mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > Cunningham Tables

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2005-01-18, 13:59   #1
garo
 
garo's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Termonfeckin, IE

2·5·251 Posts
Default 10+ table

Code:
Size	Base	Index	Mod	Diff	Ratio
242	10	323	+	323	0.749	
295	10	332	+	332	0.888
300	10	346	+	346	0.867
318	10	347	+	347	0.916
300	10	353	+	353	0.849
292	10	356	+	356	0.82
332	10	358	+	358	0.927
329	10	359	+	359	0.916
289	10	365	+	292	0.989	/5q
235	10	371	+	318	0.738	/7
283	10	373	+	373	0.758
305	10	374	+	340	0.897	/11
292	10	377	+	348	0.839	/13
278	10	379	+	379	0.733
324	10	382	+	382	0.848
366	10	383	+	383	0.955
348	10	386	+	386	0.901
265	10	392	+	336	0.788	/7
335	10	398	+	398	0.841
306	10	400	+	320	0.956	/5q
265	10	670L
231	10	710L
212	10	710M

Last fiddled with by Batalov on 2019-10-14 at 21:30 Reason: 10,313+ is done!
garo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-08-24, 05:21   #2
bdodson
 
bdodson's Avatar
 
Jun 2005
lehigh.edu

40016 Posts
Thumbs up p67 factor (not snfs ...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by garo View Post
Part 3 of 3
Code:
Base	Index	Size	11M(45digits)	43M(50digits)	110M(55digits)	260M(60digits)	Decimal

10	381+	C214	0(0.267423)	0(0.0522979)	165(0.00921839)	0(0.00148122)	
1009342896093598497779073565555297793634912097024613160705050252018362252646940962166733304631155103166829723922295200013852066602135544397087747985877524133291986126801290042969097513730326998650850605170907339801
We can drop further testing on this one --- the factor is out of ecm range
at 67-digits,

p67 = 4444349792156709907895752551798631908946180608768737946280238078881

Ooops, guess not! Lucky curve had sigma = 834412411, and the
curve order is again way-smooth at

[ <2, 2>, <3, 1>, <131, 1>, <124847, 1>, <1244459, 1>, <1785599, 1>,
<3000931, 1>, <4032877, 1>, <27225659, 1>, <29985143, 1>,
<87373729, 1>, <11805290281, 1> ]

So B1=260M wasn't used so much (B1=87.4M would have done),
and the large factor is under 200*(2nd largest); i.e., large step2
wasn't much used either. A new record 16-months of hard searching
since the previous (p66) record.

Bruce
bdodson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-08-24, 09:49   #3
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

26×113 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdodson View Post
We can drop further testing on this one --- the factor is out of ecm range
at 67-digits,

p67 = 4444349792156709907895752551798631908946180608768737946280238078881

Ooops, guess not! Lucky curve had sigma = 834412411, and the
curve order is again way-smooth at

[ <2, 2>, <3, 1>, <131, 1>, <124847, 1>, <1244459, 1>, <1785599, 1>,
<3000931, 1>, <4032877, 1>, <27225659, 1>, <29985143, 1>,
<87373729, 1>, <11805290281, 1> ]

So B1=260M wasn't used so much (B1=87.4M would have done),
and the large factor is under 200*(2nd largest); i.e., large step2
wasn't much used either. A new record 16-months of hard searching
since the previous (p66) record.

Bruce
Terrific!!!
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-08-24, 23:41   #4
akruppa
 
akruppa's Avatar
 
"Nancy"
Aug 2002
Alexandria

25·7·11 Posts
Default

Woohoo!! Bruce stikes again!

It was about time we saw an ECM p60+ this year. What took you so long?

Thanks Bruce!

