20130304, 17:38  #1068  
Aug 2005
Seattle, WA
29·59 Posts 
Quote:


20130304, 20:12  #1069 
Feb 2005
Colorado
617 Posts 
I am kind of new at this and have a few questions.
I have been working on the numbers in the file you get when you download the "Cunningham input list" from http://webloria.loria.fr/~zimmerma/ecmnet/. Are these numbers included in the work the server hands out, or are they a completely different set of numbers? Also, that page recommends B1=43M. But in GMPECM's "INSTALLecm" file I found a reference that recommends B1=110M. I just assumed that the 43M recommendation was out of date, so I have been using 110M and higher. I'm just getting started here and have not run enough curves to amount to a hill of beans, so I haven't reported them. Since I am running only a few curves on lots of different numbers, is there a point where I probably should report the number of curves I have run? 
20130304, 21:42  #1070  
Nov 2003
2^{2}·5·373 Posts 
Quote:
any factors left under 55 digits. I would select a limited subset. For example, the base 12 composites. You might want to ask Bruce which numbers he has done the least. The 2LM composites might be a good choice. I ran 1000 curves on each of them with B1 = 500M. It took 6 months. 

20130304, 22:45  #1071  
Aug 2005
Seattle, WA
29·59 Posts 
Quote:
 The numbers to which this thread applies are called the Homogeneous Cunningham numbers, and information about them can be found at http://www.leyland.vispa.com/numth/f.../anbn/main.htm. These are distinct from the (just plain) Cunningham numbers.  The ECMnet server referred to here only hands out Homogeneous Cunningham numbers.  If you use this ECMnet server, then you don't need to do any reporting at all, the server tracks your work for you.  The Cunningham input list you've downloaded includes only the plain Cunningham numbers. As Bob said, they have been ECM'd to very high values already. I'm not aware of any central repository for information on current curve counts, but Bruce probably has the best such information. You are very unlikely to find any factors using a B1 of 110M.  If you do run ECM on the Cunningham numbers, and you have sufficient resources to run a lot of them at high B1, then reporting it would be a good idea. To whom? I'm not sure. I suppose you can start by creating a thread in the Cunningham Tables subforum of this forum: http://mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=51. I think the relevant folks would see it there. But again, you would have to be able to run many thousands of curves with a B1 >= 250M before anybody is likely to take notice. Last fiddled with by jyb on 20130304 at 22:46 Reason: typo 

20130305, 17:52  #1072 
Aug 2005
Seattle, WA
29·59 Posts 
Thanks. Do you have a record of the specifics which you can share with Paul?

20130329, 21:55  #1073 
Jul 2003
So Cal
100000101101_{2} Posts 
As Lionel pointed out to me, the Fibonacci and Lucas numbers in the range of NFS@Home 14e sieve will likely run out in midtolate summer, so we are considering other sources of numbers. Personally I find this to be an attractive list, but they haven't really had enough ECM. Would it be too much to ask to have a fraction of these, especially SNFS difficulties about 220 and above, ECM'ed to at least t50 by then? Perhaps by teaming with yoyo@home's ECM project if needed?

20130402, 13:03  #1074  
Nov 2003
2^{2}·5·373 Posts 
Quote:
composites less than 208 digits. I am continuing the search. 

20130402, 15:53  #1075  
Sep 2009
2·1,021 Posts 
Quote:
Chris 

20130402, 17:17  #1076  
Bamboozled!
"πΊππ·π·π"
May 2003
Down not across
2·7^{2}·109 Posts 
Quote:
Please let me know if you would take some on and I'll rearrange ECM priorities accordingly. 

20130503, 19:04  #1077 
Sep 2005
Berlin
2·3·11 Posts 
A lucky ECM result after 6 months:
Code:
10^236+9^236 prp67 factor: 2970502746365749876818923808989713022319848931047956587856682374457 B1 = 11e7 sigma = 1323877938 group order = 2^2 * 3^4 * 5 * 139 * 229 * 257 * 9343 * 112111 * 269617 * 447331 * 1780201 * 6715523 * 7861031 * 31025243 * 608523161 Last fiddled with by Yamato on 20130503 at 19:09 
20130503, 19:33  #1078  
Bamboozled!
"πΊππ·π·π"
May 2003
Down not across
2×7^{2}×109 Posts 
Quote:
Have you told the other Paul about this one? 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
New phi for homogeneous Cunningham numbers  wpolly  Factoring  26  20160729 04:34 
Mathematics of Cunningham Numbers (3rd ed., 2002, A.M.S.)  Xyzzy  Cunningham Tables  42  20140402 18:31 
Don't know how to work on Cunningham numbers.  jasong  GMPECM  6  20060630 08:51 
Doing Cunningham numbers but messed up.  jasong  Factoring  1  20060403 17:18 
Need help factoring Cunningham numbers  jasong  Factoring  27  20060321 02:47 