mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Other Stuff > Archived Projects > NFSNET Discussion

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 2008-05-29, 15:11   #34
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

22·5·373 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frmky View Post
The factorization of 7,271- is complete. The sieving for this one went faster than we expected, and therefore it was very oversieved. I initially filtered only the relations I had here in California to see the size of the matrix created. Here's that filtering log:



Greg

Nice result......

I am about half way through the LA for 2,1101+, half-way through the
sieving for 2,1104+ and will then do 2,1538M. Sam Wagstaff does not show
anyone doing 2,799+. Is anyone doing it or may I reserve it?
R.D. Silverman is offline  
Old 2008-05-29, 15:17   #35
bsquared
 
bsquared's Avatar
 
"Ben"
Feb 2007

357810 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
Nice result......

I am about half way through the LA for 2,1101+, half-way through the
sieving for 2,1104+ and will then do 2,1538M. Sam Wagstaff does not show
anyone doing 2,799+. Is anyone doing it or may I reserve it?
I'm doing it. Sieving is 95% done. Sorry, I never reserved it with Sam Wagstaff.

Last fiddled with by bsquared on 2008-05-29 at 15:18
bsquared is offline  
Old 2008-05-29, 17:36   #36
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

1D2416 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsquared View Post
I'm doing it. Sieving is 95% done. Sorry, I never reserved it with Sam Wagstaff.

Thanks for the info.
R.D. Silverman is offline  
Old 2008-05-30, 14:52   #37
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

22·5·373 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsquared View Post
I'm doing it. Sieving is 95% done. Sorry, I never reserved it with Sam Wagstaff.
I like your Avatar....

The student, of course, is 100% correct. The question did not
say "compute the value of x". The teacher needs to be more careful......
R.D. Silverman is offline  
Old 2008-05-30, 15:09   #38
bsquared
 
bsquared's Avatar
 
"Ben"
Feb 2007

1101111110102 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
I like your Avatar....
Thanks! I ran across that and several others like it in a mass e-mail awhile back (attached).

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
I like your Avatar....

The student, of course, is 100% correct. The question did not
say "compute the value of x". The teacher needs to be more careful......
Agreed. Nonetheless, something tells me that the teacher did not award any creativity points to the student in this case...

- ben.
Attached Files
File Type: zip solutions.zip (168.0 KB, 269 views)
bsquared is offline  
Old 2008-05-30, 15:10   #39
bsquared
 
bsquared's Avatar
 
"Ben"
Feb 2007

2·1,789 Posts
Default

More that didn't fit in previous post...
Attached Files
File Type: zip solutions2.zip (222.6 KB, 259 views)
bsquared is offline  
Old 2008-05-30, 19:54   #40
bsquared
 
bsquared's Avatar
 
"Ben"
Feb 2007

67728 Posts
Default

I'd like to reserve 2,1598L for SNFS. SNFS seems to be the way to go, especially since I now have experience with SNFS on this size number (namely, 2,799+), while I have none with GNFS on a C171.

I'm still playing around with parameterization, using this poly

Code:
 
n: 344682277495113483576737243789457319844973285487058684789549245491555989770819433641425904625087602042261741581803359854653090524174719942048090727106451863564668263059909
skew: 1 
c6: 2
c3: -2 
c0: 1 
Y1: -1 
Y0: 10889035741470030830827987437816582766592
- ben.

p.s. I've sent email to Sam Wagstaff about both this and 2,799+.
p.p.s Is this the best place to post such a reservation, or should I start a new thread?
bsquared is offline  
Old 2008-05-31, 00:37   #41
frmky
 
frmky's Avatar
 
Jul 2003
So Cal

42148 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsquared View Post
I'd like to reserve 2,1598L for SNFS.
Numbers like this always frustrate me. I keep thinking there surely must be a way to use an algebraic factor like, for this one,

65536x^736+65536x^713 + 32768x^690 - 16384x^644 - 16384x^621 - 8192x^598 + 4096x^552 + 4096x^529 + 2048x^506 - 1024x^460 - 1024x^437 - 512x^414 + 256x^368 - 128x^322 - 128x^299 - 64x^276 + 32x^230 + 32x^207 + 16x^184 - 8x^138 - 8x^115 - 4x^92 + 2x^46 + 2x^23 + 1

Degree 32 (or 16) polys are useless, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsquared View Post
p.p.s Is this the best place to post such a reservation, or should I start a new thread?
They don't need to be reserved here at all, just with Sam.

Greg
frmky is offline  
Old 2008-05-31, 02:26   #42
bsquared
 
bsquared's Avatar
 
"Ben"
Feb 2007

1101111110102 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frmky View Post
Numbers like this always frustrate me. I keep thinking there surely must be a way to use an algebraic factor...

Greg
Yeah, I know how you feel. I had pari print out the first 90 some splittings, and stared at that same one for a while.

something like
for(n=2,99,print(n,",",1598\n,",",factor(2^(1598%n)*x^n+1)))
bsquared is offline  
Old 2008-06-04, 17:04   #43
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

22×5×373 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdodson View Post
The NFSNET resources are mostly Richard's and Greg's; the two 10,257's (minus and plus) at difficulty 257.

<snip>
Did you do ECM pre-testing on 10,257-? While the C241 had 3 factors,
and would have required NFS to finish in any case, should the smaller
factor (a p54) be considered an ECM miss?
R.D. Silverman is offline  
Old 2008-06-04, 17:42   #44
frmky
 
frmky's Avatar
 
Jul 2003
So Cal

22·547 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
Did you do ECM pre-testing on 10,257-? While the C241 had 3 factors,
and would have required NFS to finish in any case, should the smaller
factor (a p54) be considered an ECM miss?
Probaby so. From Bruce,

Quote:
I have the
pre-test recorded as 7*t50 (which refers to the effort, not the limits;
almost all of the curves were either B1=110M (p55-optimal) or
B1=260M (p60-optimal)). That's supposed to be somewhere in
the range between t55 and 2*t55; which means that the chances
of finding a known p55 are between 63.2% and 86.4%, midrange
might be 1-exp(-1.5) = 77.68%, so I spent an effort sufficient
to find 3 of 4 known p55's, leaving 1 of 4 to be found by sieving.
There've certainly been lots of p54-p56's found; and among recent
sieving candidates I found a p53 (on-schedule) and a p57 (early).
Greg
frmky is offline  
 

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Considering current hardware on the status page petrw1 PrimeNet 20 2007-05-24 18:10
Current status fivemack NFSNET Discussion 90 2006-11-13 13:37
Current Status moo LMH > 100M 0 2006-09-02 01:15
Current status "fishing" HiddenWarrior Operation Billion Digits 1 2005-08-19 21:42
Current Status of the Cunningham Tables rogue Cunningham Tables 4 2005-06-10 18:28

All times are UTC. The time now is 17:33.


Sat Oct 16 17:33:59 UTC 2021 up 85 days, 12:02, 1 user, load averages: 1.03, 1.16, 1.30

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.