Extensions

[R.D. Silverman]

It appears that the 5- and 6- tables now need extending.

There are fewer than 5 holes remaining.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

It appears that the 5- and 6- tables now need extending.

There are fewer than 5 holes remaining.

Good!

[Batalov]

3^723-1 cofactor was factored by ECM with B1=450M as p63.p105. Seems to be an "SNFS miss" . (snfs difficulty is 230)

A bit like shooting sparrows with a cannon, perhaps? Most probably, it was just a wrinkle in the process of bulk list ecm-ing. Maybe it should have been left unnoticed, but someone would have asked... so I will pretend to be the troublemaker. If for anything, then at least for the purpose of creating the antonym to the "ECM miss".

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by Batalov

3^723-1 cofactor was factored by ECM with B1=450M as p63.p105. Seems to be an "SNFS miss" . (snfs difficulty is 230)

A bit like shooting sparrows with a cannon, perhaps? Most probably, it was just a wrinkle in the process of bulk list ecm-ing. Maybe it should have been left unnoticed, but someone would have asked... so I will pretend to be the troublemaker. If for anything, then at least for the purpose of creating the antonym to the "ECM miss".

Did it not qualify for the 'top 10' because of this??

Enquiring minds want to know!

[bdodson]

Originally Posted by Batalov

3^723-1 cofactor was factored by ECM with B1=450M as p63.p105. Seems to be an "SNFS miss" . (snfs difficulty is 230)

A bit like shooting sparrows with a cannon, perhaps? Most probably, it was just a wrinkle in the process of bulk list ecm-ing. Maybe it should have been left unnoticed, but someone would have asked... so I will pretend to be the troublemaker. If for anything, then at least for the purpose of creating the antonym to the "ECM miss".

We're missing some info here; a few curves with B1=450M wouldn't
necessarily be over-use of ECM before switching to SNFS. As long
as the ECM time was like 20% of the SNFS time, I wouldn't bring out
the newly coined "SNFS miss". We could suggest that B1=450M is not
very efficient as a sweep for p45's (expecting also a large standard
deviation in the time for finding p45s); but I'm not yet clear that it's
a misuse of resources (not that Sam's asked).

So far as I know, Paul's never put a restriction on the ratio of factor-size
to composite-size, like Brent's 2.2 (or so) for the Champions list --- p63
is way-small for that consideration; I'd expect to see Paul list this p63
on the 2011-list. After all, ECM didn't know that the number was smaller
than usual (runtime-wise), except for a lower-order speedup in the time-
per-curve. -Bruce