mersenneforum.org Contributing to Cunningham Project
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2019-10-12, 13:33 #111 swellman     Jun 2012 23·353 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.
2019-10-12, 14:46   #112
R.D. Silverman

Nov 2003

22·5·373 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by swellman 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.

 2019-10-14, 05:13 #113 frmky     Jul 2003 So Cal 37508 Posts I'll add 2,1084+ now.
2019-10-14, 19:08   #114
swellman

Jun 2012

23·353 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by frmky 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.

2019-10-14, 22:44   #115
R.D. Silverman

Nov 2003

22·5·373 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by swellman 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.

 2019-10-22, 23:52 #116 frmky     Jul 2003 So Cal 37508 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 2019-10-22 at 23:54
2019-10-23, 00:40   #117
swellman

Jun 2012

23×353 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by frmky 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?

2019-10-23, 01:46   #118
R.D. Silverman

Nov 2003

11101001001002 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by swellman 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

2019-10-24, 12:35   #119
R.D. Silverman

Nov 2003

746010 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman 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?

2019-10-24, 15:16   #120
swellman

Jun 2012

B0816 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman 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.

 2019-10-24, 15:53 #121 VBCurtis     "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 1.383e-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.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post pinhodecarlos Cunningham Tables 7 2017-12-21 13:29 R.D. Silverman GMP-ECM 4 2012-04-25 02:45 Batalov Cunningham Tables 0 2012-02-26 02:58 rekcahx Factoring 6 2011-08-19 12:45 garo Cunningham Tables 2 2005-01-20 10:06

All times are UTC. The time now is 04:32.

Wed Aug 12 04:32:09 UTC 2020 up 26 days, 18 mins, 1 user, load averages: 2.04, 1.90, 1.96