mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > Cunningham Tables

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2020-06-03, 19:53   #67
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

164278 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sweety439 View Post
Should we start to factor this number in this forum? Like 2^991-1
Simple answer: No.
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-06-03, 21:54   #68
rudy235
 
rudy235's Avatar
 
Jun 2015
Vallejo, CA/.

22·239 Posts
Default

I agree.
rudy235 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-06-04, 01:39   #69
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

4,211 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sweety439 View Post
Should we start to factor this number in this forum? Like 2^991-1
Be my guest. Go ahead and figure out proper parameters for CADO and how many relations will be needed, and let us know what hardware you'll contribute and for how long. The first half is healthy for education, and the second half would benefit our forum-siever-team. The numbers we've worked recently have happened because someone around here cared to do the dirty work, and others agreed to help. Try it, see how it goes.

Or did you mean you wanted everyone else to do the work, while you watch for entertainment?
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-06-04, 15:06   #70
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

164278 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
Be my guest. Go ahead and figure out proper parameters for CADO and how many relations will be needed, and let us know what hardware you'll contribute and for how long. The first half is healthy for education, and the second half would benefit our forum-siever-team. The numbers we've worked recently have happened because someone around here cared to do the dirty work, and others agreed to help. Try it, see how it goes.

Or did you mean you wanted everyone else to do the work, while you watch for entertainment?
No. It means that he just wanted to say something about a number that had been
previously beaten to death extensively discussed for the sake of
making himself heard.
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-06-06, 11:12   #71
fivemack
(loop (#_fork))
 
fivemack's Avatar
 
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England

2×52×127 Posts
Default

I'm unsure as to whether R323 is accessible with the 16e siever. It seems that x^6-10 sieves slightly better than the octic, but with a yield of about 0.8 relations per Q the search range is annoyingly large. Will compare 33/34/35-bit large primes for the sextic under CADO; for the octic the yield boost going to 35-bit LP isn't enough.

Last fiddled with by fivemack on 2020-06-06 at 11:14
fivemack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-06-06, 12:57   #72
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

11·677 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fivemack View Post
I'm unsure as to whether R323 is accessible with the 16e siever. It seems that x^6-10 sieves slightly better than the octic, but with a yield of about 0.8 relations per Q the search range is annoyingly large. Will compare 33/34/35-bit large primes for the sextic under CADO; for the octic the yield boost going to 35-bit LP isn't enough.
Several numbers have been done that are larger: 2, 1076+, 2,2158L, 2,1084+..
The last is 4 digits larger. I expect that numbers up to ~330 digits should be doable
by NFS@Home.

Perhaps you are not allowing the 16f siever? Do you really mean to restrict which siever
is used?
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-06-06, 15:53   #73
chris2be8
 
chris2be8's Avatar
 
Sep 2009

34618 Posts
Default

Would the 16f siever support -j 16? That boosts yield on 16e (It makes the sieve area 16k x 16k) but raises memory required.

Chris
chris2be8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-06-07, 03:06   #74
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

4,211 Posts
Default

When I tested -J 16 a couple years ago, it worked on some numbers and Q-ranges but not others. I didn't find a pattern in which polys were resilient, and which crashed a bunch, so I deemed it unusable.

That 40% yield boost would clearly extend GGNFS sievers another 6-8 digits!
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
7+ table garo Cunningham Tables 85 2020-04-15 21:12
5- table garo Cunningham Tables 82 2020-03-15 21:47
5+ table garo Cunningham Tables 99 2020-01-10 06:29
6+ table garo Cunningham Tables 79 2020-01-01 15:26
6- table garo Cunningham Tables 41 2016-08-04 04:24

All times are UTC. The time now is 00:29.

Tue Jul 7 00:29:34 UTC 2020 up 103 days, 22:02, 1 user, load averages: 2.59, 2.36, 2.12

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.