20090623, 14:27  #1 
Nov 2003
2^{2}×5×373 Posts 
What's Happening
We haven't heard anynews in a long time. What's happening
visavis 7,319+ and 7,304+????? 
20090623, 17:43  #2  
Jun 2005
lehigh.edu
2^{10} Posts 
Quote:
and the checkpoint file. We're rerunning. The other one hasn't been started yet (and we're no longer distributing files with the linesiever). bd (with aplogies to Richard and Greg for my presumption(s)) 

20090717, 12:04  #3  
Jun 2005
lehigh.edu
2^{10} Posts 
Update
Quote:
have been working on 7, 304+ C244 for some time. For my part, I expect to contribute a good chunk of sieving (on 304+). For other current bdodson@lehigh projects, sieving for 5, 398+ C274, with Greg's new binary of the 16e siever, is reduced to the last few 100 tasks, and should finish today with 400M+ unique relations. Sieving on the Batalov+Dodson number 10, 393+ C253 started earlier this morning. Tom reports that 12+256 C228 had a final count of 433466098 unique, for a monstrous 24.5M^2 matrix that's now past 40%. Bruce PS  Sam's page 111 just finished (with the 319+ factorization), and the Wanted lists have been updated to include the Dodson/ECMNET cofactors C149 and C153 as SmallerbutNeeded from page 111. Both numbers are reserved. 

20090826, 20:23  #4  
Jun 2005
lehigh.edu
2^{10} Posts 
Quote:
10,269 c233, a Most wanted first hole, and also a repunit, (10^2691)/9 = 111...111 (269 ones). Several factors are already known, but this is snfs, with difficulty 268. Bruce 

20090826, 21:58  #5 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
2^{5}×3×101 Posts 
Difficulty will be 270 with the upped sextic, right?
(insert :splitting hairs: smilie) Incidentally, only recently I mentally fixed my own similar math error, the c268 2,2086M has difficulty 269.1 (and "could have been" a c270, but the algebraic 2,14L factor eats up two digits) 
20090827, 02:18  #6  
Jun 2005
lehigh.edu
2^{10} Posts 
Quote:
Code:
233 10 269  269 0.866171 243 10 268 + 268 0.906716 me; making sure plausible targets were sufficiently ecm'd). If you're saying that you've updated the entry in your table to 270, guess that means sieving will be a bit more difficult; not enough to worry about though. Bruce 

20091005, 12:00  #7  
Nov 2003
7460_{10} Posts 
Quote:
Has NFSNET been put out of business by NFS@HOME? 10,269 is difficult..... Good luck. 

20091005, 17:07  #8 
Jul 2003
So Cal
2^{4}×3×47 Posts 

20091008, 13:00  #9  
Nov 2003
7460_{10} Posts 
Quote:
Which is one reason why NFSNET is fading away..... It provides no feedback to participants. 

20091008, 14:13  #10 
Jun 2003
The Texas Hill Country
441_{16} Posts 
It has no participants because it has no lattice siever code which can operate within its control structure. It is not worthwhile even attempting to use the CWI line siever any more. It is far too inefficient for the class of numbers that we have been processing.

20091008, 16:44  #11  
Nov 2003
2^{2}×5×373 Posts 
Quote:
You once used my (line) siever code before switching to CWI. Allow me to ask: how will you do 10,269 without participants? This number is quite difficult. 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
strange thing happening in factordb  firejuggler  FactorDB  96  20191206 15:32 
Is there much happening on 1k10k ?  fivemack  Aliquot Sequences  5  20100205 15:47 