mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   Cunningham Tables (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=51)

 bdodson 2010-02-10 07:54

[quote=frmky;204595]NFS@Home has completed 6,338+. Another routine SNFS following Bruce's ECM find, but a nice split. [/quote]

Here's a non-routine p62, to finish 6,344+ C190
[code]
44098070546316336069732891124299479167253575131341897248372433 [/code]
a first hole, #5 on the most wanted list. Nearly the last number from
c190-c209 to finish t55 ("second smallest 100 Cunninghams", now at
either 7t50 or 6t50). I've started on c210-c233. -Bruce
____

[COLOR=green]ECM is not dead!! Long live ECM! :-) Congratulations on a nice factor! --SB. [/COLOR]

 frmky 2010-02-10 08:07

[QUOTE=bdodson;205160]Here's a non-routine p62, to finish 6,344+ C190
[/QUOTE]
Excellent! Finds like this make up for the long stretchs of factorless ECM runs.

 Raman 2010-03-29 17:19

6,355+

1 Attachment(s)
<snip>
that snip means what actually?

 R. Gerbicz 2010-03-29 17:44

[QUOTE=Raman;209932]<snip>
that snip means what actually?[/QUOTE]

c211=p60*p61*p91
double ecm miss?

 Raman 2010-03-29 17:55

[quote=R. Gerbicz;209937]c211=p60*p61*p91
double ecm miss?[/quote]

These days can we consider up the factors within the "low sixties" digit range as ECM misses?
6,355+ is easier by SNFS rather
If one has to find out a p60 factor by using ECM, then it should be a champion within the top 50 ECM factors table?
So, people have to run up with ECM upon all numbers till they find out the factors?
One cannot guarantee before itself that all the factors of the number are within the ECM range only

This is in my perspective. I always favour SNFS rather than ECM.
SNFS does guarantee the factors. That is why I don't actually prefer running up all those ECM curves.

 R.D. Silverman 2010-03-29 19:04

[QUOTE=Raman;209939]These days can we consider up the factors within the "low sixties" digit range as ECM misses?

[/QUOTE]

No way, Jose.

 xilman 2010-03-29 21:53

[quote=R.D. Silverman;209951]No way, Jose.[/quote]I'd allow exceptions for irony or for out-right teasing.

Paul

 FactorEyes 2010-03-29 22:53

[QUOTE=xilman;209987]I'd allow exceptions for irony or for out-right teasing.

Paul[/QUOTE]

I employ a conversion formula:

Tragedy is me pulling a P63 factor on an SNFS-150 job.

Comedy is you pulling a P53 on the same job.

Since the first one happened to me, it's an ECM miss.

 jasonp 2010-03-29 23:53

[url="http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=106715&postcount=11"]Bruce explained it all[/url]

 Batalov 2010-03-30 00:20

Post-factum it is fairly easy to run a single "ecm -v -v 11e7" curve on one's own hardware and estimate if the factor had a 50/50 chance to have been found in 1/10th of the total time spent on NFS factoring. If it had not, sleep well and give an understanding chuckle to those who would invariably call your factor an ECM miss.
Because they will, no matter what... :jokedrum:

 Raman 2010-04-01 07:24

[quote=R. Gerbicz;209937]c211=p60*p61*p91
double ecm miss?[/quote]

6,355+ c211 = p60*p61*p91
In any case, if you assume that this is an ECM miss

Think of 6,365+ c182. Remember that one?
That case 6,365+ c182 split up into as p60*p61*p62
That p60 was an ECM hit! Mr. Paul Zimmermann did the remaining c122 of 6,365+ by using GNFS.
And then why is there such a similarity between 6,355+ with 6,365+ :rolleyes:

Which state are you people from? Is this information right then?
Mr. Batalov, frmky -> California
Dr. Silverman -> Massachusetts (?)
jasonp -> Maryland
bdodson, Xyzzy -> Pennsylvania, where this mersenneforum server is being hosted up
Prof. Wagstaff -> Indiana
Prime95 (aka George Woltman) -> Florida
philmoore -> Oregon
jbristow -> Washington

All times are UTC. The time now is 08:31.