Polynomial Request Thread - Page 100

swellman · 2018-03-26, 23:39

My best find to date barely cracked 9.6. Not worth posting. I was hoping to find a 1.1 but anything over 1 would be great at this point. Should finish searching 1.5-2M in 2 days.

Max0526 · 2018-03-27, 02:08

Another spin-off of RichD's poly:

Code:

# norm 2.167277e-017 alpha -6.062357 e 1.025e-013 rroots 3
skew: 23528909.66
c0: -1563793939281664638557149183907639400895270
c1: 320665474225619412720776737995705467
c2: -8993053813069707104254738362
c3: -826078846350604975331
c4: 26944820395066
c5: 843030
Y0: -40058058788002667683247195772196923
Y1: 170451191305026917

VBCurtis · 2018-03-27, 05:42

I don't see any reason to test sieve root-opts that score worse than the initial poly hit! I'm testing no more than 5 polys, period.

I ran 10M-11.45M the last couple days, -npr'ing now. If nothing turns up, I'll proceed to test-sieving my 1.006 poly for parameters, then Rich's 1.04, then 2-3 best of Max's. Obv, if something good turns up I'll have a look!

I did GNFS172 and 175 with 15e/33 recently; raw relations needed was surprisingly low, but both would have been easier as 32LP (the 172 was 33 by accident, while 175 was intentional to see how relations-needed scaled from 172). I expect that 15/32 and 15/33 will be roughly equal in expected time, in which case I'll run 33 again because we already have plenty of data for 32LP at such sizes.

I want to try a 34LP project soon, even if inefficient, to learn how many relations are needed. My candidates are 13*2^901-1 (SNFS-272ish, ECM complete) and a future GNFS-185 (13*2^962-1). I would use 15f or 15f/16f combo for either one.

VBCurtis · 2018-03-27, 16:35

C179 result from CADO:

Code:

R0: -64196393134265280636665032921587310
R1: 864105056918342173001809
A0: -7651121059977140085488192200302080085131736
A1: 5281321730265663984694305917289217360
A2: 71950993821041134671572550935
A3: -4729878062803921224335
A4: -12447411213144
A5: 79920
skew 56893438.02, size 2.042e-17, alpha -7.737, combined = 1.102e-13 rroots = 5

I searched adrange 0 to 50k with nq = 15625 and P = 6000000. root-opt-effort was set to 15. This took about a day on 12ish cores (started with 20, but quite a few timed out and lost their connection).

Max0526 · 2018-03-27, 17:29

@VBCurtis
Finally 1.1!
Do you want me to try spinning this one?
Just kidding. Both of us know I'll try it anyways. Promise not to post polys weaker than 1.093 though (or else I suspect you won't test-sieve any of my polys, maybe ever).
I have another batch running at home, I'll post my findings tonight, if any.
Big achievement though, congrats! And thanks for the parameters too.

Max0526 · 2018-03-27, 17:46

Code:

Y0: -128435074647151944150487333609702608
Y1: 864105056918342173001809
c0: 14994618210495194060954855040317274862427993120
c1: 205701103821565623222236066493197554124
c2: 723931248159636502201683311497
c3: -3033027231684673104719
c4: -11112704913372
c5: 19980
skew: 327371731.78
# size 2.063e-17, alpha -9.169, combined = 1.120e-13 rroots = 3

Max0526 · 2018-03-27, 17:59

Scratch that.

Code:

Y0: -128523838470381470691554942404362152
Y1: 864105056918342173001809
c0: -46146830350059314755544033804148394855803840
c1: 20285880472748172696283127848757659996
c2: 738472982218472967927155990017
c3: 3641422426024419959089
c4: -21374774171772
c5: 19980
skew: 177156362.19
# size 2.270e-17, alpha -8.728, combined = 1.169e-13 rroots = 5

VBCurtis · 2018-03-27, 18:22

Holy [censored]!!! Nice finds, sir.
Guess I'll be testing all polys over 1.10.

Edit: Note alpha of -9 on a deg 5! Yeesh.

Max0526 · 2018-03-28, 00:58

Code:

# norm 2.717218e-017 alpha -8.681513 e 1.159e-013 rroots 5
skew: 177684315.44
c0: -364713085239704240891899631418383842502924100
c1: 16669338354962387856999134439962588497
c2: 710393258628363180522922244998
c3: 3856152591996592566937
c4: -21624216579672
c5: 19980
Y0: -128525996072444296295411896254292241
Y1: 864105056918342173001809

Code:

# norm 2.716634e-017 alpha -8.679707 e 1.139e-013 rroots 5
skew: 44294410.78
c0: -22774584776094832738952309668281239582856870
c1: 4174142994254797991374742622791104203
c2: 710614920467958011950617801613
c3: 15417979811758321865668
c4: -345956831938752
c5: 1278720
Y0: -32131494877967720113846037668655689
Y1: 864105056918342173001809

Max0526 · 2018-03-28, 02:05

Oops! Holy CADO!
(A slight improvement through msieve is still expected).

