Fast Breeding (guru management)

[RichD]

Originally Posted by chris2be8

A C199 quartic will be harder on the rational side, so I would expect

mfbr: 92
mfba: 62
rlambda: 3.6
alambda: 2.6

to work better. At least try trial sieving it.

Chris

I only got to this point before I noticed the above post. All times on a C2D laptop. (5K blocks)

       mfba=92       mfba=91
    Yield sec/rel Yield sec/rel
20M  6624  0.399   6623  0.450 
60M  9439  0.366   9439  0.375

I wasn't sure if I should stay on the rational side or not. Since I normally put the 3LP on the non-sieving side I tried -a side first. After a few hundred Q I abandoned that approach. Yield < 1.0 and the times doubled.

So I went back to the -r side. Times increased a bit but now getting yield close to 3.0. I will repost the full poly when I complete all the trial sieving. Thank you for the insider information.

[RichD]

QUEUED Thanks to the help from chris2be8 we have better parameters for the original poly from this post.

n: 5262199667347704370383382573882546842844132668115527189076062581874638943044817276421916975296385935474146837843853199024201903372763704218014620151293853622962990584469731632691969324944794952060901
# 441047607640944329101719685655443319185854243052422221^5-1, difficulty: 214.58, skewness: 1.00, alpha: 1.45
# cost: 4.90392e+17, est. time: 233.52 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 1.000
c4: 1
c3: 1
c2: 1
c1: 1
c0: 1
Y1: -1
Y0: 441047607640944329101719685655443319185854243052422221
m: 441047607640944329101719685655443319185854243052422221
type: snfs
rlim: 67000000
alim: 67000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 92
mfba: 62
rlambda: 3.6
alambda: 2.6

Trial sieving 5K blocks. (C2D timings.)

  Q  Yield sec/rel
 20M 13040  0.309
 60M 14466  0.486
100M 14234  0.521
120M 13701  0.487

[RichD]

QUEUED C197 from the OPN t1600 file.
( a.k.a. Phi_5(Phi_3(Phi_2(Phi_3(Phi_7(Phi_11(2801)/small)/small)/small)/small)/small)/small) )
or P55.76454_5M.C197

n: 15420106394864175646956697460687018537255496896008096522537550268413863999071964128123246880858150236150236618717851768444792711346084264069707278037651651645100472752767291966576474365987720132361
# 7645463225990568242011672429536839102186796836095591099^5-1, difficulty: 219.53, skewness: 1.00, alpha: 1.45
# cost: 7.40309e+17, est. time: 352.53 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 1.000
c4: 1
c3: 1
c2: 1
c1: 1
c0: 1
Y1: -1
Y0: 7645463225990568242011672429536839102186796836095591099
type: snfs
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 92
mfba: 62
rlambda: 3.6
alambda: 2.6

Trial sieving 5K blocks.

  Q  Yield
 20M  8235
 60M  9540
100M 10126
140M  9152
180M  8438

[fivemack]

Do you want to use 14e or 15e for these quartics?

[swellman]

QUEUED C180_144_55 is the composite cofactor remaining after yoyo@Home found a p54. At first I assumed this would be best factored using GNFS (there have been a few examples from the xyyx project in the last few weeks) but test sieving shows that factoring this composite using SNFS is still the best strategy.

Use 14e.

n: 117584889783093103096672802605868198355384364847159094368448829303838825468335358899723272324256691112560210596562609505161517633649883850274330478506472074476907005355795371114817
# 144^55+55^144, difficulty: 250.61, anorm: 2.40e+037, rnorm: 3.88e+047
# scaled difficulty: 252.31, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 2.493e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 2.298e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 250
skew: 2.2894
c6: 1
c0: 144
Y1: -26623333280885243904
Y0: 587089817274070447368135511875152587890625
rlim: 268000000
alim: 268000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8

Test sieving on the -r side with Q in blocks of 5K:
Q=20M     16680
Q=70M     14081
Q=110     13510
Q=180     10870
Q=230     10943

Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-210M with target # relations = 490M.

