Polynomial Request Thread - Page 52

RichD · 2016-04-26, 14:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichD

I ran 30-34M and 38-39M with nothing better than what I posted.
I will be away for a couple weeks.

I've run an additional search from 42-45M. I am currently running 29-30M since that is near where I found my best poly. That should finish up later tonight.

firejuggler · 2016-04-26, 18:02

i'm back into the game... will try

swellman · 2016-04-26, 22:59

RichD and firejuggler, be aware that Dubslow believes he has a better poly than has been found to date for this C195. Looks like they may attempt to queue it in 15e tomorrow.

RichD · 2016-04-26, 23:35

My last range has not produced anything better. I will finish (and stop) tonight.
(~100K to go.)

Go! Dubslow! Go!

Hopefully we can get something in the expected range.

Dubslow · 2016-04-26, 23:42

I've posted my results so far in the CADO thread I started in the Factoring forum.

RichD (and firejuggler!), I'd be interested in running CADO's rootopt on your best n sizeopt hits from your total effort. Do you have an idea of the spread of your best norms?

RichD · 2016-04-27, 00:42

Sorry, I wasn’t thinking this as a research project. I was trying to keep the pipeline flowing by utilizing two mid-level GPUs and sneaker-netting the msieve.dat.m files to my MacBook laptop to finish the final steps.

I’ve also gone through the same growing pains trying to second guess how the processes work and stepped all over myself with lost work. At least this is a learning environment which everyone benefits from once in a while.

Dubslow · 2016-04-27, 00:47

In more practical terms, what I'm asking is take all the msieve.dat.ms files and zip em up and attach it here, I can do the rest.

Though I suppose you mean you don't have any .ms files, just the .m GPU hits and then the final product?

RichD · 2016-04-27, 01:22

I was immediately overwriting the msieve.dat.xx files as results were recorded to make room for the next batch. I don’t mind regenerating some of the results if you feel they will be beneficial. Though, I will be out of town for a couple days beginning early tomorrow.

My top result ranges are:

Code:

e-scores & A5-range
10.44e-15  31.0-32.0M
9.450e-15  42.0-43.0M
9.352e-15  30.0-30.5M
9.242e-15  10.0-10.2M

firejuggler · 2016-04-27, 07:45

I just restarted , so for now, I have nothing interesting.

Dubslow · 2016-04-27, 07:53

Note that 4788 C195 has been factored by RyanP with ECM. No more work on it need be done, poly select or otherwise.

(No, redoing the work would not have been very beneficial, certainly not enough to spend the effort.)

XYYXF · 2016-04-29, 21:40

Code:

C188_132_125 = 50273137870496627962619474857651209584588819926907884717658637056035831552476809435481986166176902404920890412162765555466588497900990664373537298713854777126289379520005080044132902865599

Survived 25k@260M, probably it's time to start the poly search...

2016-04-26, 23:42	#566
Dubslow Basketry That Evening! "Bunslow the Bold" Jun 2011 40<A<43 -89<O<-88 3·29·83 Posts	I've posted my results so far in the CADO thread I started in the Factoring forum. RichD (and firejuggler!), I'd be interested in running CADO's rootopt on your best n sizeopt hits from your total effort. Do you have an idea of the spread of your best norms? Last fiddled with by Dubslow on 2016-04-26 at 23:44

2016-04-27, 01:22	#569
RichD Sep 2008 Kansas 3,391 Posts	I was immediately overwriting the msieve.dat.xx files as results were recorded to make room for the next batch. I don’t mind regenerating some of the results if you feel they will be beneficial. Though, I will be out of town for a couple days beginning early tomorrow. My top result ranges are: Code: e-scores & A5-range 10.44e-15 31.0-32.0M 9.450e-15 42.0-43.0M 9.352e-15 30.0-30.5M 9.242e-15 10.0-10.2M

2016-04-27, 07:45	#570
firejuggler Apr 2010 Over the rainbow 2·1,303 Posts	I just restarted , so for now, I have nothing interesting. Last fiddled with by firejuggler on 2016-04-27 at 07:45

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

2016-04-26, 18:02	#563
firejuggler Apr 2010 Over the rainbow 2×1,303 Posts	i'm back into the game... will try

2016-04-26, 22:59	#564
swellman Jun 2012 C13₁₆ Posts	RichD and firejuggler, be aware that Dubslow believes he has a better poly than has been found to date for this C195. Looks like they may attempt to queue it in 15e tomorrow.

2016-04-26, 23:35	#565
RichD Sep 2008 Kansas 3,391 Posts	My last range has not produced anything better. I will finish (and stop) tonight. (~100K to go.) Go! Dubslow! Go! Hopefully we can get something in the expected range.

2016-04-27, 00:42	#567
RichD Sep 2008 Kansas 3,391 Posts	Sorry, I wasn’t thinking this as a research project. I was trying to keep the pipeline flowing by utilizing two mid-level GPUs and sneaker-netting the msieve.dat.m files to my MacBook laptop to finish the final steps. I’ve also gone through the same growing pains trying to second guess how the processes work and stepped all over myself with lost work. At least this is a learning environment which everyone benefits from once in a while.

2016-04-27, 00:47	#568
Dubslow Basketry That Evening! "Bunslow the Bold" Jun 2011 40<A<43 -89<O<-88 3·29·83 Posts	In more practical terms, what I'm asking is take all the msieve.dat.ms files and zip em up and attach it here, I can do the rest. Though I suppose you mean you don't have any .ms files, just the .m GPU hits and then the final product?

2016-04-27, 07:53	#571
Dubslow Basketry That Evening! "Bunslow the Bold" Jun 2011 40<A<43 -89<O<-88 3·29·83 Posts	Note that 4788 C195 has been factored by RyanP with ECM. No more work on it need be done, poly select or otherwise. (No, redoing the work would not have been very beneficial, certainly not enough to spend the effort.)