mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > Aliquot Sequences

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2022-09-19, 16:43   #12
garambois
 
garambois's Avatar
 
"Garambois Jean-Luc"
Oct 2011
France

2·33·19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdH View Post
How much of a priority would you place in advancing the list to term 2?
If we do all this work of raising all the indexes above 1, I will be able to resume some works that has been on hold for quite some time.
But I won't have the time to start that work quickly.
I won't do much serious work until November - December.
garambois is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-09-19, 18:03   #13
charybdis
 
charybdis's Avatar
 
Apr 2020

53·7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gd_barnes View Post
As for the recent base 100-195 effort, there were next to zero index 1's there because most bases in that range are prime. For prime bases, the index is always >= 2 due to another factoring project.
The real reason is that index 1 can be done by SNFS if the base is prime. For bases under 100, these would have been done as part of the Brent project, but I don't think bases above 100 are part of any other project. They've probably largely been done by individuals who like doing relatively easy SNFS jobs.

There are still a few SNFS targets in Ed's list, namely index 1 of 137^89, 173^83 and 193^83.
charybdis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-09-19, 18:44   #14
EdH
 
EdH's Avatar
 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns

117558 Posts
Default

I've queued the three base 6 entries to run after the current sequence I'm working on. They should be done by tomorrow. I intend to work upwards through the bases as interest permits. I may skip over >150 composites for now, unless I feel like completing a base, like the c154 for 6^209.
EdH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-09-20, 07:27   #15
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

22·33·107 Posts
Default

Some notes about this effort:

All same-parity exponents and double-square bases have been ECM'd to t35.
All opposite-parity sequences that are not double-square bases for bases >= 95 have been ECM'd to t35.

I'm not formally working on this effort yet but I do have an ongoing effort to initialize all medium and large opposite-parity exponents that results in factoring many sequences that are at index=1. I have done all bases >= 95 so far and am working my way downwards. Currently loaded up are bases 94 thru 90. The effort effectively ECM's everything to t35 on the last iteration of a sequence and continues until it can't completely factor a cofactor >= 110 digits.

Since the list was last updated, here is some work on base 95 that has been done to index=1:
Completely factored:
95^66, 70, 82, 84, 92, and 100

Partially factored:
95^74 and 98

Ed, since your list is auto-generated, do you need me to mention the partially factored exponents? In other words, will it automatically update the cofactor size if a sequence is not eliminated?
gd_barnes is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-09-20, 12:03   #16
EdH
 
EdH's Avatar
 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns

5,101 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gd_barnes View Post
. . .
Ed, since your list is auto-generated, do you need me to mention the partially factored exponents? In other words, will it automatically update the cofactor size if a sequence is not eliminated?
This should be yes. The script takes the current list and strips the sizes, checks the db and if still at index 1 calculates the sizes from the new info and places it in a new list. Those that are no longer at index 1 are noted, but left off the new list. My only potential trouble is that each run uses up 1/3 of my db limit. I can add new bases easily. I may add a countdown to show progress. There shouldn't be many new sequences of workable size ever added. It should be a true countdown with just a few upticks.

I'll start a t35 ECM effort from the bottom up. We can meet along the way.
EdH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-09-21, 02:21   #17
EdH
 
EdH's Avatar
 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns

10011111011012 Posts
Default

Everything up through 69^100 has been ECMed to t35. I'll start with the next one heading up further tomorrow. Overnight I'm running 12^145 via NFS.
EdH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-09-21, 06:07   #18
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

22·33·107 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdH View Post
Everything up through 69^100 has been ECMed to t35. I'll start with the next one heading up further tomorrow. Overnight I'm running 12^145 via NFS.
My opposite-parity initializing is done down through base 93. I'm entering everything now for bases 93-94. It will run down thru base 90. It generally completes ~2 bases a day since it's doing a lot more exponents on each base than are just in the index=1 effort.

Having everything ECM'd to t35 gives us a much better idea of the scope of this effort. So much stuff falls quickly to ECM at this point. Then it's just a matter of testing our way up the cofactor size list. Everything up to 115 digits would have sufficient ECM. After eliminating all sequences with cofactors <= 115 digits, we could do another mass ECM effort on the remaining ones to t40. Then everything up to ~130 digits would have enough. Or...we could just start testing sequences individually with everything at t35.

