20201021, 17:23  #45  
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada
2·3^{2}·11·23 Posts 
Quote:
"Stepped in a pile of and came out smelling like a Rose" 

20201021, 18:19  #46  
Random Account
"Norman D. Powell"
Aug 2009
Indiana, USA.
2·3·313 Posts 
Quote:
After some pondering, I remembered Luigi wrote this for James Heinrich for use in his TF>1000M project. mfaktc is limited to exponents no larger than 2^321. James wanted something to filter out composites beyond. I believe his target was somewhere around 10billion. 

20201021, 18:28  #47  
"Viliam Furík"
Jul 2018
Martin, Slovakia
610_{8} Posts 
Quote:
Unless we are talking specifically about this program, then maybe. 

20201021, 20:27  #48 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
3×1,559 Posts 
It really doesn't matter how long it takes any program to get to 68 or 69 bits, when ECM has ruled out factors below ~6768 DIGITS.
LaurV is just trolling. 
20201021, 20:37  #49 
"Viliam Furík"
Jul 2018
Martin, Slovakia
2^{3}·7^{2} Posts 

20201021, 20:47  #50  
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
11105_{8} Posts 
Quote:
So, when T65 is done, a 65digit factor is missed 1/e of the time. By the time 2T65 is complete, the chance of a missed 65digit factor is (1/e)^2. We have done far more than T65 on M1277; I don't have the exact count, but I imagine somewhere around half a T70 = 3*T65. So, a 65digit factor or smaller can be ruled out with something like 1(1/e)^3 certainty, and a 67digit factor is unlikely. Ryan Propper doesn't always report his ECM work, so I would not be surprised to learn a full T70 or more has been completed. Similarly, I would be quite surprised if a factor below 69 digits turns up for this number. 

20201022, 00:58  #51 
Random Account
"Norman D. Powell"
Aug 2009
Indiana, USA.
2×3×313 Posts 
M1277 is 385 decimal digits long. It may have a factor less than 100 digits in length, then again, it may not. Anyone could stab at it with ECM for a very long time and find nothing. Someone here made mention of using SNFS. YAFU does SNFS, but it may not be capable of handling an input this large. So, for now, we wait.

20201022, 05:05  #52 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
3×1,559 Posts 
Wait for what?
We haven't done nearly enough ECM to justify the time SNFS would take. You can wait for others to do the ECM, or you can contribute if you wish. I've done both, myself I ran a couple CPUyears of ECM, and have waited since. I have a largememory machine available now, so perhaps I'll restart a little largebound ECM and contribute more than just posts. 
20201022, 08:36  #53 
Romulan Interpreter
Jun 2011
Thailand
243B_{16} Posts 
I am not. hihi.
I said in every post, sometimes twice, that the TF is not indicated/recommended/wanted. I just did a comparison run between factor5 (a compiled, reasonable optimized toy, that could, in theory, factor this exponent) and the OP script (isn't this what he requested?). 
20201022, 08:41  #54 
Romulan Interpreter
Jun 2011
Thailand
5^{2}×7×53 Posts 
Me too, for M1061. When the SNFS factors came out, I have seen how futile my ECM and "tremendous high P1" was (I don't remember the exact B1/B2 values, but they should be on PrimeNet DB). So, now I am healed of considering myself lucky (well... in this domain ). Probabilistic, the smallest factor is somewhere at 140+ digits, sooooo...
Last fiddled with by LaurV on 20201022 at 08:43 
20201022, 08:48  #55  
Bamboozled!
"𒉺𒌌𒇷𒆷𒀭"
May 2003
Down not across
10100101100000_{2} Posts 
Quote:


Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
inconsistent timestamp intervals in prime.log  ixfd64  Software  1  20201101 20:27 
Could I run this py python script on a supercomputer?  Ghost  Information & Answers  4  20181130 04:07 
M1277  no factors below 2^65?  DanielBamberger  Data  17  20180128 04:21 
search for MMM127 small factors?  Orgasmic Troll  Miscellaneous Math  7  20060611 15:38 
Random numbers and proper factors  mfgoode  Math  20  20060205 02:09 