Cunningham ECM efforts - Page 13

Andrew Usher · 2023-05-28, 12:27

Well, the question of Greg's plans, as far as he has them, seems to have been answered - he will go back to the easiest remaining sextics. Though octics have been done on the big siever before, they will be ignored for now (again there are 38 under 300). And 'most wanted' 10,332+ was also omitted from this round of requests - I assume it has not been overlooked.

To answer the other points in passing: genuinely it _is_ surprising to see so many 'opaque' pseudonyms - I have not noticed that elsewhere on the Internet, though I'd not be surprised that there are such places, but not where I like to read. And of course I'm not an expert - I pick up some things very quickly, but never deceive. I simply can't help being interested.

Andrew Usher · 2023-06-04, 23:48

Factor #6724 purports to be a 72-digit factor found by ECM. Yet it is not in the ECM records page, and there has been more than enough time for them to synchronise. Who is wrong here?

charybdis · 2023-06-05, 01:48

I think you know the answer to that question yourself.

There are a couple of factors from Sam on page 143 that are also big enough for the top 10. Looks like everyone's slow to submit this year :)

Andrew Usher · 2023-06-10, 01:05

Yes, that's what I would expect. The factors on page 143 show that it's not Zimmermann not updating causing this, but whoever is supposed to report them not doing so.

frmky · 2023-06-10, 17:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Usher

supposed to report them

There is clearly no obligation here. They will get picked up eventually.

R.D. Silverman · 2023-06-10, 17:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by frmky

There is clearly no obligation here. They will get picked up eventually.

Sam believes that ECM factors under 70 digits are common enough that they aren't worth reporting.

mathwiz · 2023-06-10, 21:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Usher

Yes, that's what I would expect. The factors on page 143 show that it's not Zimmermann not updating causing this, but whoever is supposed to report them not doing so.

What is "supposed to"?? Who is "supposed" to do what?

These are all completely volunteer projects.

Dr Sardonicus · 2023-06-11, 01:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by mathwiz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Usher

Yes, that's what I would expect. The factors on page 143 show that it's not Zimmermann not updating causing this, but whoever is supposed to report them not doing so.

What is "supposed to"?? Who is "supposed" to do what?
<snip>

The real issue is - Who is doing the supposing?

Using the passive voice ("is supposed to") is often an attempt to make a personal opinion ("I suppose" or "I think") sound like something authoritative.

mathwiz · 2023-06-11, 01:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

The real issue is - Who is doing the supposing?

Using the passive voice ("is supposed to") is often an attempt to make a personal opinion ("I suppose" or "I think") sound like something authoritative.

I suppose so.

Andrew Usher · 2023-06-11, 02:02

The ECM records page (which is being updated) has always in the past been the reference for that subject, and I now notice that what apparently is the second largest factor of 2023 is missing, so that at least deserves to be noted, irrespective of who if anyone should be held responsible. The 72-digit factor (#6274) I indicated, and the 71-digit factor charybdis alluded to (#6695; actually that one is a bit strange as I'd expect a remaining c148 to go immediately to gnfs) are indisputably so (and are not less than 70 digits); the next largest factor (70 digits on 2,2278M) is on the list (from yoyo).

I am not going to nit-pick about language; I think it's clear what I meant by 'is supposed to', a phrase I did think about before using.

frmky · 2023-06-11, 02:15

Given his concern, I suppose that it is Andrew's responsibility to identify and report any missing record ecm factors to Paul Z.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Recommended bases and efforts	gd_barnes	Conjectures 'R Us	190	2023-02-26 09:01
Doublecheck efforts; S66/S79 to start with	gd_barnes	Conjectures 'R Us	16	2014-08-07 02:11
Cunningham ECM Now Futile?	R.D. Silverman	GMP-ECM	4	2012-04-25 02:45
ECM efforts mistake?	10metreh	mersennewiki	1	2008-12-28 13:31
ECM Efforts	R.D. Silverman	Factoring	63	2005-06-24 13:41

2023-05-28, 12:27	#133
Andrew Usher Dec 2022 2×3×7×13 Posts	Well, the question of Greg's plans, as far as he has them, seems to have been answered - he will go back to the easiest remaining sextics. Though octics have been done on the big siever before, they will be ignored for now (again there are 38 under 300). And 'most wanted' 10,332+ was also omitted from this round of requests - I assume it has not been overlooked. To answer the other points in passing: genuinely it _is_ surprising to see so many 'opaque' pseudonyms - I have not noticed that elsewhere on the Internet, though I'd not be surprised that there are such places, but not where I like to read. And of course I'm not an expert - I pick up some things very quickly, but never deceive. I simply can't help being interested.

2023-06-04, 23:48	#134
Andrew Usher Dec 2022 2×3×7×13 Posts	Factor #6724 purports to be a 72-digit factor found by ECM. Yet it is not in the ECM records page, and there has been more than enough time for them to synchronise. Who is wrong here?

2023-06-05, 01:48	#135
charybdis Apr 2020 1141₁₀ Posts	I think you know the answer to that question yourself. There are a couple of factors from Sam on page 143 that are also big enough for the top 10. Looks like everyone's slow to submit this year :)

2023-06-10, 01:05	#136
Andrew Usher Dec 2022 2×3×7×13 Posts	Yes, that's what I would expect. The factors on page 143 show that it's not Zimmermann not updating causing this, but whoever is supposed to report them not doing so.

2023-06-11, 02:02	#142
Andrew Usher Dec 2022 1000100010₂ Posts	The ECM records page (which is being updated) has always in the past been the reference for that subject, and I now notice that what apparently is the second largest factor of 2023 is missing, so that at least deserves to be noted, irrespective of who if anyone should be held responsible. The 72-digit factor (#6274) I indicated, and the 71-digit factor charybdis alluded to (#6695; actually that one is a bit strange as I'd expect a remaining c148 to go immediately to gnfs) are indisputably so (and are not less than 70 digits); the next largest factor (70 digits on 2,2278M) is on the list (from yoyo). I am not going to nit-pick about language; I think it's clear what I meant by 'is supposed to', a phrase I did think about before using.

2023-06-11, 02:15	#143
frmky Jul 2003 So Cal 2,683 Posts	Given his concern, I suppose that it is Andrew's responsibility to identify and report any missing record ecm factors to Paul Z.