You might consider having a second list sorted by cofactor.

Eventually we could do an index=2 effort. :-) That would be much bigger because all of the prime bases come into play and that would be a load of them!

Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2022-09-21 at 06:44
gd_barnes is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-09-21, 08:43   #19
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

22·33·107 Posts
Default

I'm now done with my other initialization effort down thru base 92. Here are the index 1's affected for bases 92 to 94 in the last day:

Done:
92^63, 67, 69, 71, 73, 75, 79, 83, 87, & 89
93^64, 74, 78, 80, 92, & 94
94^71, 87, & 89

Partially factored:
92^91, 93, & 99
93^96
94^85 & 93

Ed, I started a process to ECM only the index 1's down thru base 80. I'll stop it there and you can take care of the 70's. It's a separate effort from my other initialization effort that will finish quickly.

Question: When you partially factor one of these, I assume that you are entering the factor in the DB. Is that correct? It is what I do so that we know the remaining cofactor size. I want to make sure that we are on the same page.

Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2022-09-21 at 08:44
gd_barnes is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-09-21, 09:36   #20
kruoli
 
kruoli's Avatar
 
"Oliver"
Sep 2017
Porta Westfalica, DE

2×613 Posts
Default

How complex and time consuming is it to set up an ECM server for those?
kruoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-09-21, 12:31   #21
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

101101001001002 Posts
Default

I'm nearly done with the aforementioned ECM effort down to base 80. I'll report here when it's done. I'm estimating ~2 hours from this post. Note that all cofactors for index 1 will be C>=110 but it stops immediately before doing anything with index 2. I run QS/GNFS on anything below that for index 1.

At this point, I'm assuming that you don't really need the details on everything that is either fully or partially factored.

Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2022-09-21 at 12:33
gd_barnes is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-09-21, 13:19   #22
EdH
 
EdH's Avatar
 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns

5,101 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gd_barnes View Post
. . .
You might consider having a second list sorted by cofactor.

Eventually we could do an index=2 effort. :-) That would be much bigger because all of the prime bases come into play and that would be a load of them!
I thought of a sorted list, too, but haven't implemented it yet.

The index 1 effort is based on some research Jean-Luc is doing with the factors of index 1. We've factored some large ones in the past to validate some things. I don't believe index 2 will gain us the extra insight to warrant a sub-project, at least not in the near future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gd_barnes View Post
Ed, I started a process to ECM only the index 1's down thru base 80. I'll stop it there and you can take care of the 70's. It's a separate effort from my other initialization effort that will finish quickly.

Question: When you partially factor one of these, I assume that you are entering the factor in the DB. Is that correct? It is what I do so that we know the remaining cofactor size. I want to make sure that we are on the same page.
Do know yoyo's intention with the "70" bases? I always check his list of currently worked sequences when I make my lists, but he reserved the entire base for several of the "70s" recently. I may leave those for now and run t40 on the leftovers from yesterday's efforts. I'll also start running NFS on any c135-c145s you left in the "90" region.

All factoring efforts are worked directly with the db. All factors found are uploaded at that point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gd_barnes View Post
At this point, I'm assuming that you don't really need the details on everything that is either fully or partially factored.
I agree. My list has no dependence on any of those bits, although some are interesting to us. The script just looks for index 1 being open.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kruoli View Post
How complex and time consuming is it to set up an ECM server for those?
I looked at ECMnet a long time ago and it seemed more complicated than I was interested in at the time. I was looking at it for a LAN only setup, with no outside access.
EdH is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A new idea for OEIS "triangle read by rows" sequence sweety439 sweety439 4 2022-05-28 06:20
Aliquot Sequence 18528 - Team Project? EdH Aliquot Sequences 45 2021-06-27 12:30
Is there a copy of "the" aliquot tree anywhere? Dubslow Aliquot Sequences 11 2016-11-02 05:05
Possible extention to the "GPU to 72 Tool" project? chalsall GPU to 72 332 2012-01-04 01:45
Collaborative mathematics: the "polymath" project Dougy Math 11 2009-10-21 10:04

All times are UTC. The time now is 11:50.


Sun Dec 4 11:50:05 UTC 2022 up 108 days, 9:18, 0 users, load averages: 0.83, 0.86, 0.92

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