mersenneforum.org P56 ECM Factor
 User Name Remember Me? Password
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2005-04-12, 14:19 #1 wblipp     "William" May 2003 New Haven 23×103 Posts P56 ECM Factor Today Pascal Ochem reported a 56 digit ECM factor. Paul Zimmermann's Top 100 List has it as the seventh largest ECM factor ever found. Pascal has been working from the Composites Page of the not-yet-ready-for-prime-time Search for Odd Perfect Numbers.
 2005-04-12, 15:16 #2 akruppa     "Nancy" Aug 2002 Alexandria 1001101000112 Posts It was one of the weird cases where ECM found the larger prime factor. The input number was only a c103, the cofactor is a p48. While this is a very nice factor, it will probably not be counted on Richard Brent's record factors list - MPQS would have been a much better choice for this number than ECM with such high bounds. Alex
 2005-04-23, 09:38 #3 akruppa     "Nancy" Aug 2002 Alexandria 46438 Posts Pascal did it again, this time a p57 of the c133 of 3719^37-1. This time he found the smaller prime factor, and it seems it will just barely make Brent's Top Ten list. The condition is 2. Let r = length of input (composite) / length of factor (prime), where the lengths are measured in decimal digits. To be included a factor must satisfy r >= 2.2. [...] Now 133/57=2.33, so the factor should make the list, even though the ratio log(c133)/log(p57) = 2.1. Alex
2005-04-23, 11:06   #4
R.D. Silverman

Nov 2003

1D2416 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by akruppa Pascal did it again, this time a p57 of the c133 of 3719^37-1. This time he found the smaller prime factor, and it seems it will just barely make Brent's Top Ten list. The condition is 2. Let r = length of input (composite) / length of factor (prime), where the lengths are measured in decimal digits. To be included a factor must satisfy r >= 2.2. [...] Now 133/57=2.33, so the factor should make the list, even though the ratio log(c133)/log(p57) = 2.1. Alex
Actually, there are several tiny factors (5/6 digits) that bring it down to C119.
This number would be much better done with GNFS.

 2005-04-23, 11:41 #5 akruppa     "Nancy" Aug 2002 Alexandria 2,467 Posts Oh, correct! I was looking at the SNFS difficulty column in the table on William's page, not the cofactor size column. So again no entry in Brent's table. Alex PS: actually, at SNFS difficulty only 133, this would still have been a SNFS job. Last fiddled with by akruppa on 2005-04-23 at 11:46 Reason: post scriptum

 Thread Tools

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post siegert81 FermatSearch 2 2018-01-24 04:35 lycorn PrimeNet 11 2013-01-12 12:07 Buckle Factoring 15 2011-03-15 12:05 nfortino Data 6 2004-12-14 19:25 dsouza123 Software 12 2003-08-21 18:38

All times are UTC. The time now is 08:59.

Sat Nov 27 08:59:28 UTC 2021 up 127 days, 3:28, 0 users, load averages: 1.98, 1.27, 1.06

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.