mersenneforum.org 7+ table
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2005-01-18, 14:13 #1 garo     Aug 2002 Termonfeckin, IE 22×691 Posts 7+ table Code: Size Base Index + Diff Ratio 320 7 379 + 320.2 1 245 7 386 + 326.2 0.751 314 7 388 + 327.8 0.957 221 7 395 + 267.0 0.827 /5q 300 7 397 + 335.5 0.894 332 7 398 + 336.3 0.987 260 7 401 + 338.8 0.765 316 7 412 + 348.1 0.906 256 7 416 + 324.5 0.787 /13 331 7 422 + 356.6 0.926 231 7 425 + 287.3 0.802 /5q 224 7 430 + 290.7 0.76 /5q 351 7 431 + 364.2 0.962 301 7 436 + 368.4 0.815 313 7 439 + 370.9 0.842 261 7 442 + 344.8 0.755 /13 365 7 443 + 374.3 0.973 366 7 446 + 376.9 0.969 303 7 448 + 324.5 0.932 /7 300 7 889 L 321.9 0.93 310 7 889 M 321.9 0.961 Last fiddled with by Batalov on 2021-01-06 at 01:33 Reason: 7,875M is done
 2005-08-22, 23:49 #2 sean     Aug 2004 New Zealand 2×3×37 Posts 7,350+ C139 5168898551438758822224323913308984024753373866126288201 (p55) * 577933906565255372277248693235754607933851459064795784559428005583229072181753383001 (p84) by GNFS, 11 days
 2005-11-08, 09:27 #3 akruppa     "Nancy" Aug 2002 Alexandria 246710 Posts 2300 curves at B1=11M on 7,277+ 7,308+ 7,340+ 7,361+ 7,369+ 7,374+ 7,377+ 7,380+ 7,386+ 7,393+. Adds 0.50108 to p45 and 0.06662 to p50 for each. Alex Last fiddled with by akruppa on 2005-11-09 at 19:54
2005-11-09, 19:18   #4
R.D. Silverman

Nov 2003

22·5·373 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by akruppa 2300 curves at B1=11M on 7,277+ 7,308+ 7,340+ 7,361+ 7,369+ 7,374+ 7,377+ 7,380+ 7,386+ 7,393+. Adds 0.50108 to p45 and 0.06662 for each. Alex

If I interpret a recent email from Bruce Dodson correctly, Bruce has run
sufficient curves to add (at least) 1.0 to p45 for all Cunningham numbers
below 260 digits. He is working to achieve the same result for those over
260 digits.

Bruce suggested that in another year, running ECM on the current
Cunningham numbers will not longer be worthwhile. I would like to see
ECM run to at least level 1.0 at p50 before succumbing to this point of view.

2005-11-11, 17:59   #5
philmoore

"Phil"
Sep 2002
Tracktown, U.S.A.

100010111112 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman Bruce suggested that in another year, running ECM on the current Cunningham numbers will not longer be worthwhile. I would like to see ECM run to at least level 1.0 at p50 before succumbing to this point of view.
This seems surprising, as I would expect that there are quite a few Cunningham numbers on which one would want to do ECM factoring to the 55 or 60 digit level before proceeding with SNFS.

2005-11-11, 18:55   #6
R.D. Silverman

Nov 2003

1D2416 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by philmoore This seems surprising, as I would expect that there are quite a few Cunningham numbers on which one would want to do ECM factoring to the 55 or 60 digit level before proceeding with SNFS.
One must consider the possibility that for the larger composites, finding a
factor will still leave a composite cofactor that must be finished with NFS
anyway.....

