View Single Post
Old 2004-04-19, 14:52   #6
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

746010 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smh
I haven't seen anything about this factorization in this forum, but am i right that this number was easier to do (at least post processing)?

The result for 2,1642M should have been HARDER to achieve. It is 10 bits
larger than M811. I do not understand why their matrix was only 7+Million
rows, while that for M811 was 14+M. Further, they did the sieving in only 50
days with fewer machines. [although I suspect that they had faster machines].

Note that they used a lattice siever, not a line siever.

One of these days I will have to write my own lattice siever... [if I can find
the time!]
R.D. Silverman is offline