mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > Factoring

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2014-02-22, 05:53   #34
wombatman
I moo ablest echo power!
 
wombatman's Avatar
 
May 2013

5×347 Posts
Default

Running 297903607^23-1
wombatman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-02-28, 04:58   #35
wombatman
I moo ablest echo power!
 
wombatman's Avatar
 
May 2013

5·347 Posts
Default

Running 8970971^29-1

Having some trouble with the SNFS poly. FactorDB gives:
Code:
n: 4288882318725178503864985939002570343870783101076222294692132636882637343988982346014447015553752612504342250262840696959794627098440959386503033787331436025332337203640782929696973892811770840659915530
m: 58102827030430867738060703578743851
deg: 5
skew: 0
type: snfs
c5: 6476760099930193480511831281
c0: -1
rlim: 18610400
alim: 18610400
lpbr: 29
lpba: 29
mfbr: 58
mfba: 58
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7
but GGNFS doesn't like the skew of 0.

Phi gives:

Code:
n: 2580482901793422593005519906534751048235270635043096719781698476519957422481996978800942266020020022345900390998498545851996437063629641295043489044129593444543441973751813443723
# 8970971^29-1^29, difficulty: 208.59, skewness: 24.58, alpha: 0.00
# cost: 2.95737e+017, est. time: 140.83 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 24.579
c5: 1
c0: -8970971
Y1: -1
Y0: 521238776308011431982978168044507303749321
m: 521238776308011431982978168044507303749321
type: snfs
This one works but seems to give low relations. Any thoughts?

Last fiddled with by wombatman on 2014-02-28 at 05:32
wombatman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-02-28, 07:44   #36
axn
 
axn's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

2·2,389 Posts
Default

For the first one, the correct skew would be 0.00000274.

For the second one, the larger rational side coefficient implies that you should use larger rational side parameters.
axn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-02-28, 14:12   #37
wombatman
I moo ablest echo power!
 
wombatman's Avatar
 
May 2013

5·347 Posts
Default

Much obliged for the response.

On the 1st one, with the skew set appropriately, GGNFS still gives:

Code:
gnfs-lasieve4I14e (with asm64): L1_BITS=15, SVN $Revision$
Please set a skewness
For the second, factsmieve sets the parameters as follows:

Code:
rlim: 21300000
alim: 21300000
lpbr: 29
lpba: 29
I'm still slowly learning both the theory and the practical applications here, so I'm not too good at determining whether these are set properly.
wombatman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-02-28, 16:31   #38
chris2be8
 
chris2be8's Avatar
 
Sep 2009

194410 Posts
Default

Don't bother with the poly provided by factordb. c5: 6476760099930193480511831281 is ridiculous for snfs. In general the smaller the coefficients are the better it will sieve.

phi generated a reasonable poly. How may relations per special Q does it give? A rule of thumb (originally from Fivemack) is that if you are getting less that 2 relations per Q you should go to a larger siever or raise LPB[AR] and/or MFB[AR].

There was a "ggnfs pearls of wisdom" thread to collect such advice. It's worth reading.

Chris
chris2be8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-02-28, 16:52   #39
wombatman
I moo ablest echo power!
 
wombatman's Avatar
 
May 2013

5·347 Posts
Default

I'd have to check to get an exact number, but it was something like 1.5 relations/Q or so, which seemed really low to me. I'll try and track that wisdom thread--I can definitely use any of that I can find!
wombatman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-02-28, 19:54   #40
henryzz
Just call me Henry
 
henryzz's Avatar
 
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)

10110011101002 Posts
Default

The other problem with factordb polys is that it gives you the whole number to factor even if it has very small factors. msieve will find those factors and complain at you.
henryzz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-03-01, 16:43   #41
chris2be8
 
chris2be8's Avatar
 
Sep 2009

23·35 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by henryzz View Post
The other problem with factordb polys is that it gives you the whole number to factor even if it has very small factors. msieve will find those factors and complain at you.
I think using msieve compiled without ECM will stop it finding small factors when you don't want it to. But it's better to remove the small factors first. It might be useful for SNFS around 85 digits.

Chris
chris2be8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-03-01, 16:53   #42
chris2be8
 
chris2be8's Avatar
 
Sep 2009

23·35 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wombatman View Post
I'd have to check to get an exact number, but it was something like 1.5 relations/Q or so, which seemed really low to me. I'll try and track that wisdom thread--I can definitely use any of that I can find!
In that case you would be better off raising LPBR and LPBA to 30 (and MFB[AR] to 60). That should double the yield, but it will nearly double the number of relations you need to collect. Raising just LPBA and LPBR would raise yield and relations needed a bit less.

In practice the job would still work with a yield around 1.5 per Q. It would take a little longer than with better parameters though (I've run a few like that by mistake).

Chris
chris2be8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-03-01, 21:21   #43
henryzz
Just call me Henry
 
henryzz's Avatar
 
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)

22·3·479 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris2be8 View Post
I think using msieve compiled without ECM will stop it finding small factors when you don't want it to. But it's better to remove the small factors first. It might be useful for SNFS around 85 digits.

Chris
It will still do trial division I think.
henryzz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-03-03, 20:57   #44
wombatman
I moo ablest echo power!
 
wombatman's Avatar
 
May 2013

5·347 Posts
Default

I upped LPBR to 30 (totally arbitrary choice), and the yield went from ~1.5 to ~2 relations/Q, so that did indeed help. It still hasn't finished gathering relations yet, but we'll see how it does with the matrix building.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris2be8 View Post
In that case you would be better off raising LPBR and LPBA to 30 (and MFB[AR] to 60). That should double the yield, but it will nearly double the number of relations you need to collect. Raising just LPBA and LPBR would raise yield and relations needed a bit less.

In practice the job would still work with a yield around 1.5 per Q. It would take a little longer than with better parameters though (I've run a few like that by mistake).

Chris
wombatman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Passive Pascal Xyzzy GPU Computing 1 2017-05-17 20:22
Tesla P100 — 5.4 DP TeraFLOPS — Pascal Mark Rose GPU Computing 52 2016-07-02 12:11
Nvidia Pascal, a third of DP firejuggler GPU Computing 12 2016-02-23 06:55
Calculating perfect numbers in Pascal Elhueno Homework Help 5 2008-06-12 16:37
Factorization attempt to a c163 - a new Odd Perfect Number roadblock jchein1 Factoring 30 2005-05-30 14:43

All times are UTC. The time now is 11:40.

Fri Nov 27 11:40:39 UTC 2020 up 78 days, 8:51, 4 users, load averages: 1.31, 1.42, 1.35

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.