mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > Cunningham Tables

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2022-10-13, 21:15   #34
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

15FF16 Posts
Default

Nice work!

Was the job run 34/35, or 35 on both sides? Looks like there's room for one more bit of LP on one side while staying comfortably within msieve's relations-count bound.
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-10-13, 21:57   #35
frmky
 
frmky's Avatar
 
Jul 2003
So Cal

72×53 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
Was the job run 34/35, or 35 on both sides?
35 on both sides.
frmky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-10-14, 00:28   #36
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

1111000010002 Posts
Default

Congratulations on factoring that beast!

Looking ahead to the Gang of 31, 2,2222L is a GNFS 228 or a SNFS 334, very similar to 2,1109+, i.e. a GNFS 225 or SNFS 334. No idea how efficiently 2,2222L sieves as a SNFS but if it’s similar to 2,1109+ do we need to bother running ECM on it and instead just jump right to SNFS via NFS@Home or perhaps a team CADO effort?

Keep in mind that I currently have 2,2222L first in the Gang of 31 ECM list, and I plan to keep it there unless this matter is decided otherwise. But I ask the question.

Alternatively, should we add 2,1109+ to the Gang of 31 before attempting to sieve it by whatever method?
swellman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-10-14, 00:45   #37
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

23×13×37 Posts
Default 2,2222L

I got the following SNFS polynomial for 2,2222L, with a competitive escore.

Code:
n: 498182294243708816934953758200571293828380952324990796450108172678901306777660557394701463533080260632512879410875999929172206863194431411006233976375867957164259819114952920343808614673946286820544900427755366971820147029014473
skew: 1.22639
type: snfs
c6: 2
c5: 0
c4: 0
c3: -2
c2: 0
c1: 0
c0: 1
Y1: 1
Y0: -49039857307708443467467104868809893875799651909875269632
# cownoise score = 1.652e-16 (same skew recommended, no surprise)
swellman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-10-14, 00:49   #38
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
"Bob Silverman"
Nov 2003
North of Boston

22×1,877 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swellman View Post
Congratulations on factoring that beast!

Looking ahead to the Gang of 31, 2,2222L is a GNFS 228 or a SNFS 334,
I believe that Greg will agree with the following......

Too big for NFS@Home. He has said SNFS 330/GNFS 225 is the limit. This places even 2,1097+
and 2, 2194L or M out of reach.


Quote:

Alternatively, should we add 2,1109+ to the Gang of 31 before attempting to sieve it by whatever method?
Yes. Add it to the Gang of 31 [will be 32]. Several efforts could not get a sufficiently good polynomial to do it by
GNFS (even though it is at the stated size limit) and is clearly too big via SNFS.

NFS@Home had to hit a ceiling sooner or later. C'est la vie.
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-10-14, 01:02   #39
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
"Bob Silverman"
Nov 2003
North of Boston

22·1,877 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
I believe that Greg will agree with the following......

Too big for NFS@Home. He has said SNFS 330/GNFS 225 is the limit. This places even 2,1097+
and 2, 2194L or M out of reach.




Yes. Add it to the Gang of 31 [will be 32]. Several efforts could not get a sufficiently good polynomial to do it by
GNFS (even though it is at the stated size limit) and is clearly too big via SNFS.

NFS@Home had to hit a ceiling sooner or later. C'est la vie.
I'm not sure why 2,2222L (or M) is even being proposed before several smaller numbers. (6 of them by my count)
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-10-14, 01:06   #40
charybdis
 
charybdis's Avatar
 
Apr 2020

92510 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frmky View Post
2,1180+ is done. It was our first with 35-bit large primes, and everything went surprisingly smoothly.
Excellent work!

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
I believe that Greg will agree with the following......

