Polynomial Request Thread - Page 6

Batalov · 2013-07-16, 23:31

Folks, the polynomials will be more easily handled by original requestors/other testers if you'd insert the corresponding "n: ..." lines in them.

firejuggler · 2013-07-17, 14:25

a swing and a flare for swellman C169 : I dug around and far above, nothing come remotly close

Code:

2203286292154236920662074580008136560385550762038571072069284129582298550469011615783387269827436918721335468107066200517568432204890391543672088684775850203864157356993 (169 digits)
R0: -344517009720320657345668021520609
R1: 870535396513771
A0: 252681583117408750059938913868667397960
A1: 716807602129660819233465802155626
A2: 1024911528196794072738767285
A3: 155515608837130473266
A4: -37852190172270
A5: 453960
skew 5721717.05, size 1.841e-016, alpha -6.366, combined = 4.109e-013 rroots = 3

second best is

Code:

R0: -184867009335706375918336105167641
R1: 4516317103847593
A0: -1644779338364768599262639379010622162880
A1: 5959645159071631098948779011562416
A2: -497653412302780065536297780
A3: -1301468255968671143028
A4: 6112424626753
A5: 10204080
skew 4578349.68, size 1.489e-016, alpha -6.645, combined = 3.600e-013 rroots = 5

swellman · 2013-07-17, 15:04

That's fantastic. The e score exceeds expectations, and GPU found it so fast.

The speed is breathtaking.

I'll run test sieving tonight, and will start in earnest in a week or two once another job finishes.

If anyone thinks it helpful, I'll post some details in the large GNFS advice thread.

Many thanks to firejuggler and VBCurtis (and anyone else I missed) for the GPU poly effort.

VBCurtis · 2013-07-17, 15:17

Please do post your parameters in the advice thread. A second day on your number found nothing. 4.11 is amazing!

wombatman · 2013-07-17, 15:53

Wow! Very well done! I too would be interested in your parameters. I'm still running the C176, but I haven't gotten any scores better than 1.28e-13 (best is 1.32e-13 with expected of at least 1.46e-13).

wombatman · 2013-07-18, 13:33

Just wanted to note that with the latest SVN (922), the e-score calculation has been revised, and the C176 now has an expected score of

Code:

expecting poly E from 1.32e-013 to > 1.51e-013

so Curtis, your best poly so far is actually now in the range.

firejuggler · 2013-07-18, 14:51

That is a good news. I didn't find anything better than VBCurtis so far. I'll withdraw from the C176 run if I find nothing in the next few hours.

Batalov · 2013-07-18, 16:30

The score* now should be as easy to achieve as it was before the r838 rational alpha correction. That is the idea (the units were corrected for that). In the interim versions (r838-r920), one would try too hard to reach the invisible line.

___________
*The 'expected' score is just a guideline based on the work of thousands of invisible peers and the scores that they achieved before switching to sieving (that is for well-trodden gnfs sizes, and then this estimate is extrapolated over ranges where very few people went before). If minimizing the total gnfs project time was not the goal, one can find exceptional polys. (In a way, searching for gnfs polynomials could be compared to bitcoin mining: the longer you mine, the more value you may find.)

For the GPU-assisted binary, the invisible line is moved up as if the input number size was 'one digit shorter' (each decimal digit of the input size roughly corresponds to 1.15 times lower E value).

wombatman · 2013-07-18, 17:17

Thanks for the explanation, Batalov.

LaurV · 2013-07-19, 02:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Batalov

The score... <snip>

VBCurtis · 2013-07-23, 03:31

I ran 160hr of GPU time on the c176, finding nothing better than I found the first 12 hr. I'll give it another day or two- on previous runs, my experience is that one or two polys are well above the rest, while on this run I have had 1.32, 1.30, 1.29, 1.28 twice, etc.

Code:

 n: 23847813234751095518553790092375554156554053397317779773831395300907022889988067196688707035368393323174109573706580716877436977083912429179428455659750299481884888866554791173
# norm 3.498911e-017 alpha -7.554399 e 1.321e-013 rroots 5
skew: 7302723.20
c0: -585974218494806930768644061943126986617800
c1: 123674309334161409004434007196790770
c2: 86457601091391410858185957207
c3: -12290247685982271688258
c4: -2200504487556284
c5: 23604840
Y0: -3989233893948153787648433928935443
Y1: 68135514398968631

2013-07-18, 13:33	#61
wombatman I moo ablest echo power! May 2013 29×61 Posts	Just wanted to note that with the latest SVN (922), the e-score calculation has been revised, and the C176 now has an expected score of Code: expecting poly E from 1.32e-013 to > 1.51e-013 so Curtis, your best poly so far is actually now in the range.

2013-07-18, 16:30	#63
Batalov "Serge" Mar 2008 Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2 3⁶×13 Posts	The score* now should be as easy to achieve as it was before the r838 rational alpha correction. That is the idea (the units were corrected for that). In the interim versions (r838-r920), one would try too hard to reach the invisible line. ___________ The 'expected' score is just a guideline based on the work of thousands of invisible peers and the scores that they achieved before switching to sieving (that is for well-trodden gnfs sizes, and then this estimate is extrapolated over ranges where very few people went before). If minimizing the total gnfs project time was not the goal, one can find exceptional polys. (In a way, searching for gnfs polynomials could be compared to bitcoin mining: the longer you mine, the more value you may find.) For the GPU-assisted binary, the invisible line is moved up as if the input number size was 'one digit shorter' (each decimal digit of the input size roughly corresponds to 1.15 times lower E value). Last fiddled with by Batalov on 2013-07-18 at 16:38*

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

2013-07-16, 23:31	#56
Batalov "Serge" Mar 2008 Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2 3⁶×13 Posts	Folks, the polynomials will be more easily handled by original requestors/other testers if you'd insert the corresponding "n: ..." lines in them.

2013-07-17, 15:04	#58
swellman Jun 2012 2²·13·59 Posts	That's fantastic. The e score exceeds expectations, and GPU found it so fast. The speed is breathtaking. I'll run test sieving tonight, and will start in earnest in a week or two once another job finishes. If anyone thinks it helpful, I'll post some details in the large GNFS advice thread. Many thanks to firejuggler and VBCurtis (and anyone else I missed) for the GPU poly effort.

2013-07-17, 15:17	#59
VBCurtis "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 4,861 Posts	Please do post your parameters in the advice thread. A second day on your number found nothing. 4.11 is amazing!

2013-07-17, 15:53	#60
wombatman I moo ablest echo power! May 2013 6E9₁₆ Posts	Wow! Very well done! I too would be interested in your parameters. I'm still running the C176, but I haven't gotten any scores better than 1.28e-13 (best is 1.32e-13 with expected of at least 1.46e-13).

2013-07-18, 14:51	#62
firejuggler Apr 2010 Over the rainbow 2³×5²×13 Posts	That is a good news. I didn't find anything better than VBCurtis so far. I'll withdraw from the C176 run if I find nothing in the next few hours.

2013-07-18, 17:17	#64
wombatman I moo ablest echo power! May 2013 29×61 Posts	Thanks for the explanation, Batalov.