OddPerfect enthusiasts & others: ECM help needed!

[em99010pepe]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

My personal opinion is that doing a number from the extensions, when
the extensions still have not been officially added to the table is
ridiculous

There are many other suitable numbers, still undone, from the 1st printed
edition of the book. Let's work on finishing them.

We are not interested in your personal opinion, go away if you don't want to help.

[debrouxl]

Hey people, keep cool
It's not the first time I see Prof. Silverman posting clear-cut, sometimes controversial, opinions. He has the right to do so, just as much as we have the right to disagree.

As Greg wrote above, factoring this number would help two projects. Likewise, William Lipp makes yoyo@home and subsequently RSALS work on a number of Brent composites. Would the undone numbers from the 1st printed edition of the book help multiple projects ?

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by debrouxl

Hey people, keep cool
It's not the first time I see Prof. Silverman posting clear-cut, sometimes controversial, opinions. He has the right to do so, just as much as we have the right to disagree.

As Greg wrote above, factoring this number would help two projects. Likewise, William Lipp makes yoyo@home and subsequently RSALS work on a number of Brent composites. Would the undone numbers from the 1st printed edition of the book help multiple projects ?

I disagree that it helps the tail-chasing for OddPerfect since I think that
project is pointless. Raising the bound on the minimal size for an odd perfect
number does nothing toward proving that none exist. All the wasted CPU
time for this project would be much better spent on (say) Seventeen or Bust
which has a definitive END.

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

[wblipp]

Originally Posted by em99010pepe

Anyone here wants to set up an ecmserver for this number?

Next week I'll be back in the US and will change the OddPerfect Most Wanted ECM server to hand out only this number. It currently hands out this number plus several others. That server is at

oddperfect.no-ip.com:8201

William

[frmky]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

My personal opinion is that doing a number from the extensions, when
the extensions still have not been officially added to the table is
ridiculous.

Normally I would agree with you, but in this case I'm making an exception because the confluence of attractive qualities listed in the first post for me overrides "finish what you start." For the "science" (I'm a physicist after all!) I just need to collect data on how a 290 behaves, and any ole 290 will do.

[Andi47]

p+1: 2 runs with B1=1e9, B2=1e14, no factor.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by frmky

Normally I would agree with you, but in this case I'm making an exception because the confluence of attractive qualities listed in the first post for me overrides "finish what you start." For the "science" (I'm a physicist after all!) I just need to collect data on how a 290 behaves, and any ole 290 will do.

So why not do e.g. 12,269-? (a second hole from the existing table)
There are plenty of numbers from the current tables that fit your needs.
I see no reason to draw from the extension(s).

[fivemack]

But people are actually interested in 3^607-1; the fact that you don't think they should be doesn't alter the fact that they are, and does make it more interesting than some random Cunningham-table number of about the right size which isn't even the size of a finite field.

[em99010pepe]

Done with 40 curves.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by fivemack

But people are actually interested in 3^607-1; the fact that you don't think they should be doesn't alter the fact that they are, and does make it more interesting than some random Cunningham-table number of about the right size which isn't even the size of a finite field.

And a lot of people also like to read the National Enquirer.......

Chasing 3,607- shows a lack of historical perspective.

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

So why not do e.g. 12,269-? (a second hole from the existing table)
There are plenty of numbers from the current tables that fit your needs.
I see no reason to draw from the extension(s).

Bob, I'm curious as to why you feel these factorizations are so important. Your arguments (esp. with the OPN crowd) come down to "factoring your numbers isn't important", but I don't really see the intrinsic importance of the Cunningham factorizations either.