mersenneforum.org 10- table
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

2020-06-03, 19:53   #67
R.D. Silverman

Nov 2003

1D2416 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by sweety439 Should we start to factor this number in this forum? Like 2^991-1

 2020-06-03, 21:54 #68 rudy235     Jun 2015 Vallejo, CA/. 3BF16 Posts I agree.
2020-06-04, 01:39   #69
VBCurtis

"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

424310 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by sweety439 Should we start to factor this number in this forum? Like 2^991-1
Be my guest. Go ahead and figure out proper parameters for CADO and how many relations will be needed, and let us know what hardware you'll contribute and for how long. The first half is healthy for education, and the second half would benefit our forum-siever-team. The numbers we've worked recently have happened because someone around here cared to do the dirty work, and others agreed to help. Try it, see how it goes.

Or did you mean you wanted everyone else to do the work, while you watch for entertainment?

2020-06-04, 15:06   #70
R.D. Silverman

Nov 2003

22×5×373 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by VBCurtis Be my guest. Go ahead and figure out proper parameters for CADO and how many relations will be needed, and let us know what hardware you'll contribute and for how long. The first half is healthy for education, and the second half would benefit our forum-siever-team. The numbers we've worked recently have happened because someone around here cared to do the dirty work, and others agreed to help. Try it, see how it goes. Or did you mean you wanted everyone else to do the work, while you watch for entertainment?
No. It means that he just wanted to say something about a number that had been
previously beaten to death extensively discussed for the sake of
making himself heard.

 2020-06-06, 11:12 #71 fivemack (loop (#_fork))     Feb 2006 Cambridge, England 635310 Posts I'm unsure as to whether R323 is accessible with the 16e siever. It seems that x^6-10 sieves slightly better than the octic, but with a yield of about 0.8 relations per Q the search range is annoyingly large. Will compare 33/34/35-bit large primes for the sextic under CADO; for the octic the yield boost going to 35-bit LP isn't enough. Last fiddled with by fivemack on 2020-06-06 at 11:14
2020-06-06, 12:57   #72
R.D. Silverman

Nov 2003

746010 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by fivemack I'm unsure as to whether R323 is accessible with the 16e siever. It seems that x^6-10 sieves slightly better than the octic, but with a yield of about 0.8 relations per Q the search range is annoyingly large. Will compare 33/34/35-bit large primes for the sextic under CADO; for the octic the yield boost going to 35-bit LP isn't enough.
Several numbers have been done that are larger: 2, 1076+, 2,2158L, 2,1084+..
The last is 4 digits larger. I expect that numbers up to ~330 digits should be doable
by NFS@Home.

Perhaps you are not allowing the 16f siever? Do you really mean to restrict which siever
is used?

 2020-06-06, 15:53 #73 chris2be8     Sep 2009 74716 Posts Would the 16f siever support -j 16? That boosts yield on 16e (It makes the sieve area 16k x 16k) but raises memory required. Chris
 2020-06-07, 03:06 #74 VBCurtis     "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 4,243 Posts When I tested -J 16 a couple years ago, it worked on some numbers and Q-ranges but not others. I didn't find a pattern in which polys were resilient, and which crashed a bunch, so I deemed it unusable. That 40% yield boost would clearly extend GGNFS sievers another 6-8 digits!

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post garo Cunningham Tables 85 2020-04-15 21:12 garo Cunningham Tables 82 2020-03-15 21:47 garo Cunningham Tables 99 2020-01-10 06:29 garo Cunningham Tables 79 2020-01-01 15:26 garo Cunningham Tables 41 2016-08-04 04:24

All times are UTC. The time now is 15:38.

Tue Aug 11 15:38:11 UTC 2020 up 25 days, 11:24, 1 user, load averages: 2.58, 3.64, 3.16

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.