20100402, 21:41  #45 
Noodles
"Mr. Tuch"
Dec 2007
Chennai, India
10011101001_{2} Posts 
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?

20100402, 22:24  #46 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
23326_{8} Posts 
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).

20100402, 23:52  #47  
Jun 2005
lehigh.edu
2^{10} Posts 
Quote:
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 c160c169. Now I'm starting to wonder about clearing c170c179. @Raman has C177 2370L, now 3rd smallest "available". @Andi47: The C190 missed the first round of 7t50 >> t55 on c154c189.99; but caught the second round on c190c209.99. Since the initial run on c190c233 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 c210c233, +3t50 each, 6t50 or 7t50. Bruce 

20100403, 05:17  #48  
Noodles
"Mr. Tuch"
Dec 2007
Chennai, India
4E9_{16} Posts 
Quote:
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.  2^{3}  7 = 1^{2} 2^{4}  7 = 3^{2} 2^{5}  7 = 5^{2} 2^{7}  7 = 11^{2} 2^{15}  7 = 181^{2}  4! + 1 = 5^{2} 5! + 1 = 11^{2} 7! + 1 = 71^{2} Last fiddled with by Raman on 20100403 at 05:53 

20100403, 07:32  #49  
Oct 2004
Austria
4662_{8} Posts 
Quote:
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 2^251? or higher fb limits? Last fiddled with by Andi47 on 20100403 at 07:52 

20100403, 13:24  #50 
Oct 2004
Austria
2×17×73 Posts 

20100403, 14:03  #51  
Noodles
"Mr. Tuch"
Dec 2007
Chennai, India
10011101001_{2} Posts 
Quote:
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 specialq 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 20100403 at 14:56 

20100403, 14:32  #52  
Oct 2004
Austria
2482_{10} Posts 
Quote:
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:
Last fiddled with by Andi47 on 20100403 at 14:36 

20100404, 14:05  #53  
Noodles
"Mr. Tuch"
Dec 2007
Chennai, India
3×419 Posts 
Quote:
Yesterday was Saturday, probably a holiday within the university, thus he might not have had any access to email 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? 

20100404, 14:14  #54  
Jun 2005
lehigh.edu
2^{10} Posts 
Quote:
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 

20100404, 15:12  #55  
"Bob Silverman"
Nov 2003
North of Boston
2·3·29·43 Posts 
Quote:


Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
5+ table  garo  Cunningham Tables  100  20210104 22:36 
6+ table  garo  Cunningham Tables  80  20210104 22:33 
3+ table  garo  Cunningham Tables  150  20200323 21:41 
5 table  garo  Cunningham Tables  82  20200315 21:47 
6 table  garo  Cunningham Tables  41  20160804 04:24 