20230502, 18:20  #111 
Jul 2003
So Cal
2×3^{2}×149 Posts 
2,2222M is done. The 166.4M matrix took 84 hours to solve using 8x A100 gpus.

20230505, 02:20  #112  
Bamboozled!
"๐บ๐๐ท๐ท๐ญ"
May 2003
Down not across
109^{2} Posts 
Quote:
Nothing had happened with the CW queue for months; turned out that it had been disabled because the queue had drained and never been reenabled at the end of last year when I uploaded more work. There are now 20K jobs at B1=260M (i.e. t60) for each of 150ish GCW numbers lying in the range 210 through 229 digits. I doubt that lot will be cleared out any time soon but will be paying attention in case I am pleasantly surprised. Those parameters were carefully chosen to ensure that the cofactor will be either prime or an easy GNFS runt. One factor, a p65, has already been found. 

20230505, 02:25  #113 
Bamboozled!
"๐บ๐๐ท๐ท๐ญ"
May 2003
Down not across
109^{2} Posts 
From yoyo's status page.
5 May 2023 2:20:21 UTC: 222 numbers and 49,021,203,178,191,588,779,805,498,404,773,459,890,685,805,986,392,540,314,833,570,519,033,561,936,348,293,019,006,003,065,518,083,046,626,000,225,179,047,533,500,450,802,266,461,291,958,188,220,613,345,012,477,374,857,379,363,181,514,099,488,463,232,269,399,297,607,712,564,312,724,508,293,640,879,079,424 curves are waiting in input queue. CPU Years: 3,371.39 Credits: 5,906,676,334 GFlop: 2,551,684,176,288 10^{229} curves is just plain silly. I suspect that someone put a numbertobe factored into the numberofcurves column. 
20230505, 06:03  #114 
"Carlos Pinho"
Oct 2011
Milton Keynes, UK
1443_{16} Posts 
Think you'll be surprised, you might need to add more. Look now at https://www.rechenkraft.net/yoyo/y_s...ecm.php#tabs3
At the moment there are more than 200,000 Wu's ( for all ECM projects) in progresswhere each Wu covers for 5 (I think) ECM curves. Last fiddled with by pinhodecarlos on 20230505 at 06:10 
20230505, 07:13  #115  
Sep 2022
1111111_{2} Posts 
Quote:


20230505, 09:12  #116  
Bamboozled!
"๐บ๐๐ท๐ท๐ญ"
May 2003
Down not across
109^{2} Posts 
Quote:
At the moment I have 3M curves still to be done at B1=260M. Each curve takes 12 corehours on typical systems, according to my ECMNET server logs scaled by a factor of 260/43 to allow for the higher B1. If my arithmetic is correct, 3M curves comes to around 8200 coreyears in total.Im am only 1 of six functioning projects right now, so unless one or more of the others run dry, something like 50M coreyears will have been run by the time my inpout queue runs dry. As noted previously, I will be paying attention. Last fiddled with by xilman on 20230505 at 09:13 Reason: fix grammar 

20230505, 17:32  #117 
"Carlos Pinho"
Oct 2011
Milton Keynes, UK
3·7·13·19 Posts 
Paul, my baseline reference are the 20 numbers I see from that link I've posted before, not the 150 if all were added to it. Think there's another link to follow up all the queue but can't seem to remember where it is. Looking forward to see for all ECM projects yesterday picture and within 13 days. I can see some.of the heavy hitters not showing expected output so they might be holding for some of the challenge days ahead nuances
Last fiddled with by pinhodecarlos on 20230505 at 17:32 
20230506, 16:03  #118 
Dec 2022
1000100010_{2} Posts 
Yes, the 'gang of 31' are now 24 (after the inprogress number, 1109+, finishes), while I'd assumed 31. These are, of course, the remaining numbers from the print editions (the last higherbase number from the third edition was done last year). Just one can marginally use an algebraic factor (1139+ is planned as the /17 octic, though even at that size it can't be that much better than the sextic), and their sizes range from 338 to 361. Directly adding those difficulties, using the estimates here and the theoretical formula, makes the total of the 24 still pretty close to that of M1277, but probably a bit less. Surely, though, this depends on memory allocated for sieving, as larger numbers must benefit more from extra memory. At the current limits both would take many years; the factory approach has promise, and has been demonstrated, but would require at least as big a change as raising the limits.
Calling the limit of the exponent list 'arbitrary' was not an judgement but a fact  it has no mathematical basis. If it was established in the 1960s (before complete factorisations to that level were at all conceivable) that hardly makes it less so. Greg doesn't post here himself, so I have no basis to predict his decision, which will be needed promptly as just that one number in progress remains. 
20230506, 16:35  #119  
Apr 2020
7×163 Posts 
Quote:
Quote:


20230506, 22:02  #120 
Bamboozled!
"๐บ๐๐ท๐ท๐ญ"
May 2003
Down not across
109^{2} Posts 

20230508, 00:15  #121 
Bamboozled!
"๐บ๐๐ท๐ท๐ญ"
May 2003
Down not across
11881_{10} Posts 
Two factors found so far, one of which has left a C162 runt which I will complete by GNFS.

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Recommended bases and efforts  gd_barnes  Conjectures 'R Us  190  20230226 09:01 
Doublecheck efforts; S66/S79 to start with  gd_barnes  Conjectures 'R Us  16  20140807 02:11 
Cunningham ECM Now Futile?  R.D. Silverman  GMPECM  4  20120425 02:45 
ECM efforts mistake?  10metreh  mersennewiki  1  20081228 13:31 
ECM Efforts  R.D. Silverman  Factoring  63  20050624 13:41 