61184029 108120 finished 27/05/2013 59701118 31/03/2013 bdodson 120M168M 21/04/2013 224931506 04/03/2013 batalov 168M172M 09/04/2013 17715018 20/03/2013 bdodson 172M230M 21/04/2013 243152170 07/03/2013 jcrombie 230M231M 14/03/2013 3998161 14/03/2013 jcrombie 231M235M 10/04/2013 15878724 04/04/2013 bdodson 235M240M 20/04/2013 19769707 Last fiddled with by fivemack on 20130527 at 07:27 
20130304, 20:02  #2 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
10010000101110_{2} Posts 
Will take 168172M for starters. 
20130304, 21:12  #3 
"Jonathan"
Jul 2010
In a tangled web...
11010110_{2} Posts 
nonoptimum skew?
I'm getting a MurphyE of 1.172e14 with skew = 0.891 and 1.190e14 with skew = 1.45.
Doing a little test sieving around q=120000000 seems to give a slightly better yield. Now I'll let the experts continue this (because I barely know what I'm talking about here). Cheers, Jonathan 
20130304, 22:33  #4 
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
6,379 Posts 

20130304, 22:56  #5 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
2·11·421 Posts 
Oh, I'll take them as well. Thanks!
The skew proposal is not without merit (even though needs a more sizable test). Do my eyes deceive me when they tell me that 3LP is on the other side (compared to M929)? Last fiddled with by Batalov on 20130304 at 22:58 
20130305, 06:57  #6 
"Jonathan"
Jul 2010
In a tangled web...
2×107 Posts 
the empircal recapitulates the theorectical
just some extra info:
with skew = 0.891 Code:
total yield: 31234, q=120006041 (0.57243 sec/rel) with skew = 1.45 Code:
total yield: 31623, q=120006013 (0.56493 sec/rel) So, apprx. a 1.7% improvement. Nothing to get too much excited about. 
20130305, 08:34  #7 
Jun 2003
1001011101101_{2} Posts 
The nominal skew should be (c0/c6)^(1/6) = 1.12 rather than (c6/c0)^(1/6) = 0.891.
After scoring various skews with msieve: Code:
skew 0.89, size 6.032e014, alpha 2.482, combined = 1.330e014 rroots = 2 skew 1.00, size 6.032e014, alpha 2.482, combined = 1.338e014 rroots = 2 skew 1.12, size 6.032e014, alpha 2.482, combined = 1.344e014 rroots = 2 skew 1.20, size 6.032e014, alpha 2.482, combined = 1.347e014 rroots = 2 skew 1.30, size 6.032e014, alpha 2.482, combined = 1.349e014 rroots = 2 skew 1.35, size 6.032e014, alpha 2.482, combined = 1.349e014 rroots = 2 skew 1.36, size 6.032e014, alpha 2.482, combined = 1.349e014 rroots = 2 skew 1.37, size 6.032e014, alpha 2.482, combined = 1.350e014 rroots = 2 skew 1.38, size 6.032e014, alpha 2.482, combined = 1.350e014 rroots = 2 skew 1.40, size 6.032e014, alpha 2.482, combined = 1.350e014 rroots = 2 skew 1.45, size 6.032e014, alpha 2.482, combined = 1.350e014 rroots = 2 skew 1.46, size 6.032e014, alpha 2.482, combined = 1.350e014 rroots = 2 skew 1.47, size 6.032e014, alpha 2.482, combined = 1.350e014 rroots = 2 skew 1.48, size 6.032e014, alpha 2.482, combined = 1.350e014 rroots = 2 skew 1.49, size 6.032e014, alpha 2.482, combined = 1.350e014 rroots = 2 skew 1.50, size 6.032e014, alpha 2.482, combined = 1.350e014 rroots = 2 skew 1.55, size 6.032e014, alpha 2.482, combined = 1.350e014 rroots = 2 skew 1.56, size 6.032e014, alpha 2.482, combined = 1.350e014 rroots = 2 skew 1.57, size 6.032e014, alpha 2.482, combined = 1.350e014 rroots = 2 skew 1.58, size 6.032e014, alpha 2.482, combined = 1.350e014 rroots = 2 skew 1.59, size 6.032e014, alpha 2.482, combined = 1.349e014 rroots = 2 skew 1.60, size 6.032e014, alpha 2.482, combined = 1.349e014 rroots = 2 
20130305, 14:00  #8 
Tribal Bullet
Oct 2004
110111001110_{2} Posts 
Note that the constants buried in the Evalue calculation above are specific to the sieving area (1e16) and the factor base bound (primes < about 1M; actually the rational bound is less than the algebraic one, which is particularly unrealistic for large SNFS).

20130305, 14:33  #9  
Nov 2003
2^{2}·5·373 Posts 
Quote:
small! Or do you mean the size of the factor base set is 1M? 

20130305, 18:06  #10  
"Ben"
Feb 2007
3,361 Posts 
Quote:
I guess this means that the calculated E values are useful for comparative purposes, but perhaps not 100% accurate in an absolute sense? 

20130305, 20:50  #11 
Aug 2005
Seattle, WA
11001100110_{2} Posts 
I'll take 27M  28M.

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Progress  bsquared  YAFU  20  20140522 16:52 
Nice progress!  schickel  FactorDB  29  20120718 17:03 
Progress  R.D. Silverman  Factoring  0  20120522 14:03 
In Progress?  R.D. Silverman  Cunningham Tables  33  20100507 14:02 
Picturing progress  ATH  Data  1  20060622 23:04 