Code:

Y0: -32098150312453048536394337846959694
Y1: 864105056918342173001809
c0: -18421093653658835977915014560828934689651145
c1: 2648730673817449474836171573646638914
c2: 70431024955044761815604225549
c3: -9470398565278778793886
c4: -49618523345376
c5: 639360
skew: 41683064.78648
# lognorm 56.37, E 48.14, alpha -8.23 (proj -2.56), 5 real roots
# MurphyE = 1.22631565e-13

Max0526 · 2018-03-28, 03:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by VBCurtis

Guess I'll be testing all polys over 1.10.

It seems that you'll be test-sieving all polys over 1.20 actually.
Your old friend:

Code:

# norm 2.847327e-017 alpha -8.142920 e 1.214e-013 rroots 5
skew: 83221700.70
c0: -64221387391441259518774375338311569213532390
c1: 5500239844271331698055497329253143793
c2: 45341721035809978266184142204
c3: -4819603110998663494223
c4: -11705168998344
c5: 79920
Y0: -64194788091093941922057342462436743
Y1: 864105056918342173001809

and his buddies:

Code:

# norm 2.882570e-017 alpha -8.186802 e 1.215e-013 rroots 5
skew: 41075182.89
c0: 341655141638362198846387868147831267983440
c1: 2437585437799953430269662301355715882
c2: 104212282863164358553342078811
c3: -9222036815104969933342
c4: -53469423790176
c5: 639360
Y0: -32099191222909767997477699729100993
Y1: 864105056918342173001809

Code:

# norm 2.931139e-017 alpha -8.229563 e 1.226e-013 rroots 5
skew: 41563365.23
c0: -16044704580477138445599297535942212590885385
c1: 2750470388719532843656946041775560706
c2: 45229820104467967745668545869
c3: -9639930816688786255774
c4: -46808305975776
c5: 639360
Y0: -32097390701892453215503632800718446
Y1: 864105056918342173001809

2018-03-27, 18:22	#1097
VBCurtis "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 11412₈ Posts	Holy [censored]!!! Nice finds, sir. Guess I'll be testing all polys over 1.10. Edit: Note alpha of -9 on a deg 5! Yeesh. Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 2018-03-27 at 18:23

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
GIMPS wiki account request thread	ixfd64	mersennewiki	169	2018-09-21 05:43
Polynomial Discriminant is n^k for an n-1 degree polynomial	carpetpool	Miscellaneous Math	14	2017-02-18 19:46
Lost Prime Raider password request thread	cheesehead	Forum Feedback	6	2009-07-28 13:02
Polynomial	R.D. Silverman	NFSNET Discussion	13	2005-09-16 20:07
Deutscher Thread (german thread)	TauCeti	NFSNET Discussion	0	2003-12-11 22:12

2018-03-26, 23:39	#1090
swellman Jun 2012 11×281 Posts	My best find to date barely cracked 9.6. Not worth posting. I was hoping to find a 1.1 but anything over 1 would be great at this point. Should finish searching 1.5-2M in 2 days.

2018-03-27, 05:42	#1092
VBCurtis "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 2·2,437 Posts	I don't see any reason to test sieve root-opts that score worse than the initial poly hit! I'm testing no more than 5 polys, period. I ran 10M-11.45M the last couple days, -npr'ing now. If nothing turns up, I'll proceed to test-sieving my 1.006 poly for parameters, then Rich's 1.04, then 2-3 best of Max's. Obv, if something good turns up I'll have a look! I did GNFS172 and 175 with 15e/33 recently; raw relations needed was surprisingly low, but both would have been easier as 32LP (the 172 was 33 by accident, while 175 was intentional to see how relations-needed scaled from 172). I expect that 15/32 and 15/33 will be roughly equal in expected time, in which case I'll run 33 again because we already have plenty of data for 32LP at such sizes. I want to try a 34LP project soon, even if inefficient, to learn how many relations are needed. My candidates are 132^901-1 (SNFS-272ish, ECM complete) and a future GNFS-185 (132^962-1). I would use 15f or 15f/16f combo for either one.

2018-03-27, 17:29	#1094
Max0526 "Max" Jun 2016 Toronto 37D₁₆ Posts	@VBCurtis Finally 1.1! Do you want me to try spinning this one? Just kidding. Both of us know I'll try it anyways. Promise not to post polys weaker than 1.093 though (or else I suspect you won't test-sieve any of my polys, maybe ever). I have another batch running at home, I'll post my findings tonight, if any. Big achievement though, congrats! And thanks for the parameters too.