mersenneforum.org Factoring for a publication
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

2021-06-14, 14:28   #265
Max0526

"Max"
Jun 2016
Toronto

929 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by bsquared I'm pushing toward a t60 on the c198 from line 128. Assuming the number survives that, I'll ask for a spun poly for the c198.
I will start spinning ahead of time and will do my absolute best to get you a very good poly. So far the best increase in E was 29%. I suspect it's not the limit yet.

2021-06-14, 15:02   #266
VBCurtis

"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

2·3·937 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by bsquared It looks like it is asking for 1992616 additional raw input relations, which is only 7% more than the 27M you've already gathered. I don't know if it accounts for the expected 40% duplication rate in that figure or not...
CADO's calculation asks for "output" relations = uniques, and then estimates how many "input" relations = raw will be needed to get that many uniques.

Bur is learning what happens when too-small parameter choices are made. I believe this job will finish, but it won't be pretty. You're correct to believe the remaining effort is less time than starting over, but now you know that a 20% complete job isn't so much sunk cost that starting over is out of the question.

 2021-06-14, 16:54 #267 bsquared     "Ben" Feb 2007 1110100100112 Posts I'm running a t35 on all of the unbooked composties in unhighlighted rows 158, 160, and 168-172. This is good experience for avx-ecm. So far (I will update as things progress): Code: (10,-5) c168 = p47*c123 (10,-7) c282 = p26*c256 c288 = p11*c277 (5,-10) c283 = p27*p32*p34*p35*c157 (4,-10) c277 (#1) = p19*p17*p28*p34*c181 c277 (#2) = p22*p28*c229 (3,-10) c265 = p14*prp251 (2,-10) c231 = p24*c207 c249 = p15*p23*c212 (1,-10) c184 = p36*c149 c235 = p28*prp207 So far no complete factorizations but (10,-5) now has an easy c123 that I am not reserving. Last fiddled with by bsquared on 2021-06-14 at 17:35 Reason: more results
2021-06-14, 17:06   #268
Max0526

"Max"
Jun 2016
Toronto

3A116 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by bsquared I'm running a t35 on all of the unbooked composties in unhighlighted rows 158, 160, and 168-172. This is good experience for avx-ecm. So far (I will update as things progress): Code: (10,-5) c168 = p47*c123 (10,-7) c282 = p26*c256 c288 = p11*c277 (5,-10) c283 = p27*p32*p34*p35*c157 (4,-10) c277 (#1) = p19*p17*p28*p34*c181 c277 (#2) = p22*p28*c229 So far no complete factorizations but (10,-5) now has an easy c123 that I am not reserving.
I removed the highlight from lines 161 and 163. It was yellow just to show that the composites in bold were shared by different points.
So lines 161 and 163 are free to take for ECM as well, if you wish.

Last fiddled with by Max0526 on 2021-06-14 at 17:10

2021-06-14, 17:39   #269
bsquared

"Ben"
Feb 2007

72238 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max0526 I removed the highlight from lines 161 and 163. It was yellow just to show that the composites in bold were shared by different points. So lines 161 and 163 are free to take for ECM as well, if you wish.
Done with the t35's in my previous post. Line 161 has already survived t50, so I'll skip that for now. Now running a t35 on the 5 unreserved composites of line 163.

results:
Code:
(10,-10)
c208 = p39*c169
c401 = p30*c372
Done with t35 on 5 composites on line 163.

