NFS@Home 2,1207-, maybe?

[pinhodecarlos]

Greg,

Shall we go for the most wanted 2,1207-?

Carlos

[pinhodecarlos]

Number should be
2,1207-.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by pinhodecarlos

Number should be
2,1207-.

Hell, NO!

[pinhodecarlos]

Please advise for one candidate.

[Batalov]

2,983+ c236 Most Wanted
2,989+ c249 Most Wanted
2,991+ c224 Wanted
and three Wanted 2L/Ms could help finish the 2+-Tables to 1000 bits.
No first holes (or any holes, for that matter) were done for a long time already. (not mine, -- Wagstaff's, in essence).

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by Batalov

2,983+ c236 Most Wanted
2,989+ c249 Most Wanted
2,991+ c224 Wanted
and three Wanted 2L/Ms could help finish the 2+-Tables to 1000 bits.
No first holes (or any holes, for that matter) were done for a long time already. (not mine, -- Wagstaff's, in essence).

Indeed. I have to ask why 6,490+ and 2,1285- are being done by GNFS.
They are very recent extensions.

Meanwhile composites that were part of the tables from 40+ years ago are
not being done. There are a number of such candidates in the same size
range as the two numbers above.

This seems to lack a sense of historical perspective.

Didn't your mom ever tell you: finish what you start before doing something new??????

[jyb]

Originally Posted by Batalov

2,983+ c236 Most Wanted
2,989+ c249 Most Wanted
2,991+ c224 Wanted
and three Wanted 2L/Ms could help finish the 2+-Tables to 1000 bits.
No first holes (or any holes, for that matter) were done for a long time already. (not mine, -- Wagstaff's, in essence).

Setting aside the question of whether there are better candidates, is it even possible for NFS@Home to factor 2,1207-? This number has an SNFS difficulty of 363 (or 342 with an octic). NFS@Home has never come anywhere close to doing a number that difficult before.

[debrouxl]

lasieve5e may be able to sieve 2^1207-1, but post-processing would be a chore... Post-processing the record-setting 2^1061-1 (for publicly available sieving resources) already took its fair share of HPC quota.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Indeed. I have to ask why 6,490+ and 2,1285- are being done by GNFS.
They are very recent extensions.

Meanwhile composites that were part of the tables from 40+ years ago are
not being done. There are a number of such candidates in the same size
range as the two numbers above.

This seems to lack a sense of historical perspective.

Didn't your mom ever tell you: finish what you start before doing something new??????

While I agree completely that there are much better candidates than 2,1207- which should be done first, I feel that I should also remind you to take a look at the domain name where we are posting.

In that context, perhaps, factoring M1207 might make more sense than factoring M1966. I can't think of many other contexts where that applies.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by debrouxl

lasieve5e may be able to sieve 2^1207-1, but post-processing would be a chore... Post-processing the record-setting 2^1061-1 (for publicly available sieving resources) already took its fair share of HPC quota.

Sieving memory will be a major problem. I expect that each instance of the siever will use
enough memory so that users will not be able to use all the cores on a given computer.
This will slow things down.

Also, can msieve handle the 34 or 35-bit large primes that are present during filtering
and post-processing? Does the siever support 35-bit large primes? The factor base will
need to be quite large, as will the sieve region --> mucho memory.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by xilman

While I agree completely that there are much better candidates than 2,1207- which should be done first, I feel that I should also remind you to take a look at the domain name where we are posting.

In that context, perhaps, factoring M1207 might make more sense than factoring M1966. I can't think of many other contexts where that applies.

But the BOINC project does not limit itself to GIMPS related computing...........