mersenneforum.org 11- table
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2005-01-11, 22:20 #1 garo     Aug 2002 Termonfeckin, IE 3×919 Posts 11- table Code: Size Base Index - Diff. Ratio 289 11 307 - 319.7 0.9 251 11 311 - 323.8 0.99 273 11 313 - 325.9 0.83 319 11 317 - 330.1 0.96 241 11 323 - 336.3 0.71 344 11 331 - 344.7 0.99 289 11 341 - 322.8 0.89 /11 294 11 347 - 361.3 0.81 294 11 349 - 363.4 0.8 Last fiddled with by Batalov on 2018-03-26 at 22:00 Reason: 11,293- is done
 2005-12-01, 17:19 #2 akruppa     "Nancy" Aug 2002 Alexandria 2,467 Posts 10408 curves at B1=44M on 11,239- c246. Adds 8.02467 to p45, 1.35679 to p50 and 0.20739 to p55. Alex
2007-02-16, 11:55   #3
bdodson

Jun 2005
lehigh.edu

20008 Posts
First on the garo 11- table!

Quote:
 Originally Posted by garo Code: Base Index Size 11M(45digits) 43M(50digits) 110M(55digits) 260M(60digits) Decimal 11 227- C195 27(1.05723) 40(0.205612) 630(0.0359772) 0(0.00565555) 984469958461669946331134175269535972678581291606947369505641093816179538386729583149733726284922487111763208303176785082052328807982992331143932131504453741826471251119859743518755983034989796049 11 229- C217 14(0.270473) 0(0.0527035) 165(0.00921839) 0(0.00148122) 2280535465910720786775600820467952780151520584989210953191513809529995832534442428104555605819675075601827186776697522052785839359025772719189070007046448589601858667341500520544021900960186671447742425444326260994871 11 233- C181 0(2.09174) 1500(0.38003) 590(0.0622008) 0(0.00529647) 3638029526867914815923489594587285626797533753146123743162290727610791298136033326483795137129428275721080608101533487077148138403910269514725873267506285639199648447372043817068739 11 235- C182 0(2.09174) 1500(0.38003) 590(0.0622008) 0(0.00529647) 10835100551974326032210703501349541965554864985688179195139946010601062261364483337942047398597258367633530485886544962131653246266840532801890865424245150043991345331435626089587731 11 239- C246 0(0.267423) 0(0.0522979) 165(0.00921839) 0(0.00148122)
Speaking of factors of low index Cunninghams (cf 7+ list, p53 today),
here's a 4th hole, and the first report of an 11- factor,

p49 = 1795306125519308524148513029485573280444347858061

finishes 11, 235- C182, difficulty 195. This is also the first 2007 factor
for the old_and_tired P3-cluster (after none from c155-c169s with
difficulty under 220). If I recall, this was a degree 4, so well worth
removing from the snfs list. -Bruce

2008-04-03, 19:14   #4
bdodson

Jun 2005
lehigh.edu

20008 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by garo Code: Base Index Size 11M(45digits) 43M(50digits) 110M(55digits) 260M(60digits) Decimal ... 11 251- C258 0(0.267423) 0(0.0522979) 165(0.00921839) 0(0.00148122) 487523988211783979202896039197591186290497247428788133724621419935480861329576209528082685233122161122376035778982182492664437004371964856890659726059972977717372420401692847726975957040423244869600265675076595382016275592550169879312507062175071226146047667 ...
Short list, more than a year since the last factor; not actually any
shorter after

p51 = 219716501365259540843452614863811940554249320274071

from 11, 251- C258, leaving a c208. -Bruce

 2008-05-17, 05:31 #5 mdettweiler A Sunny Moo     Aug 2007 USA (GMT-5) 11000011010012 Posts Ran 2 curves at B1=11000000, B2=30114149530 on 11,293- C300. No factors found.
2008-05-18, 00:30   #6
bdodson

Jun 2005
lehigh.edu

102410 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Anonymous Ran 2 curves at B1=11000000, B2=30114149530 on 11,293- C300. No factors found.
I hope that you're neither surprized nor dissapointed. I completed tests
to p45 on the complete Cunningham list some time ago, then tests to
t50. More recently, working toward complete tests to 2*t50, I
completed testing the Cunningham numbers at/above C300 to 2*t50. There
are only a few ranges below 2*t50, with still some numbers in c251-c265
that have only been tested to 1.0*p50; and the rest of c266-c299.9
at/above 1.5*t50. [That's with your B1 = 11M being p45-optimal; and
p50-optimal being B1=43M, with t50 taking some 7,700 curves, and 2*t50
representing twice that effort.]

