mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > Cunningham Tables

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2019-10-12, 13:33   #111
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

23×353 Posts
Default 2,1084+1?

Should I enqueue 2,1084+1 for another round of ECM with Yoyo? If Greg is likely to enqueue it within NFS@Home soon (say by end of Oct) then I’m inclined to cease all further ECM work on 2,1084+1.

To my knowledge, 2,1084+1 has undergone almost 48,000 curves @B1=850M, plus other previous efforts by several contributors.
swellman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-10-12, 14:46   #112
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

164448 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swellman View Post
Should I enqueue 2,1084+1 for another round of ECM with Yoyo? If Greg is likely to enqueue it within NFS@Home soon (say by end of Oct) then I’m inclined to cease all further ECM work on 2,1084+1.

To my knowledge, 2,1084+1 has undergone almost 48,000 curves @B1=850M, plus other previous efforts by several contributors.
We don't know what Greg will queue next. The status page needs an update.
I believe that 2,2330M is ready. There are also the easier 2,1144+, 2,1157+, 2,2158L
(but these could use additional ECM)

If Greg is going to queue 2,1084+ next, then I would say to remove it from YoYo's queue.
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-10-14, 05:13   #113
frmky
 
frmky's Avatar
 
Jul 2003
So Cal

23·11·23 Posts
Default

I'll add 2,1084+ now.
frmky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-10-14, 19:08   #114
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

282410 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frmky View Post
I'll add 2,1084+ now.
Noted. No more ECM for 2,1084+. Results will trickle in for the last few hundred curves.

I’ll enqueue the following in Yoyo@Home:
Code:
2,1165+
2,1157+
2,1144+
2,2158L
Note 2,1165+ has already completed 50% t65. It’s the last GNFS job left in the 1987 list AFAIK.

Hoping to plow through all of these in a few months.
swellman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-10-14, 22:44   #115
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

22×5×373 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swellman View Post

<snip>

Note 2,1165+ has already completed 50% t65. It’s the last GNFS job left in the 1987 list AFAIK.
It is certainly the last one less than C220. Whether it is truly the "last" depends on how
high NFS@Home can reach. There are several more less than C225.
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-10-22, 23:52   #116
frmky
 
frmky's Avatar
 
Jul 2003
So Cal

111111010002 Posts
Default

I updated the status page on NFS@Home. I'm happy to change the order in which the numbers are sieved if it's more convenient.

I also ran a quick test sieve for 2,2210M. It looks like a relatively easy SNFS, but I'm going to first start the LA on 2,2150M to make sure it's really as smooth as it appears.

Last fiddled with by frmky on 2019-10-22 at 23:54
frmky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-10-23, 00:40   #117
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

B0816 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frmky View Post
I updated the status page on NFS@Home. I'm happy to change the order in which the numbers are sieved if it's more convenient.

I also ran a quick test sieve for 2,2210M. It looks like a relatively easy SNFS, but I'm going to first start the LA on 2,2150M to make sure it's really as smooth as it appears.
Ok, though I note four numbers now enqueued in NFS@Home are currently scheduled to be run to t65 by Yoyo.
Code:
2,1165+
2,1157+
2,1144+
2,2158L
I presume any further ECM of these is counterproductive, yes?
swellman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-10-23, 01:46   #118
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

746010 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swellman View Post
Ok, though I note four numbers now enqueued in NFS@Home are currently scheduled to be run to t65 by Yoyo.
Code:
2,1165+
2,1157+
2,1144+
2,2158L
I presume any further ECM of these is counterproductive, yes?
Yes. Note that two have not been queued.

I would have thought that 2,2210M would be faster with GNFS.... Note that we can stop
the polyselection.

Last fiddled with by R.D. Silverman on 2019-10-23 at 01:48 Reason: omission
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-10-24, 12:35   #119
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

164448 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
Yes. Note that two have not been queued.

I would have thought that 2,2210M would be faster with GNFS.... Note that we can stop
the polyselection.
Greg has queued 2,1165+ by GNFS, but I don't recall seeing any discussion about
polynomial selection. Was one selected? Did we send a polynomial for 2,2330M?
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-10-24, 15:16   #120
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

23×353 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
Greg has queued 2,1165+ by GNFS, but I don't recall seeing any discussion about
polynomial selection. Was one selected? Did we send a polynomial for 2,2330M?
Not to my knowledge. Doesn’t mean Greg didn’t find his own poly I suppose.

I am also confused about 2,2210M being run as a SNFS job. But that decision is pending LA on 2,2150M to verify smoothness(?)

Moving forward with ECM, I am planning to enqueue the following in with Yoyo:
Code:
2,1115+
2,1135+
2,1180+
2,1139+
3,748+
Any comments or objections? The last composite is a GNFS job we can run locally if there’s interest.
swellman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-10-24, 15:53   #121
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

4,243 Posts
Default

The best 2330M poly I found, in very limited testing:
Code:
Y0: -28961469478570719959140906105066840582630
Y1: 92566325806153545443
c0: 9445533148071673379778086273726321999348087566848
c1: 92405597357112380495238265590709071313716
c2: -5399213363634740995545029971716617
c3: -43667955927695773325644219
c4: 150754501738917390
c5: 39639600
skew: 204525474.24619
# size 1.383e-20, alpha -8.073, combined = 1.181e-15 rroots = 5
This was found by Gimarel. I regret that I haven't had time to fully test-sieve, and there were two or three polys that are very close in my initial testing (Q=100M, 300M, 500M, 1kq ranges).

If someone else wishes to take on the test-sieving, I'll be happy to PM them my work to build from. I believe there is only a small chance we find a substantially better poly from test-sieving, though 2-4% better is fairly likely.
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cunningham ECM efforts pinhodecarlos Cunningham Tables 7 2017-12-21 13:29
Cunningham ECM Now Futile? R.D. Silverman GMP-ECM 4 2012-04-25 02:45
Cunningham Project on YouTube Batalov Cunningham Tables 0 2012-02-26 02:58
Extended Cunningham or so rekcahx Factoring 6 2011-08-19 12:45
Introduction: ECM work done on Cunningham Project composites garo Cunningham Tables 2 2005-01-20 10:06

All times are UTC. The time now is 04:41.

Wed Aug 12 04:41:56 UTC 2020 up 26 days, 28 mins, 1 user, load averages: 1.87, 1.91, 1.93

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.