View Single Post
Old 2012-04-25, 02:45   #5
bdodson
 
bdodson's Avatar
 
Jun 2005
lehigh.edu

210 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
Rhetorical question: Are we wasting our time running ECM on the
(older part of the) Cunningham tables?
On the contrary; there may still be a few p<58 factors left
on the oldest parts above c290. It is the 3- and 3+ extensions
that have been getting 100000s of curves with no factors. I've
been running t60's on the smaller ones (under c234 for sure, under
c250 mostly) and 2t55's on the larger ones. Virtually nothing left
by Sam's and PaulZ's runs after the proposed extension was announced,
before the official extension.

Mostly everything under C250 is ready to sieve, with perhaps a few
exceptions of the hardest gnfs --- running ecm after t60 has failed,
say to 3t60 or some larger fraction of t65 looks extremely un-promising
with current resources. PaulZ keeps observing that we have sufficient
hardware to find a given p65, on a particular number; but I don't see
anyone running 2nd or 3rd t60's after the first t60 failed on a larger pool
of possible candidates.

-Bruce (I'd be happy to be proved wrong ...)
bdodson is offline   Reply With Quote