By contrast, the BMtR list is still giving up factors in p45-p49; and several
of the other factoring projects offer even better prospects. Of course,
I might have missed something ....

-Bruce

2008-05-18, 03:36   #7
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo

Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

11000011010012 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by bdodson I hope that you're neither surprized nor dissapointed. I completed tests to p45 on the complete Cunningham list some time ago, then tests to t50. More recently, working toward complete tests to 2*t50, I completed testing the Cunningham numbers at/above C300 to 2*t50. There are only a few ranges below 2*t50, with still some numbers in c251-c265 that have only been tested to 1.0*p50; and the rest of c266-c299.9 at/above 1.5*t50. [That's with your B1 = 11M being p45-optimal; and p50-optimal being B1=43M, with t50 taking some 7,700 curves, and 2*t50 representing twice that effort.] By contrast, the BMtR list is still giving up factors in p45-p49; and several of the other factoring projects offer even better prospects. Of course, I might have missed something .... -Bruce
Oh, I see. One thing I'm a bit confused about, though (being new to factoring and all): if you did all that work, then how come it's not shown in the first post of this thread? (Or is it shown, and I just didn't interpret the data right?)

2008-05-18, 14:27   #8
bdodson

Jun 2005
lehigh.edu

20008 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Anonymous Oh, I see. One thing I'm a bit confused about, though (being new to factoring and all): if you did all that work, then how come it's not shown in the first post of this thread? (Or is it shown, and I just didn't interpret the data right?)
If you're interested in ECM factoring, then you know that success
with ecm reflects its nature as a random algorithm. A link on my home
page reports

Quote:
 An analysis of the ECM efforts for the year 1998, when the first factor of more than 49 digits was found, is given in [link]. The count of 40 - 49 digit factors was Dodson 22; Zimmermann 18; Montgomery 12, but the only factor that counted was Curry's 53 digit factor.
where the link is to one Richard Brent's early lists that you could find
from the ECMNET pages. By contrast, I used just a few months of
cpu time on 3 pcs to set my first record ECM factor in 2003. But,
as distinct from record ECM factors, mid-range ECM factors correlate
well with the amount of work done. The same page reports
"During November 1, 2003 to December 31, 2004 there were 122 Cunningham
factors found by ECMNET, of which 42 were found by Dodson using ....".

If you check the 3rd post from Garo on the "2.0" thread, you'll see that
most of the curves reported in the initial files in each of the sticky
threads in the "Cunningham Tables" sub-forum resulted from emails
between myself and Bob Silverman (first), and then between myself
and Rogue, which were then tabulated by Garo. It was a major effort
on his part, which has provided starting points for most of the posts
in this sub-forum. But the Tables all start from Jan 1, 2005, and no one
has considered updating the curve counts to be worth the effort --- even
keeping the unfactored numbers up to date has been a major effort, in
this case on Alex's part. The fourth, and (so far) the last post on the
2.0-thread is one of my early forum posts, dated 4 July 06, which records
If nothing else, you'd get a flavor of what Garo and Rogue were dealing
with, when they set the initial curve counts.

The factors during 2004 were obtained on a cluster of P3s, and were
mostly obtained from Cunningham numbers of size below 175-digits.
Finishing the t45 test resulted from the release of GMP-ECM-6,
a 64-bit binary supplied by Torbjorn and the arrival here of a cluster
of Opterons (a NFS grant for "major research instrumentation"). Finishing
t50 used a new condor pc/grid, some 700 pcs. Recent work continuing
on the pc/grid brought the 100 smallest Cunninghams up to 7*t50
(including all numbers below c190); the numbers from c190-c233 below
difficulty 250 up to 4*t50, the rest up to 3*t50; and the numbers from
c234-c250 up to 2*t50. The latter parts of that reflected a "life-cycle"
upgrade that replaced some P4s with core2duos, bring the pc count up
to 1000. Finally, many of the curves in the region above c250 I was referring
to in my previous post were done on a quadcore cluster (that has
since been switched over to sieving with a ggnfs binary and .poly povided
by Greg; cf the msieve thread).