Last fiddled with by bsquared on 2021-06-14 at 18:17 Reason: more results

 2021-06-14, 17:41 #270 bur     Aug 2020 79*6581e-4;3*2539e-3 2×3×109 Posts If it's unique relations, then it's only missing 1.2e6 more, which is about 2e6 relations. I'm not sure if that estimate is correct anyway, since this is the 7th or so round of filtering. ETA is in 7 hours, so I'll know tomorrow morning. VBCurtis, you're right, but is it certain the other parameters would have turned out better? They asked for 65e6 relations, which would be faster at the rels/q rate from test-sieving but only if it wouldn't turn out to be an underestimation as well. Is there any way to prevent this underestimation of required relations from happening? Test filtering? Actually, it would be interesting to compeltely re-run this number using different parameters. Some other time though, currently the office is a sauna with the weather and the CPU. So I'll have to move the computer to an AC'ed room first as soon as this factorization finishes... ;) Last fiddled with by bur on 2021-06-14 at 17:42
 2021-06-14, 17:52 #271 charybdis     Apr 2020 13×71 Posts bur - watch that "excess" figure which pops up each time filtering runs; it was -1183116 in the log entry that you posted. That number should get smaller and smaller (in absolute value) until it turns positive, at which point filtering should succeed unless required_excess is nonzero. Keeping track of the excess will give you some idea of how much longer you'll need to sieve.
 2021-06-14, 19:36 #272 swishzzz   Jan 2012 Toronto, Canada 25·3 Posts I've added a few more entries into factordb which are not currently on the Google Sheet. This is around the limit of numbers I can completely factor given the resources on my single Lenovo Ideapad 5 without causing performance issues for my other apps. General rule of thumb here is size of number ~ SNFS difficulty * 12. (12, 5): http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000002606861040 (2421 digits) (12, 4): http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000002606860637 (2289 digits) (12, 3): http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000002606859937 (2216 digits) (12, 2): http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000002606859288 (2197 digits) (12, 1): http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000002606857749 (2223 digits) (12, 0): http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000002606855673 (2310 digits) (12, -1): http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000002606856356 (2439 digits)
 2021-06-14, 19:41 #273 bsquared     "Ben" Feb 2007 7×13×41 Posts Advancing to t40 on unreserved composites on lines 158,160,163, and 167-172 Progress: Code: (10,-7) c256 = p38*c219 (5,-10) c157 = p36*p50*p73 Now done: all ecm'ed to t40 with 1 partial and 1 complete factorization. Last fiddled with by bsquared on 2021-06-15 at 17:40 Reason: more results
2021-06-14, 21:02   #274
swishzzz

Jan 2012

1408 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by swishzzz I've added a few more entries into factordb which are not currently on the Google Sheet. This is around the limit of numbers I can completely factor given the resources on my single Lenovo Ideapad 5 without causing performance issues for my other apps. General rule of thumb here is size of number ~ SNFS difficulty * 12. (12, 5): http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000002606861040 (2421 digits) (12, 4): http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000002606860637 (2289 digits) (12, 3): http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000002606859937 (2216 digits) (12, 2): http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000002606859288 (2197 digits) (12, 1): http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000002606857749 (2223 digits) (12, 0): http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000002606855673 (2310 digits) (12, -1): http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000002606856356 (2439 digits)
Finished light ecm on all these (t25 or so):

(12, 5): c156, c169
(12, 4): c170, c173, c177
(12, 3): c130, c180
(12, 2): c121, c143
(12, 1): c125
(12, 0): c168, c174, c175
(12, -1): c121, c179, c190

2021-06-14, 21:54   #275
Max0526

"Max"
Jun 2016
Toronto

929 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by bsquared I'm pushing toward a t60 on the c198 from line 128. Assuming the number survives that, I'll ask for a spun poly for the c198.
c198 spun poly vs original polys. Because the two spun polys are close, and coming from different connected elliptic curves, it may be smart to test-sieve to decide which one to pick.
Code:
n: 442480456268307355970377486465969784979730470279409306982158698829691328120816007497057176155135483213248563103903861494465722951888948657031409779919681670455655411204200835023769409621132838744169

SPUN:
Line 4 : {'c4': '1', 'c3': '0', 'c2': '2', 'c1': '-12', 'c0': '10', 'y1': '3105317578628153423506739578983437982692791417722955507', 'y0': '1783785732675759131389551214804762300612349559114245473'}
Skew, Murphy E:
1.16292 2.41372557e-13

Line 25 : {'c4': '2', 'c3': '2', 'c2': '1', 'c1': '4', 'c0': '8', 'y1': '1195009498251726830929240449280801910673701770687009936', 'y0': '-6033442123246363595737194920672615397495021982445825621'}
Skew, Murphy E:
2.2025 2.37771575e-13
----------------------
BEST ORIGINAL:
Line 2 : {'c4': '2', 'c3': '-30', 'c2': '169', 'c1': '-420', 'c0': '392', 'y1': '1195009498251726830929240449280801910673701770687009936', 'y0': '-10813480116253270919454156717795823040189829065193865365'}
Skew, Murphy E:
4.9201 2.03968529e-13

Line 7 : {'c4': '1', 'c3': '-24', 'c2': '288', 'c1': '-4320', 'c0': '32400', 'y1': '220255307658732382019531394029779280346740309768118339', 'y0': '-15526587893140767117533697894917189913463957088614777535'}
Skew, Murphy E:
20.63567 1.77637452e-13
bsquared, are they detailed enough for you, or you need me to recreate them in a standard column format? Here the coefficients are c4,c3,c2,c1,c0,Y1,Y0; n is at the top.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post baih Miscellaneous Math 9 2020-09-21 07:11 xx005fs GPU Computing 3 2018-10-27 14:49

All times are UTC. The time now is 15:44.

Fri Jan 27 15:44:29 UTC 2023 up 162 days, 13:13, 0 users, load averages: 1.77, 1.40, 1.24