Team sieve #17: c163 from 4788:2509

[Raman]

The matrix size for the previous c161 of iteration 2483 was
6676995 x 6677221

but the matrix dimensions for this c163
is 9794898 x 9795123

Could only just TWO digits cause a significant difference in the size of matrix that is being produced up simply?

PS: My post processing jobs for 6,355- 2,935- have been submitted up into the compute cluster. Their details will only be known after the entire thing has been completed up.

[10metreh]

Originally Posted by Raman

The matrix size for the previous c161 of iteration 2483 was
6676995 x 6677221

but the matrix dimensions for this c163
is 9794898 x 9795123

Could only just TWO digits cause a significant difference in the size of matrix that is being produced up simply?

The c161 was slightly oversieved, but this c163 was not.

[FactorEyes]

I am factoring up a C162 (size 5.2x10^161). I did not sieve it much up past the minimum to get up a workable matrix. The matrix has up dimensions around 8430000 by 8430000.

I would not sieve it any more up. The linear algebra is taking up a long time to finish up, but longer time to sieve up the matrix does not bring up corresponding savings in the time you need up to Lanczos it up.

[FactorEyes]

Last fiddled with by 10metreh on 07 Feb 10 at 12:35 PM Reason: adding a few more ups ;)

I have a problem with moderators editing posts.

If you dislike the tone of my post, you can confront me, or PM me about it.

If you can't refrain from abusing your moderator privileges, then perhaps you should find another forum which welcomes your hundreds of irrelevant "me-too" postings.

[10metreh]

Originally Posted by FactorEyes

If you can't refrain from abusing your moderator privileges, then perhaps you should find another forum which welcomes your hundreds of irrelevant "me-too" postings.

Out of my last 25 postings (excluding this one), 21 are definitely of some use, 3 more could possibly be deleted, and the last was a post that gave me the opportunity for a little joke. I admit that out of my first 500 posts probably about 20 were useful, but I have changed a lot since then.

OK, the edit was useless. I admit it.

[Joshua2]

http://factorization.ath.cx/search.p...&action=last20

[jasonp]

Well done!

[EdH]

Excellent!

And, the base composite is still getting smaller, (218..._<172>), 212..._<172>), 206..._<172>), 205..._<172>).

Shhhhh! Don't scare it...

Take Care,
Ed

[Mini-Geek]

Originally Posted by EdH

Excellent!

And, the base composite is still getting smaller, (218..._<172>), 212..._<172>), 206..._<172>), 205..._<172>).

Shhhhh! Don't scare it...

Take Care,
Ed

Line 2510 starts with 2^6 * 59. It will rise in the next index. Probably to about 2097..._<172> (from this, which is like the line but with p63*p63 that are almost the c125).

[EdH]

Originally Posted by Mini-Geek

Line 2510 starts with 2^6 * 59. It will rise in the next index. Probably to about 2097..._<172> (from this, which is like the line but with p63*p63 that are almost the c125).

See, now you scared it...
Heading back to the subproject...