So if you want curve counts, you get counts! The counts themselves
are not considered especially interesting; but systematically raising
curve counts (along with B1 bounds/default_B2) tends over time to
remove the smallest factors first. If you click the "by date" link on
the "quick start" page from ECMNET, you'll see that Cunningham factors
below p40 no longer appeared; then that factors below p45 became
rarer; and the most recent 30 factors show that it's more likely to
find a factor of 60-digits or more than to find a factor below 50-digits.
(At least until the most recent quadcore factors from numbers above
c250.) -Bruce

 2008-05-18, 23:02 #9 mdettweiler A Sunny Moo     Aug 2007 USA (GMT-5) 186916 Posts Ah, I see. Yes, I knew that ECM finds factors in a random way, but I had always thought that there was an "optimal number of curves" to do at a certain B1 value before moving on to the next level. Thanks for the explanation, though!
2008-05-19, 12:08   #10
R.D. Silverman

Nov 2003

22·5·373 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Anonymous Ah, I see. Yes, I knew that ECM finds factors in a random way, but I had always thought that there was an "optimal number of curves" to do at a certain B1 value before moving on to the next level.

There is. Nothing Bruce said contradicted this.
You need to read my joint paper with Sam Wagstaff Jr:
"A Practical Analysis of the Elliptic Curve Factoring Algorithm"
in Math. Comp.

It discusses two different optimizations.

(1) How to select parameters when you are going to spend a
*fixed* amount of time.
(2) How to select parameters to maximize the probability of success
per unit time spent.

2008-05-19, 12:31   #11
bdodson

Jun 2005
lehigh.edu

210 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by bdodson If you're interested in ECM factoring, ... If you click the "by date" link on the "quick start" page from ECMNET, you'll see that Cunningham factors below p40 no longer appeared; then that factors below p45 became rarer; and the most recent 30 factors show that it's more likely to find a factor of 60-digits or more than to find a factor below 50-digits. (At least until the most recent quadcore factors from numbers above c250.) -Bruce
ECMNET/loria.fr was down over the weekend, and my recollection
was flawed here. There were a bunch of smallish factors from my
run towards a 2nd t50 on the c251-c384 Cunninghams; but even
those were more likely to be p5x than p4x. The link I was referring
to is

http://www.loria.fr/~zimmerma/cgi-bin/last.cgi?date

which lists 767 Cunningham factors reported to the ECMNET page
since Jan 1, 2000. Nov 1, 2003 is at #354; which is where the
count of factors from the P3 cluster started (iirc). The last 30 reports
(which included most of the least tested range) is #738-#767 of which
there are two factors below p50 (both p48s) and two factors above
p59.99 (p62 and p66), the rest p5x's. Looks like I was recalling a somewhat
earlier stretch, which included the p60 at #735, but not the p48 at
#731.

So the claim that there were "more p6x's than p4x's" is correct for
a range of 30 factors starting after #731, which gives 3-to-2, with
the other 25 being p5x's. Checking the Cunningham site of recent
factors (all methods), page 108 has the five most recent ECMNET/Dodson
factors; two from the tail end of the 3rd t50 on c190-c234; two
from the quadcore run on c251-c279 (with c266-c279 complete to
1.5*t50, the +0.5*t50 only partial on c251-c265) and the most recent
p57 from the current Childers/Dodson number. Checking the previous
page 107 fills in the two most recent p48s at #5587 and #5592 (in Sam's
numbering) and the last three ECMNET/Dodson factors were all from
c266-c299.

Hmm. So the most recent 30 (as distinct from a somewhat earlier
"most recent" 30) reflects two recent p48s, and bunches of small
p5xs, with no quadcore p6x. Anyway. It's clear that the p45-optimal
B1 = 11M is not the most likely place to look. By contrast, the current
#1 on the top10 of 2008 was found by PaulZ, a p66 with p50-optimal
B1=43M; but I'd bet that the number of curves was in 5-digits, maybe
6-digits. -Bruce

Last fiddled with by bdodson on 2008-05-19 at 12:41 Reason: uhm, so my recollection _was_ correct; "at least until"

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post garo Cunningham Tables 100 2021-01-04 22:36 garo Cunningham Tables 86 2021-01-04 22:35 garo Cunningham Tables 80 2021-01-04 22:33 garo Cunningham Tables 82 2020-03-15 21:47 garo Cunningham Tables 41 2016-08-04 04:24

All times are UTC. The time now is 15:04.

Sat Jan 16 15:04:24 UTC 2021 up 44 days, 11:15, 0 users, load averages: 2.93, 2.75, 2.60