mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > Factoring

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2009-03-30, 15:04   #1
fivemack
(loop (#_fork))
 
fivemack's Avatar
 
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England

635010 Posts
Default Now what (IV)

109!+1 is proceeding nicely.

10^263-1 may or may not finish its linear algebra before I leave the country, but it'll certainly be done by Easter.

What would you be interested in next? I don't see any very interesting but possible GNFS numbers from the Cunningham tables - most of the C180 to C185 are easier by SNFS. Siever 16e isn't yet really usable, which makes very hard SNFS jobs a bit out of reach.

Possibilities are:

2^877-1 (Mersenne, SNFS, a bit harder than 10^263-1)

2801^79-1 (oddperfect, SNFS, a bit harder than 2^877-1)

EM43 (GNFS, people on this forum have been attacking it on and off for several years, same sort of difficulty as 5^421-1 was)

Something else
fivemack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-03-30, 16:10   #2
rogue
 
rogue's Avatar
 
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the

132508 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fivemack View Post
109!+1 is proceeding nicely.

10^263-1 may or may not finish its linear algebra before I leave the country, but it'll certainly be done by Easter.

What would you be interested in next? I don't see any very interesting but possible GNFS numbers from the Cunningham tables - most of the C180 to C185 are easier by SNFS. Siever 16e isn't yet really usable, which makes very hard SNFS jobs a bit out of reach.

Possibilities are:

2^877-1 (Mersenne, SNFS, a bit harder than 10^263-1)

2801^79-1 (oddperfect, SNFS, a bit harder than 2^877-1)

EM43 (GNFS, people on this forum have been attacking it on and off for several years, same sort of difficulty as 5^421-1 was)

Something else
I'd vote for EM43 and would probably dedicate resources to it were it to be done. The interesting thing about this value is that nothing further work can be done on the sequence until EM43 is factored. The others can't be considered "roadblocks" for their respective projects as there are other Mersenne or Odd-Perfect numbers available to factor.
rogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-03-30, 16:44   #3
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

164318 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fivemack View Post
109!+1 is proceeding nicely.

10^263-1 may or may not finish its linear algebra before I leave the country, but it'll certainly be done by Easter.

What would you be interested in next? I don't see any very interesting but possible GNFS numbers from the Cunningham tables - most of the C180 to C185 are easier by SNFS. Siever 16e isn't yet really usable, which makes very hard SNFS jobs a bit out of reach.

Possibilities are:

2^877-1 (Mersenne, SNFS, a bit harder than 10^263-1)

2801^79-1 (oddperfect, SNFS, a bit harder than 2^877-1)

EM43 (GNFS, people on this forum have been attacking it on and off for several years, same sort of difficulty as 5^421-1 was)

Something else
11,233+ or 11,229-.
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-03-30, 16:56   #4
alpertron
 
alpertron's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Buenos Aires, Argentina

1,319 Posts
Default

The factorization of 10271-1 could help to find more prime factors of googolplex-10.

Last fiddled with by alpertron on 2009-03-30 at 16:56
alpertron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-03-30, 17:57   #5
10metreh
 
10metreh's Avatar
 
Nov 2008

2·33·43 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fivemack View Post
109!+1 is proceeding nicely.

10^263-1 may or may not finish its linear algebra before I leave the country, but it'll certainly be done by Easter.

What would you be interested in next? I don't see any very interesting but possible GNFS numbers from the Cunningham tables - most of the C180 to C185 are easier by SNFS. Siever 16e isn't yet really usable, which makes very hard SNFS jobs a bit out of reach.

Possibilities are:

2^877-1 (Mersenne, SNFS, a bit harder than 10^263-1)

2801^79-1 (oddperfect, SNFS, a bit harder than 2^877-1)

EM43 (GNFS, people on this forum have been attacking it on and off for several years, same sort of difficulty as 5^421-1 was)

Something else
I'd go for 2^877-1 first on the grounds that this is the mersenneforum, and then EM43. This both avoids two GNFSs in a row and allows more time for improvements in msieve's poly selection.
10metreh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-03-30, 18:02   #6
FactorEyes
 
FactorEyes's Avatar
 
Oct 2006
vomit_frame_pointer

23×32×5 Posts
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
11,233+ or 11,229-.
Heck, I'll do those two. Should be about 30 days and 25 days of sieving, respectively, on my currently-available resources. I'm surprised they are still uncracked.

I'll send off a missive to Wagstaff, and grab one of these.

I finished 11,227- a while ago. I thought that 11,229- was already reserved, but a glance at the Cunningham project page says it hasn't.

Last fiddled with by FactorEyes on 2009-03-30 at 18:13
FactorEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-04-01, 03:19   #7
Xyzzy
 
Xyzzy's Avatar
 
"Mike"
Aug 2002

1D8816 Posts
Default

\ 2^{877}-1
Xyzzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-04-01, 06:47   #8
J.F.
 
J.F.'s Avatar
 
Jun 2008

23·32 Posts
Default

I'd also like to see M877 factored.
(Not sure if I'm able again to contribute...)
J.F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-04-01, 08:54   #9
fivemack
(loop (#_fork))
 
fivemack's Avatar
 
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England

2×52×127 Posts
Default

That looks a reasonable consensus for 2-877. When I get back after Easter, I'll put up a reservations post; until then, please sieve 109!+1 more, so that the matrix doesn't take eight weeks.
fivemack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-04-01, 17:01   #10
bdodson
 
bdodson's Avatar
 
Jun 2005
lehigh.edu

210 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fivemack View Post
That looks a reasonable consensus for 2-877. When I get back after Easter, I'll put up a reservations post; until then, please sieve 109!+1 more, so that the matrix doesn't take eight weeks.
This one is C178 with difficulty 264. As a number below C190, it ought
to have had 7*t50 >> t55 worth of ecm ("smallest 100 Cunninghams" list).
I could add another t55 (to make p54/p55's less likely, while not ruling
out p59/p60's), if that would be regarded as a worthwhile contribution?
-Bruce

Last fiddled with by bdodson on 2009-04-01 at 17:03 Reason: none, just trying for a 21/12/12 post (on April 1)
bdodson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-04-01, 17:43   #11
fivemack
(loop (#_fork))
 
fivemack's Avatar
 
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England

2×52×127 Posts
Default

Another t55 would definitely be a worthwhile contribution, thanks very much for the offer.
fivemack is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


All times are UTC. The time now is 18:59.

Thu Jul 9 18:59:12 UTC 2020 up 106 days, 16:32, 1 user, load averages: 1.27, 1.65, 1.82

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.