![]() |
|
|
#56 |
|
Oct 2004
Austria
2×17×73 Posts |
I just uploaded 41M-42M.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#57 |
|
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
23·11·73 Posts |
Thanks for all the recently-uploaded relations. I've started a count and a singleton-removal pass, will update the top post with the numbers when they pop out of the machine, either tomorrow morning or tomorrow evening. Currently sieving 67-72 with ETA about eight days from now; I wouldn't be amazed if we've got enough relations for a big ugly matrix already, but I would rather hold out for a small beautiful matrix that fits on my bijou 4GB computerette.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#58 |
|
"Ben"
Feb 2007
7·503 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#59 |
|
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
23×11×73 Posts |
This is going to end up amazingly over-sieved: I should have worked out that the rarity of usable special-Q would mean a comparable rarity of large prime ideals, and therefore not as many relations would be needed as I'd suspect. msieve is removing enormous numbers of cliques; I'll post the final output from the -nc1 run here when it completes.
I don't think any more sieving is needed, I'll stop my jobs when I get home, and put my farm onto Fibonacci numbers until we come up with another large-scale project to do. xilman's proposed 180-digit GNFS would be nicely pushing the borders of practicality, and what's the point in doing problems that we know we can do? |
|
|
|
|
|
#60 | |
|
Oct 2004
Austria
2×17×73 Posts |
Quote:
Alternatively, if You want to start postprocessing earlier, I could interrupt the job today in the afternoon and upload what I have tonight. What do you prefer? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#61 |
|
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
23·11·73 Posts |
I would prefer, if you don't mind, for you to upload what you have tonight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#62 |
|
Oct 2004
Austria
248210 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#63 |
|
"Ben"
Feb 2007
7·503 Posts |
I got through another 2M q overnight (43-45), about 7M relations, which I can upload now. Although this might only make the filtering harder, with little gain in matrix size. Let me know if you want them.
- ben. Last fiddled with by bsquared on 2008-04-30 at 12:59 |
|
|
|
|
|
#64 |
|
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
23×11×73 Posts |
Go ahead and upload them, I'll re-run the filtering overnight and we'll have another data point on d(matrix size)/d(relations). I don't have a machine available to run the matrix for at least a week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#65 |
|
Oct 2004
Austria
9B216 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#66 |
|
Tribal Bullet
Oct 2004
DD716 Posts |
Do you still have the logs from the matrix runs that failed by finding only trivial dependencies? I have a hypothesis that failures of that type happen when the sparse portion of the final matrix has less than ~60 nonzeros per column on average, and two of the three failures I know about fit that profile. There are plenty of successes with >= 62 nonzeros in the sparse part, along with one failure.
Last fiddled with by jasonp on 2008-04-30 at 18:32 |
|
|
|