mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > Cunningham Tables

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-04-02, 21:41   #45
Raman
Noodles
 
Raman's Avatar
 
"Mr. Tuch"
Dec 2007
Chennai, India

100111010012 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Batalov View Post
Note that as of today, 7,396+ is already taken by the long time 3LM-extended-page contributor, V.Sisti. Write to Sam.
I think that V.Sisti he reserved up this number only after reading my post over here as a guest. Am I correct then? If so, I expect him to register and then post over here, thus, so that we can always have to be keeping in touch with him only, actually, right then?
Raman is offline  
Old 2010-04-02, 22:24   #46
Batalov
 
Batalov's Avatar
 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

233268 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andi47 View Post
Thanks. Seems that 7,393+ is not yet reserved by now, so I will take it.

Edit: How much ECM and p+/-1 did this one have?
A lot and then a lot. That's the benefit of Cunninghams (as opposed to Kamada's collection or XYYXF, for example; there, some people take a very hard gnfs job every once in a while and pull a p41 out of it; there, you cannot take any ECM for granted).
Batalov is offline  
Old 2010-04-02, 23:52   #47
bdodson
 
bdodson's Avatar
 
Jun 2005
lehigh.edu

210 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdodson View Post
They've now reserved the last c162, shifting the "smallest available" on
Sam's list up to c168. No 4th smallest, the other two c174 and c176
were just shifted up (2nd & 3rd, resp.). -bd
Hard to keep up; since this morning the c168 went to V Sisti,
7, 369+ as above. Sam appears intent on keeping the focus on
clearing the smallest numbers; and again didn't reload a 3rd smallest.
Just the two c174 & c176 now as "smallest available" and "2nd".

I've been fairly amazed at (thanks to Serge's poly searches) clearing
c160-c169. Now I'm starting to wonder about clearing c170-c179.

@Raman has C177 2370L, now 3rd smallest "available".

@Andi47: The C190 missed the first round of 7t50 >> t55 on
c154-c189.99; but caught the second round on c190-c209.99.
Since the initial run on c190-c233 was split at diff 250; and the
second pass is uniformly 3t50, these numbers are either 6t50 or
7t50; the larger count on diff < 250, including this 7, 393+.
The same curve count as used as pretests for the B+D numbers
in this range.

I'm generically reporting these as t55+, but can track down
6t50 -vs- 7t50 if/when needed. I'm currently working through
c210-c233, +3t50 each, 6t50 -or- 7t50.

-Bruce
bdodson is offline  
Old 2010-04-03, 05:17   #48
Raman
Noodles
 
Raman's Avatar
 
"Mr. Tuch"
Dec 2007
Chennai, India

4E916 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raman View Post
I think that V.Sisti he reserved up this number only after reading my post over here as a guest. Am I correct then? If so, I expect him to register and then post over here, thus, so that we can always have to be keeping in touch with him only, actually, right then?
Evidence actually states that he reserved it upon seeing my post only,
as he did so with 3,615- on reading my post upon 1 January 2010 exactly.
Still no response from him at all, as yet, as of now.

There are absolutely more candidates to do so for him only,
namely, for example 3,603- 3,621- 3,627- 3,633- 3,635- 3,657- 3,623- 3,611- 3,636+ 3,654+

Numbers that split up into two parts, for them the tables are being extended upto twice that table's limits as L,M
accordingly atleast for those numbers which split up into three parts, that are easy to do so,
for them the tables should be extended up, if not at all for the prime indices itself.
Similarly, for the indices that are being divisible by five, seven, eleven, thirteen, etc. as well only!

Notice that in the current version of tables we have base 6,7,8,10 tables upto index 400
That in base 2 upto index 1200 corresponds to base 4 upto index 600 and then base 8 upto 400
Thus, but we have only upto index 300 for the base 9 tables.
Upto index 600 within base 3 corresponds upto index 300 for the base 9 tables.
For the base 9 tables to be in par with the adjacent tables upto index 400, the base 3 tables should be extended atleast upto index 800. The base 3 tables, at present, are the most lagging tables, that's the reason why actually that it has very fewer holes when compared to all the other Cunningham tables. If I were to run up that Cunningham project, then I would have certainly kept up that base 3 tables in par with the other adjacent tables, with the index being atleast upto 800.

Cunningham tables containing only upto base 12, focus upon them actually, so I limit the extra bases with upto 4,8,9 only, not going beyond the extension boundaries such as base 16,25,27,32,36,49,64,81, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23 - 7 = 12
24 - 7 = 32
25 - 7 = 52
27 - 7 = 112
215 - 7 = 1812
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4! + 1 = 52
5! + 1 = 112
7! + 1 = 712

Last fiddled with by Raman on 2010-04-03 at 05:53
Raman is offline  
Old 2010-04-03, 07:32   #49
Andi47
 
Andi47's Avatar
 
Oct 2004
Austria

46628 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Batalov View Post
A lot and then a lot. That's the benefit of Cunninghams (as opposed to Kamada's collection or XYYXF, for example; there, some people take a very hard gnfs job every once in a while and pull a p41 out of it; there, you cannot take any ECM for granted).
A lot of ECM - yes, but also p-1? Hmmmm... I will run p-1 to B1=1e9 (or maybe 5e9) and B2 at least to 1e14.

