20091227, 04:50  #1 
Noodles
"Mr. Tuch"
Dec 2007
Chennai, India
4E9_{16} Posts 
Cunningham Tables at Mersenne Wiki
After the long time awaited December 2009 updates from Prof. Sam Wagstaff,
Just have a look up at here No need to explain anything at all, as everything is selfexplanatory... Remaining holes to be sorted up by order of difficulty levels, which I should do up by tonight. More information to be added up into the Mersenne Wiki, as I have planned up already. What is your opinion about the tables? Is it nice? By using the program of Mr. Tim Morrow actually, my credits goes up to him as well. Last fiddled with by Raman on 20091227 at 05:47 
20091227, 10:41  #2 
Noodles
"Mr. Tuch"
Dec 2007
Chennai, India
3×419 Posts 
Changes to Mersenne Wiki: Reserved numbers
10metreh added up word "reserved" for those reserved numbers.
But in some cases, this word goes out of the aligned box, and then in some cases (such as 10,530L) in which that word is in the center, it spoils the alignment of the next factor as well. I am going to use up magenta colour for those reserved numbers, and then make a note above. Note for blue numbers, which are derived factors, I will also include them up as well, in addition to Mr. Tim Morrow's points as well. Here is the modified cunningham.cpp file being attached up for generating the tables. Changes include up the following: Removal of some HTML tags <a> tag not being allowed up at all Font colour blue instead of links Number of characters per line changed up as accommodated by the web browser Some spelling, grammar errors being corrected up within the HTML header file Not included up within the attachment file, as of now: (is Mr. Tim Morrow's bug within the code) Most important thing is that, some Aurifeuillian extension tables have both the L, M parts being incompletely factored up. Both parts have been marked as red Use of the colour magenta for those already reserved numbers Note within the header for the use of the colours blue, magenta Last fiddled with by Raman on 20091227 at 10:44 Reason: Sorry that I forgot up about the attachment file itself, only 
20091228, 02:33  #3  
Jun 2005
lehigh.edu
2^{10} Posts 
Quote:
unwanted emails when you were unhappy). You have three uses of the word "up" that I've retained above; which makes following your sometimes complex posts too difficult for me to manage. 1. For "added up word" we're expecting to see something like "added the word". 2. For "going to use up magenta", just "going to use magenta". 3. And, for "include them up as well"; again, just "include them as well". For someone able to master "magenta" and the use of ggnfs/msieve, I'm sure that you could reduce the number of these distractions, if you're inclined to do so. In any case, this was one of your posts I followed through (at least, in part). I was noticing on reading Sam's recent cover letter for the factors on page 113, the fourth paragraph, that Quote:
In any case, while you're clarifying the difficulties (presumably to make chosing numbers to factor more accessible), I was wondering whether you might flag these decimal versions  as we've recently been doing for clearing base2's to 800bits (and next, perhaps, 900bits). Are there more numbers with difficulty below 240? Which numbers satisfy Sam's condition for 250 or 260? And other numbers we might include as having difficulty below 250 resp 260 digits? Keeping things simple, clearing all numbers of difficulty below 270 seems to be above our current range of interest. Bruce 

20091228, 08:41  #4 
Jul 2003
So Cal
11111101000_{2} Posts 
Yes, lots. 51 unreserved by my count. Although admittedly most of them require decidedly suboptimal quartics or octics. However, there are eight, ranging from difficulty of 221.4 to 239, that can be done with a sextic. There are another 11, not counting those requiring quartics, with difficulties from 240 to 250 and 17 from 250 to 260. Lots to keep NFS@Home busy.

20091228, 13:53  #5  
Jun 2005
lehigh.edu
2^{10} Posts 
Quote:
But on the question of b^n's < 10^250 and b^n's < 10^260; the mark that Edwards (a forum user) cleared for 240? A smaller subset of the ones you mention, but perhaps including otherwise unattractive quartics (or optics? you too!). How many (and which) to clear Sam's version of b^n < 250? Bruce (@NFS: whizbang's back and doubling my daily totals!) 