Too big for NFS@Home. He has said SNFS 330/GNFS 225 is the limit. This places even 2,1097+
and 2, 2194L or M out of reach.
The work on 2,1109+ seems to suggest that SNFS-334 is easier than GNFS-225, so I don't see how "SNFS-330/GNFS-225" makes sense as a limit. If GNFS-225 is possible - which it probably is, given that there was room to spare with 2,2246M - then SNFS-335 should be too. Yes, sieving will take a while, and the memory limitations of the clients make it a harder lift than it should be, but I don't see why sieving up to Q=5G or so would be infeasible. 35-bit large primes will help.
charybdis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-10-14, 01:33   #41
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
"Bob Silverman"
Nov 2003
North of Boston

1D5416 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by charybdis View Post
Excellent work!



The work on 2,1109+ seems to suggest that SNFS-334 is easier than GNFS-225
The work on 2,2246M C221 suggests that a C225 via GNFS should have been within reach.

However, a suitable polynomial for 2,1109+ could not be found. Perhaps it is just an outlier for GNFS.

Prior work suggests that a typical C225 would be easier than 2,1109+. Thus, I am not sure that
your conclusion that SNFS 334 is easier than GNFS 225 is justified. A single data point is bad
statistics. It is also possible that the polynomial search was unlucky.

OTOH, I am not sure that your conclusion is false either.

Greg is the one who suggested SNFS 330 as a limit.

Note that I would be quite happy to learn that SNFS 334 is doable.

Clearly, if SNFS 334 is possible, then the "gang of 32" will need adjustment.

Last fiddled with by R.D. Silverman on 2022-10-14 at 01:36
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-10-14, 01:41   #42
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

23×13×37 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
I'm not sure why 2,2222L (or M) is even being proposed before several smaller numbers. (6 of them by my count)
Because if a SNFS 334 is feasible target, then those other 6 are also likely to be feasible on NFS@Home (or a local team sieve effort). Of course if it’s found a S-334 is beyond local reach then all bets are off.

Quote:
Clearly, if SNFS 334 is possible, then the "gang of 32" will need adjustment.
Here’s hoping the Gang becomes 25!

Last fiddled with by swellman on 2022-10-14 at 01:44
swellman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-10-14, 02:27   #43
charybdis
 
charybdis's Avatar
 
Apr 2020

11100111012 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
The work on 2,2246M C221 suggests that a C225 via GNFS should have been within reach.

However, a suitable polynomial for 2,1109+ could not be found. Perhaps it is just an outlier for GNFS.
The e-scores of the best polynomials were in line with what one would expect for a GNFS-225. As far as I know, the only reason they were not considered suitable is that they didn't outperform the SNFS poly. Had it been out of reach by SNFS, it might have been added to the NFS@Home queue by now.
(Caveat: I haven't actually test-sieved the best GNFS poly to see how feasible it is. A task for another day.)
charybdis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-10-14, 02:42   #44
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
"Bob Silverman"
Nov 2003
North of Boston

22×1,877 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by charybdis View Post
The e-scores of the best polynomials were in line with what one would expect for a GNFS-225. As far as I know, the only reason they were not considered suitable is that they didn't outperform the SNFS poly. Had it been out of reach by SNFS, it might have been added to the NFS@Home queue by now.
(Caveat: I haven't actually test-sieved the best GNFS poly to see how feasible it is. A task for another day.)
Interesting. Was 2,2246M unusually easy? 2,1109+ is 4 digits larger. It should therefore be slightly less than twice as hard. Would this not be less work than 1110 bits of SNFS? [1110 is divisible by 6, 1109 is not]

Of course small variations in e-score can make a significant difference.

I am just trying to adjust my expectations about relative difficulty, since my initial guess was that GNFS 225 was
doable.
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Recommended bases and efforts gd_barnes Conjectures 'R Us 189 2022-12-27 23:33
Doublecheck efforts; S66/S79 to start with gd_barnes Conjectures 'R Us 16 2014-08-07 02:11
Cunningham ECM Now Futile? R.D. Silverman GMP-ECM 4 2012-04-25 02:45
ECM efforts mistake? 10metreh mersennewiki 1 2008-12-28 13:31
ECM Efforts R.D. Silverman Factoring 63 2005-06-24 13:41

All times are UTC. The time now is 07:37.


Tue Jan 31 07:37:04 UTC 2023 up 166 days, 5:05, 0 users, load averages: 1.28, 1.26, 1.19

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, 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.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