 2006-07-17, 00:10 #7 bdodson     Jun 2005 lehigh.edu 210 Posts p49 finishes 7, 284+ That's p49 = 5980904229992785230777515196566061969934200643121, found with b1=260M (and ecm-6.1). It's my 2nd July factor, the first from the Opterons, for 17-days. In the last 600 curves needed for a complete t50. I've spent something like 38K curves since my last Opteron factor, a p47. If condor were able to support sieving, the time might well be better spent on snfs? I'll likely be running ecm through Nov 2006, with good progress on 1.0 t50 (cf. elsewhere). Bruce Dodson
 2006-08-18, 22:55 #8 geoff     Mar 2003 New Zealand 13·89 Posts 7,539L done 7,539L C142 = P63 * P80 P63 = 628632369546652104427939137048349725113498032710782245605608731 This was by SNFS (difficulty 195.2) with GGNFS (CVS 20060513) using 28 bit large primes and factor base limits of 20 million each side. Sieving took 104 GHz days on a mix of P2 and P3 CPUs, linear algebra (on the second attempt) took 24 GHz days on a P4. Peak RAM usage was 978 MB.
2006-11-04, 12:09   #9
bdodson

Jun 2005
lehigh.edu

210 Posts
p50 finishes 7,377+

Quote:
 Originally Posted by akruppa 2300 curves at B1=11M on 7,277+ ... 7,377+ ... Adds 0.50108 to p45 and 0.06662 to p50 for each. Alex
The Lehigh count on c234-c250 is at 56.38% t50, which was enough
to finish 7,377+ C248 with

p50 = 46215747540095507833650423122055432531249537597319
and a p198 cofactor. An xp-condor factor for ATH's "Prescott without"
binary of 6.1.1, the 3rd so far. This is the first of the low-memory run,
on public pcs unlikely to switch to sieving, so other things being equal,
another 3500/7830 curves to go for t50.

The Opterons are on the last run of 525 curves with b1=260M to
finish t50 on c211-c233, running the last 75 numbers. -Bruce

2007-01-09, 05:38   #10
bdodson

Jun 2005
lehigh.edu

102410 Posts
7,391+ c281 -> c235 (p46)

Quote:
 Originally Posted by garo Code: Base Index Size 11M(45digits) 43M(50digits) 110M(55digits) 260M(60digits) Decimal ... 7 391+ C281 0(0.267423) 0(0.0522979) 165(0.00921839) 0(0.00148122) 15447648579494257995639523563041579963781419175650953782737517531404675841338563961311901583097189888459303423561315822968403211737689491218288706539727488463400652825916891808614621701770654797080449720857175315477849499313649816507699060789062875463578838378145683464685573644031 ....
Another small xp factor (to go with the p50 Opteron factor, as my first
from 2007, in the non-sticky 2+ discussion).

p46= 4429642801163795117773992875901047668871730239

As reported in the title (especially for people that don't read titles!),
the cofactor is a 235-digit composite. Quite some ways to go on
3500 xp curves (that's b1=43M, gmp-ecm611 ATH's prescott binary;
b2 so that 7830 curves are needed to test for p50) being needed
to complete p50 on c234-c250. Looks that would have been with
800 curves finished; while the current count is 2400 finished, so
3500-1600 = 1900 left to go?

This p46 is from the c251-c299 range, which had an initial t45, and
is now at new 1200 curves, b1=43M. The 2+ and 2- in c251-c366
have had 2000/7830, enough for a bit more than a 2nd test to p45,
so I'm working on bringing the rest of c251-c299 up to 2000. The
least tested range of Cunningham numbers is the part of c3xx
(i.e., 300-c366) that's not on the 2- or 2+ list (for n<1200, so
c3xx's from 2LM is under-tested, relative to the rest) --- these ones
have only had 1000 new b1=43M curves beyond the initial test to
p45. Hope this suffices for a current report-from-the-front, pending
a comprehensive update on my July post on the 2.0-thread.

In brief, the race between the AMD's, xp's and the old P3's here isn't
a very straight comparison, on several counts. Never-the-less,
1 for the Opterons, 1 for the xps, so far in 2006.

Regards, Bruce

 2007-01-09, 06:52 #11 akruppa     "Nancy" Aug 2002 Alexandria 246710 Posts > (especially for people that don't read titles!) Huh? Who, me?? Alex

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post garo Cunningham Tables 100 2021-01-04 22:36 garo Cunningham Tables 80 2021-01-04 22:33 garo Cunningham Tables 150 2020-03-23 21:41 garo Cunningham Tables 82 2020-03-15 21:47 garo Cunningham Tables 41 2016-08-04 04:24

All times are UTC. The time now is 13:52.

Fri May 7 13:52:58 UTC 2021 up 29 days, 8:33, 0 users, load averages: 3.08, 3.08, 2.87