20191012, 13:33  #111 
Jun 2012
2^{3}·353 Posts 
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. 
20191012, 14:46  #112  
Nov 2003
2^{2}·5·373 Posts 
Quote:
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. 

20191014, 05:13  #113 
Jul 2003
So Cal
3750_{8} Posts 
I'll add 2,1084+ now.

20191014, 19:08  #114 
Jun 2012
2^{3}·353 Posts 
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 Hoping to plow through all of these in a few months. 
20191014, 22:44  #115 
Nov 2003
2^{2}·5·373 Posts 

20191022, 23:52  #116 
Jul 2003
So Cal
3750_{8} Posts 
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 20191022 at 23:54 
20191023, 00:40  #117  
Jun 2012
2^{3}×353 Posts 
Quote:
Code:
2,1165+ 2,1157+ 2,1144+ 2,2158L 

20191023, 01:46  #118  
Nov 2003
1110100100100_{2} Posts 
Quote:
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 20191023 at 01:48 Reason: omission 

20191024, 12:35  #119  
Nov 2003
7460_{10} Posts 
Quote:
polynomial selection. Was one selected? Did we send a polynomial for 2,2330M? 

20191024, 15:16  #120  
Jun 2012
B08_{16} Posts 
Quote:
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+ 

20191024, 15:53  #121 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
4,243 Posts 
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 1.383e20, alpha 8.073, combined = 1.181e15 rroots = 5 If someone else wishes to take on the testsieving, 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 testsieving, though 24% better is fairly likely. 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Cunningham ECM efforts  pinhodecarlos  Cunningham Tables  7  20171221 13:29 
Cunningham ECM Now Futile?  R.D. Silverman  GMPECM  4  20120425 02:45 
Cunningham Project on YouTube  Batalov  Cunningham Tables  0  20120226 02:58 
Extended Cunningham or so  rekcahx  Factoring  6  20110819 12:45 
Introduction: ECM work done on Cunningham Project composites  garo  Cunningham Tables  2  20050120 10:06 