View Single Post
Old 2021-02-27, 18:41   #17
charybdis
 
charybdis's Avatar
 
Apr 2020

263 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swellman View Post
Sam now reports running ECM for ~300 curves per number

While I’m still focused on finishing ECM for the remaining 1987 list of base-2 CNs, my plan is to start weaving the new base-2 extensions into the big quilt. I’m thinking of starting with a single pass of 4000 curves @B1=260e6. Then later I can repeat 19000 curves (twice eventually) at the same level. Thoughts?

I was going to queue the new work by increasing number of digits, but willing to take requests. It will take years to get these all up to the just the t60 level. And don’t forget the 1987 list is still in play. This strategy tries to please everyone thus guaranteeing no one will be pleased.
That sounds like a good plan to start out with; in the long term maybe it would be best to move on to 850e6 after the first 19000@260e6, given that Yoyo won't be the only ones running ECM on these numbers.

I've got a few machines running curves on composites below c250, reasoning that if an ECM factor leaves behind a composite cofactor, then it will be within GNFS range - and that's worked out nicely, as you can see above.

Quote:
One other observation from Sam

Did anyone run some ECM in this patch? Just trying to avoid repeating work.

One last note - I was recently reminded of this page. What’s the protocol here? Best to avoid any numbers on the GIMPS page? Or will any additional “rogue” ECM work be embraced?
The GIMPS work probably explains the lack of factors in the 2- table. Ryan has run a lot of ECM on small Mersennes, but I don't think he's reported all of it to GIMPS, so it would be worth contacting him to get some rough curve counts. I expect the non-Mersenne numbers in the 2- table (those with composite exponents) have not had as much ECM.
charybdis is offline   Reply With Quote