Alex

Edit: This warrants a

Last fiddled with by akruppa on 2006-08-24 at 23:42
akruppa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-11-04, 11:29   #5
smh
 
smh's Avatar
 
"Sander"
Oct 2002
52.345322,5.52471

29×41 Posts
Default

Finally, after lots of problems, i managed to finish the factorization of 10,372+
Code:
N=27631128541915805055082181453641534739220599640437919826011911720853571851003653210276038758402805108684942992674414184678333002887846210747417   ( 143 digits)
Divisors found:
r1=23140616853203983900922551785166946660605063239337678349130406077337 (pp68)
r2=1194053240550935343606131291791034479414833114386116350011658511441777011841 (pp76)
smh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-11-09, 03:13   #6
geoff
 
geoff's Avatar
 
Mar 2003
New Zealand

100100001012 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smh View Post
Finally, after lots of problems, i managed to finish the factorization of 10,372+
Where did the problems occur? The one persistant problem I have is with the matrix not converging in matsolve, which seems to strike in about 50% of the larger GGNFS jobs.
geoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-11-09, 14:25   #7
smh
 
smh's Avatar
 
"Sander"
Oct 2002
52.345322,5.52471

29·41 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff View Post
Where did the problems occur? The one persistant problem I have is with the matrix not converging in matsolve, which seems to strike in about 50% of the larger GGNFS jobs.
Matbuild kept on crashing with memory reallocation errors. I processed the relations several times, with a different number of relations, different factor bases and on different hardware (all had 4 - 12 GB of RAM) with no luck.

Someone form the GGNFS mailing list sent me a few programs to remove singletons. This apparently decreased memory usage so i was able to build the matrix.

I lost a week of matrix solving time because someone rebooted the server matsolve was running on.

When the matrix finally finished, sqrt produced trivial factorizations (with errors in screen output) on all dependencies.

I was sent a new version of sqrt, but that didn't work either.

I decided to reprocess the relations a second time, this time with a bit less relations (i had plenty the first time). After removing the singletons, the matrix build fine again.

matsolve took another 12 days or so and this time the factors were found on the 9th!! dependency.
smh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-11-09, 17:53   #8
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

1C4016 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smh View Post
Matbuild kept on crashing with memory reallocation errors. I processed the relations several times, with a different number of relations, different factor bases and on different hardware (all had 4 - 12 GB of RAM) with no luck.

Someone form the GGNFS mailing list sent me a few programs to remove singletons. This apparently decreased memory usage so i was able to build the matrix.

I lost a week of matrix solving time because someone rebooted the server matsolve was running on.

When the matrix finally finished, sqrt produced trivial factorizations (with errors in screen output) on all dependencies.

I was sent a new version of sqrt, but that didn't work either.

I decided to reprocess the relations a second time, this time with a bit less relations (i had plenty the first time). After removing the singletons, the matrix build fine again.

matsolve took another 12 days or so and this time the factors were found on the 9th!! dependency.


Hi,

Welcome to the woefull and wonderful wacky world of sieve post-processing.

We've all had our share of problems....
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-11-09, 20:20   #9
smh
 
smh's Avatar
 
"Sander"
Oct 2002
52.345322,5.52471

29·41 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
Welcome to the woefull and wonderful wacky world of sieve post-processing.

We've all had our share of problems....
But at least most of you knew what you were doing.

Although it was the first number that gave me problems with this release of GGNFS i'm hesitating to try another number from the cunningham list. It seems 140 -150 digits is really pushing the limit.

Are there any numbers left with a SNFS difficulty of around 200?
smh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-11-10, 13:33   #10
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

26·113 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smh View Post
But at least most of you knew what you were doing.

Although it was the first number that gave me problems with this release of GGNFS i'm hesitating to try another number from the cunningham list. It seems 140 -150 digits is really pushing the limit.

Are there any numbers left with a SNFS difficulty of around 200?
Sure. There are plenty of them. All have composite exponents divisible
by 3,5,7, or 11.


e.g. 2,1630M, 11, 279+, 11,291+ (just over 200), 5, 411+, 5,429+,
6,369+, 2,1582L (just over 200) etc. etc.
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-11-11, 11:12   #11
smh
 
smh's Avatar
 
"Sander"
Oct 2002
52.345322,5.52471

29×41 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
Sure. There are plenty of them. All have composite exponents divisible by 3,5,7, or 11.
Thanks.

I checked out a few of the with Alex's phi.exe (Is there a version that can handle the +1 side?).

This is new teritory to me so i've got a few questions:

Is deg. 4 poly suitable for numbers this size (SNFS dif. ~200)? How much harder is a deg.4 compared to a deg. 5 poly?

What would be a suitable factor base?
smh is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


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

All times are UTC. The time now is 02:23.

Mon Oct 26 02:23:07 UTC 2020 up 45 days, 23:34, 0 users, load averages: 1.63, 1.78, 1.79

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.