Edit: As a first guess (I will do some test sieving) I guess lpbr/a 29 (or maybe 30 or 29/30, 30/29), r/alim 2^25-1? or higher fb limits?

Last fiddled with by Andi47 on 2010-04-03 at 07:52
Andi47 is offline  
Old 2010-04-03, 13:24   #50
Andi47
 
Andi47's Avatar
 
Oct 2004
Austria

2×17×73 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andi47 View Post
Edit: As a first guess (I will do some test sieving) I guess lpbr/a 29 (or maybe 30 or 29/30, 30/29), r/alim 2^25-1? or higher fb limits?
Question: When I use lpbr/a 30/29 (or 29/30) - will I need ~1.5 (or 1.414?) times as much relations than when I use 29/29?
Andi47 is offline  
Old 2010-04-03, 14:03   #51
Raman
Noodles
 
Raman's Avatar
 
"Mr. Tuch"
Dec 2007
Chennai, India

100111010012 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andi47 View Post
Question: When I use lpbr/a 30/29 (or 29/30) - will I need ~1.5 (or 1.414?) times as much relations than when I use 29/29?
With 29/29 you need about 45 million relations
With 30/29 you need around 65 million relations
With 30/30 or that 31/29 (for the quartics) you need atleast 80 million relations

But with using higher large prime limits, the yield per special-q will be higher enough so that
it virtually doesn't make up with any difference at all.

Please go and then reserve that number as soon as possible
before somebody else takes it up! As this is the easiest number
that is being available within the Cunningham tables, it should
be certainly under demand! I have already entered up your
name for that number within my Mersenne Wiki tables, right then.

Last fiddled with by Raman on 2010-04-03 at 14:56
Raman is offline  
Old 2010-04-03, 14:32   #52
Andi47
 
Andi47's Avatar
 
Oct 2004
Austria

248210 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raman View Post
With 29/29 you need about 40 million relations
With 30/29 you need around 65 million relations
With 30/30 or that 31/29 (for the quartics) you need atleast 80 million relations

But with using higher large prime limits, the yield per special-q will be higher enough so that
it virtually doesn't make up with any difference at all.
Hmmm... 65 million rels is significantly more than 40M * sqrt(2)= 56.6 M.

Assuming that I need 56.6M rels, 30/29 would be fastest (according to my test sieving), with 60M needed rels for 30/29, it would turn out that 30/30 is "fastest". (slightly faster than 29/29) (hmmmm... it 30/30 yields slightly more relations, but sieves slightly slower than 29/29).

Quote:
Please go and then reserve that number as soon as possible
before somebody else takes it up! As this is the easiest number
that is being available within the Cunningham tables, it should
be certainly under demand! I have already entered up your
name for that number within my Mersenne Wiki tables, right then.
I have already sent an email to Sam yesterday in the late evening, but I haven't got an answer yet.

Last fiddled with by Andi47 on 2010-04-03 at 14:36
Andi47 is offline  
Old 2010-04-04, 14:05   #53
Raman
Noodles
 
Raman's Avatar
 
"Mr. Tuch"
Dec 2007
Chennai, India

3×419 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andi47 View Post
I have already sent an email to Sam yesterday in the late evening, but I haven't got an answer yet.
Please try out sending the reservation mail regarding 7,393+ again.
Yesterday was Saturday, probably a holiday within the university, thus he might not have had
any access to e-mail at all.
All the mails that I sent to him actually on Saturday, I got reply for them from him only a day later on
right then, thus?
Raman is offline  
Old 2010-04-04, 14:14   #54
bdodson
 
bdodson's Avatar
 
Jun 2005
lehigh.edu

210 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raman View Post
Please try out sending the reservation mail regarding 7,393+ again.
...
All the mails that I sent to him actually on Saturday, I got reply for them from him only a day later on
right then, thus?
If Sam chooses to spend a portion of his weekend responding to
Cunningham business, that would be his choice. Otherwise one
might expect that he would catch up with emails sometime Monday
morning. Flooding his email with repeat messages will not improve
our information flow. -Bruce
bdodson is offline  
Old 2010-04-04, 15:12   #55
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
"Bob Silverman"
Nov 2003
North of Boston

2·3·29·43 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdodson View Post
If Sam chooses to spend a portion of his weekend responding to
Cunningham business, that would be his choice. Otherwise one
might expect that he would catch up with emails sometime Monday
morning. Flooding his email with repeat messages will not improve
our information flow. -Bruce
The IGG strikes again.
R.D. Silverman is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
5+ table garo Cunningham Tables 100 2021-01-04 22:36
6+ table garo Cunningham Tables 80 2021-01-04 22:33
3+ table garo Cunningham Tables 150 2020-03-23 21:41
5- table garo Cunningham Tables 82 2020-03-15 21:47
6- table garo Cunningham Tables 41 2016-08-04 04:24

All times are UTC. The time now is 17:08.


Tue Oct 4 17:08:27 UTC 2022 up 47 days, 14:37, 0 users, load averages: 1.55, 1.72, 1.65

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