20091228, 18:01  #6  
"Robert Gerbicz"
Oct 2005
Hungary
2·13·53 Posts 
Quote:
6,323+ 6,331+ 6,332+ 11,241 

20091228, 18:25  #7 
Noodles
"Mr. Tuch"
Dec 2007
Chennai, India
3·419 Posts 
The list is now completely ready at the Mersenne Wiki
There are 537 composites remaining within the Cunningham Tables as of 28 December 2009, 6:30 pm GMT 39 of them being reserved For the software of Mr. Tim Morrow To produce the tables By using the following command lines: awk f pmain.awk pmainMMYY.txt > pmain.in awk f appa.awk appaMMYY.txt > appa.in awk f appc.awk appcMMYY.txt > appc.inModify the header files to suit for you Compile, link and then run that C++ program, cunningham.cpp It will produce 16 HTML files and then 16 text files, for the Cunningham Tables. Enjoy them up! 
20091228, 19:00  #8 
Noodles
"Mr. Tuch"
Dec 2007
Chennai, India
3·419 Posts 
1) In this page, the SNFS quartics table, and then the GNFS candidates
tables, have been pushed down, below. I don't know how to bring them up, to the top. What HTML table tag helps to do this? 2) If I can find any site with regular updates for the Fibonacci & Lucas numbers factors, Homogeneous Cunninghams, Factors of Factorials, Primorials ± 1, etc., I can add them up into the Mersenne Wiki, along with the Cunningham tables. Any idea from anyone, where I can find them out with regular updates, including extension to the Cunningham tables will be certainly nice, by the way. 
20091228, 19:01  #9  
Nov 2003
16444_{8} Posts 
Quote:
5,377+ , 5,785L/M, 5,805L, 5,815L, 10,366+, 2,1179+, 2,1191+/1 (I intend to do these last 4) 2,1862L/M , 11,265, ............ etc. etc. There are plenty of numbers with SNFS difficulty under 250. 

20091228, 20:01  #10  
Noodles
"Mr. Tuch"
Dec 2007
Chennai, India
3·419 Posts 
Quote:
in case you don't know about it: If the exponent is a multiple of three, then you know the formula right? We know the complete factorization of first part already, only we need to care about the second part. Using that part, we can create a sextic SNFS polynomial. The difficulty reduces to (2/3)*exponent*log_{10}(base) Similarly, if exponent is a multiple of five, we can create a quartic, with difficulty (4/5)*exponent*log_{10}(base) by using the polynomial but since it is a quartic, it is slightly harder than a similar difficulty of quintic or sextic polynomial. If the exponent is a multiple of seven, we can create a sextic out of it, actually, with difficulty (6/7)*exponent*log_{10}(base) For exponent being multiples of 11 or 13, you will get 10th and 12th degree polynomials for these respectively, and then you need to divide them up by using x^{5} and x^{6} respectively, then you substitute y=(x+(1/x)), actually y=(kx+(1/x)) for the Aurifeuillian parts of the table extensions for the base k, and then you can write them up as 5th and 6th degree polynomials in y respectively. Thus, for exponents being multiples of 11, you will get up with quintics, for those exponents being multiples of 13, sextics. with that actual difficulty only being (10/11)*exponent*log_{10}(base) and then (12/13)*exponent*log_{10}(base) respectively. Note that for those Aurifeuillian parts (such as those 2LM tables), you cannot use up with those multiples of 11 and 13 at all, as they lead you upto higher degree polynomials, more than 6, and then for multiples of 7, you will get sextics, for multiples of 3 and 5, both quartics only, within that case only, right then. Last fiddled with by Raman on 20091228 at 20:02 

20091229, 02:53  #11  
Jun 2005
lehigh.edu
2^{10} Posts 
Quote:
you replied to. I expect that we'll see Sam's page reporting that the numbers with "b^n < 10^260" have been completed (not sure why we wouldn't have already gotten that for 10^250). My question to Raman was silly to start with (as you likely noticed). We just check the first hole on each of the 18 lists (or maybe 2LM is excluded?). Looks like only 6+ and 11 met Sam's condition (or one of them; for 260); and after that, check 2nd holes on those two lists (yes for 6+, no for 11); then finaly yes for the 3rd hole on 6+, no for the fourth. Thanks; your list clarified my question. Perhaps we might mail a copy of Raman's email to Sam; many exponents n have b^n's with snfs difficulty well below log[10](b^n); divisibility by 3 etc. But that's not what Sam's saying on that cover letter (for page 113); we hear that Sam was rather busy with other things on the previous week. He must have been distracted. Bruce 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Extensions to Cunningham tables  Raman  Cunningham Tables  87  20121114 11:24 
Extended Cunningham tables  ZetaFlux  Factoring  2  20080303 18:34 
Cunningham Tables @mersenneforum.org v2.0  garo  Cunningham Tables  3  20060704 08:00 
New Cunningham Tables forum.  garo  Factoring  1  20060323 22:17 
A question about Cunningham tables  T.Rex  Factoring  14  20050527 00:27 