mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > Factoring

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2021-06-16, 09:23   #309
bur
 
bur's Avatar
 
Aug 2020

22×3×52 Posts
Default

It finished...! The first two dependencies failed with
Code:
Newton iteration failed to converge
algebraic square root failed
but the third did it. Split into a P66 and a P100, so at least nothing that would have been in reach with ECM.

So, the long-awaited result, ta-daaa:

Code:
763374743763081217914694138634486780344024237091539368674972788624046972741046710708718787293421106975357383724033172253608940141301420411687874833865804305796864727 =
187617592229624763212334360684243158531010549296799633618128462377 *
4068780196415635313930042276676522917113246118987972266171210051365033359610138025637240809271735551
Both factors are not unique but to the power of 3 for the C2372, would it be worthwhile to test all previously known factors if they occur more than once?

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000002599665468

Last fiddled with by bur on 2021-06-16 at 09:29
bur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-06-16, 09:58   #310
fivemack
(loop (#_fork))
 
fivemack's Avatar
 
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England

2·132·19 Posts
Default

ETA Friday night for the 5,-8 SNFS job - getting quite a lot of duplications, probably even this S210 I should have run with 15e.

May I take the C158/S195, I'll use the shiniest spun polynomial.

Today's ggnfs infelicity: if you type 'mbbr' instead of 'mfbr' it appears to try sieving with mfbr=0 and finds very few relations. I'm a bit surprised at this because it usually tells you to set values for all parameters if you've missed one out.

Last fiddled with by fivemack on 2021-06-16 at 10:34
fivemack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-06-16, 12:39   #311
Max0526
 
"Max"
Jun 2016
Toronto

89310 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fivemack View Post
ETA Friday night for the 5,-8 SNFS job - getting quite a lot of duplications, probably even this S210 I should have run with 15e.

May I take the C158/S195, I'll use the shiniest spun polynomial.

Today's ggnfs infelicity: if you type 'mbbr' instead of 'mfbr' it appears to try sieving with mfbr=0 and finds very few relations. I'm a bit surprised at this because it usually tells you to set values for all parameters if you've missed one out.
> May I take the C158/S195, I'll use the shiniest spun polynomial.
Booked for fivemack:

(1, 10) http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000002599320345 c151 (booked for wombatman); c158/snfs195 (book for fivemack); bur ECM t40 / B1=3M done for both bur ECM t40 / B1=3M done for both; wombatman is on c151; fivemack is on c158/snfs195
spun polys are here: https://mersenneforum.org/showpost.p...&postcount=307
Max0526 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-06-16, 12:45   #312
Max0526
 
"Max"
Jun 2016
Toronto

19·47 Posts
Default

Line 342 (12, 3): c130/snfs188 and c180/snfs188 are free to book, spun polys will be provided

Line 345 (12, 0): c138/snfs193 and c147/snfs193 are free to book, spun polys will be provided
Max0526 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-06-16, 14:13   #313
Max0526
 
"Max"
Jun 2016
Toronto

15758 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max0526 View Post
Line 342 (12, 3): c130/snfs188 and c180/snfs188 are is free to book, spun polys will be provided

Line 345 (12, 0): c138/snfs193 and c147/snfs193 are is free to book, spun polys will be provided
Both c130 and c138 are taken by thyrex already.
Max0526 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-06-16, 15:28   #314
firejuggler
 
firejuggler's Avatar
 
Apr 2010
Over the rainbow

19·137 Posts
Default

Is there any recommendation on which "c" I can hammer at with ecm?
firejuggler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-06-16, 15:52   #315
Max0526
 
"Max"
Jun 2016
Toronto

89310 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by firejuggler View Post
Is there any recommendation on which "c" I can hammer at with ecm?
Line 139 (6, 10) both c177 and c194 http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000002601419109
Line 190 (11, 7) both c160 and c196 http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000002604299229
Line 191 (11, 6) c179 http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000002604298700
Line 192 (11, 5) c173 http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000002604293386
Line 341 (12, 4) both c173 and c177 http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000002606860637 ECM > t25
Line 342 (12, 3) c180 http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000002606859937 ECM > t25
Max0526 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-06-16, 16:06   #316
firejuggler
 
firejuggler's Avatar
 
Apr 2010
Over the rainbow

19×137 Posts
Default

Thank you, i'll "hammer" on the first c177 for now.
firejuggler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-06-16, 19:41   #317
Max0526
 
"Max"
Jun 2016
Toronto

19·47 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bur View Post
It finished...! The first two dependencies failed with
Code:
Newton iteration failed to converge
algebraic square root failed
but the third did it. Split into a P66 and a P100, so at least nothing that would have been in reach with ECM.

So, the long-awaited result, ta-daaa:

Code:
763374743763081217914694138634486780344024237091539368674972788624046972741046710708718787293421106975357383724033172253608940141301420411687874833865804305796864727 =
187617592229624763212334360684243158531010549296799633618128462377 *
4068780196415635313930042276676522917113246118987972266171210051365033359610138025637240809271735551
Both factors are not unique but to the power of 3 for the C2372, would it be worthwhile to test all previously known factors if they occur more than once?

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000002599665468
That was a dramatic story! Congratulations!

> Both factors are not unique but to the power of 3 for the C2372
We know that many unfactored yet composites are cubed, e.g., c184 from (8, -7), c229 from (8, -8), c182 from (7, -8), c193 from (9, -6), etc. Every other one I'd say. And it doesn't help us anyhow, at least yet.
Max0526 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-06-16, 21:14   #318
EdH
 
EdH's Avatar
 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns

382510 Posts
Default

Line 162: All small composites are fully factored, the c358 has been ECM'd to t50, the c328 is close to t50 and the c327 is yet to be ECM'd at all.
EdH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-06-16, 21:45   #319
firejuggler
 
firejuggler's Avatar
 
Apr 2010
Over the rainbow

19×137 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdH View Post
Line 162: All small composites are fully factored, the c358 has been ECM'd to t50, the c328 is close to t50 and the c327 is yet to be ECM'd at all.
hmmm those seem very hard to break.. Pushing ECM further will be very, very long and gnfs/snfs at those size isn't possible.Is there any 'hack" that can be attempted there? a large pm1? pp1?
firejuggler is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
factoring 2ⁿ-2 equivalent to factoring 2ⁿ-1(I think) baih Miscellaneous Math 9 2020-09-21 07:11
OpenCL GPU P-1 Factoring and ECM Factoring xx005fs GPU Computing 3 2018-10-27 14:49

All times are UTC. The time now is 21:21.


Tue Jul 27 21:21:45 UTC 2021 up 4 days, 15:50, 0 users, load averages: 2.05, 2.20, 2.09

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.