[swellman]

QUEUED C233_144_53 is ready for SNFS on 14e.

n: 38374312398283582325657648808004146969907525900800855301406386671996814999601395796168777811469002125491748155628991413242994998135066203928803044194578764063765362584114426962905305186903758830477297619339375543622596742289572279889
# 144^53+53^144, difficulty: 249.50, anorm: 7.20e+037, rnorm: 2.11e+047
# scaled difficulty: 251.08, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 2.537e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 2.345e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 249
skew: 1.3104
c6: 16
c0: 81
Y1: -8874444426961747968
Y0: 241335311011519234780052665404754645838881
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7

Test sieving on the -r side with Q in blocks of 5K:

Q=20M     8626
Q=60M     7097
Q=110M    6800
Q=170M    5293
Q=220M    4861

Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-210M with a target # rels = 240M

[RichD]

Originally Posted by fivemack

Do you want to use 14e or 15e for these quartics?

Use 14e unless 15e is explicitly stated.

[axn]

Originally Posted by swellman

n: 117584889783093103096672802605868198355384364847159094368448829303838825468335358899723272324256691112560210596562609505161517633649883850274330478506472074476907005355795371114817
# 144^55+55^144, difficulty: 250.61, anorm: 2.40e+037, rnorm: 3.88e+047
# scaled difficulty: 252.31, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 2.493e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 2.298e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 250
skew: 2.2894
c6: 1
c0: 144
Y1: -26623333280885243904
Y0: 587089817274070447368135511875152587890625
rlim: 268000000
alim: 268000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8

Out of curiosity, how does it compare against

n: 117584889783093103096672802605868198355384364847159094368448829303838825468335358899723272324256691112560210596562609505161517633649883850274330478506472074476907005355795371114817
# 144^55+55^144, difficulty: 250.61, anorm: 2.40e+037, rnorm: 3.88e+047
# scaled difficulty: 252.31, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 2.493e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 2.298e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 250
skew: 1.2
c6: 4
c0: 9
Y1: -53246666561770487808
Y0: 587089817274070447368135511875152587890625
rlim: 268000000
alim: 268000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8

[axn]

Originally Posted by swellman

n: 38374312398283582325657648808004146969907525900800855301406386671996814999601395796168777811469002125491748155628991413242994998135066203928803044194578764063765362584114426962905305186903758830477297619339375543622596742289572279889
# 144^53+53^144, difficulty: 249.50, anorm: 7.20e+037, rnorm: 2.11e+047
# scaled difficulty: 251.08, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 2.537e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 2.345e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 249
skew: 1.3104
c6: 16
c0: 81
Y1: -8874444426961747968
Y0: 241335311011519234780052665404754645838881
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7

Similarly

n: 38374312398283582325657648808004146969907525900800855301406386671996814999601395796168777811469002125491748155628991413242994998135066203928803044194578764063765362584114426962905305186903758830477297619339375543622596742289572279889
# 144^53+53^144, difficulty: 249.50, anorm: 7.20e+037, rnorm: 2.11e+047
# scaled difficulty: 251.08, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 2.537e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 2.345e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 249
skew: 1
c6: 9
c0: 4
Y1: -13311666640442621952
Y0: 241335311011519234780052665404754645838881
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7

[swellman]

Originally Posted by axn

Out of curiosity, how does it compare against

n: 117584889783093103096672802605868198355384364847159094368448829303838825468335358899723272324256691112560210596562609505161517633649883850274330478506472074476907005355795371114817
# 144^55+55^144, difficulty: 250.61, anorm: 2.40e+037, rnorm: 3.88e+047
# scaled difficulty: 252.31, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 2.493e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 2.298e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 250
skew: 1.2
c6: 4
c0: 9
Y1: -53246666561770487808
Y0: 587089817274070447368135511875152587890625
rlim: 268000000
alim: 268000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8

That was the first candidate poly I test sieved, but it proved to be 10-15% slower with a slightly lower yield. Tested at both ends of the estimated sieving range and the results did not change, as I recall. Same thing with 144_53.

[axn]

Originally Posted by swellman

That was the first candidate poly I test sieved, but it proved to be 10-15% slower with a slightly lower yield. Tested at both ends of the estimated sieving range and the results did not change, as I recall. Same thing with 144_53.

Cool Good to know