20221027, 16:27  #111  
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
2^{3}·677 Posts 
Quote:
In any case, I only got one extra of the list to factor and it was done during the t45 step, so the extra 40 minutes to get to t47.8 did not reap any benefit. I've scaled the ECM back to t45 and will work there for the rest (at least for now). I currently have all the c152 and c153 queued to see how they turn out today. 

20221029, 10:22  #112 
"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS
12,043 Posts 
There appear to be 8 splits here of cofactors <= 156 digits as follows:
Opposite parities, no double square bases: 56^97 75^92 77^90 95^78 Same parities or double square bases: 69^91 200^77 696^60 966^54 An impressive haul! :) On the opposite parities, all of the latest indexes are ECM'd to t35. Status of the same parities is in the "somewhat easier" thread. 
20221029, 12:17  #113 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
2^{3}×677 Posts 
About half of the above shed a 4x factor and remained on index 1, so I had to run the remaining cofactor via GNFS. They were simple enough: 103, 11x, etc. It gave my nonecmpi machines something to do.

20221029, 16:17  #114 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
13134_{8} Posts 
I'll run 94^100 C156.
I marked it in post 1. 
20221029, 17:06  #115 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
2^{3}·677 Posts 
Great  Thanks!

20221030, 02:19  #116 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
2^{3}·677 Posts 
I made it through all but the last two with t45. I've started back down from those two at t50. I'm not sure how long my attention span will allow me to continue, but we'll see.

20221031, 03:23  #117  
"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS
12,043 Posts 
Quote:
1. Did you ECM the entire list to t45 with the exception of the two at the end, i.e. 95^94 and 86^99? 2. Where have you started t50 from? Did you do 95^94 and 86^99 to t50 and then start again from the top doing everything to t50 until you're ready to call it quits? I feel like at C<=151 would not need any more than t45 and then gradually increasing after that to t50. Maybe your process shows differently. Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 20221031 at 04:00 

20221031, 09:45  #118 
"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS
10111100001011_{2} Posts 
Since my last posting of splits here, there have been 8 more:
Opposite parities, no double square bases: 54^99 78^89 Same parities or double square bases: 68^100 69^97 86^96 120^80 200^73 392^64 The t45 effort has been a fruitful one! Like before, on the opposite parities, all of the latest indexes are ECM'd to t35 and the status of the same parities is in the other thread. 
20221031, 12:17  #119 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
2^{3}×677 Posts 
Sorry for my lack of clarity. (It made sense to me.)
What I did was to start working backwards up the list. That took the last two into the t50 and gave me the idea that I could get the harder ones out of the way. My list became: Code:
86^99: 192/189 95^94: 186/186 162^90: 200/184 78^98: 186/184 162^85: 189/183 102^92: 186/183 120^95: 198/182 92^97: 191/182 229^79: 185/181 119^94: 195/181 99^99: 198/181 96^94: 187/181 Now I'm thinking of running some more in the same fashion, from the larger toward the smaller. I agree that c15x would probably be overkill at t50, which was why I decided to go from larger toward smaller and cut it off when I got down there, if my patience allowed even that. I'm glad you consider the t45 effort "fruitful." I felt they were sparse, at the time of each. But, the number of index 1 sequences left is dwindling slightly. That's good to see. 
20221031, 12:39  #120  
"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS
10111100001011_{2} Posts 
Quote:
By my observation, I found that 8 sequences were split two different times per my two posts. So that's 16 out of ~160. ~10% is not bad IMHO since I ran t40 twice and eliminated quite a few that you would have caught with t45. I think there were 2 that you split from the first few sequences before the two 8's that I observed but I had the impression that you took those 2 to t50 or t47 or something so I didn't include them. If you did, that would make 18. Now you've got even one more here, which would make 19. When I posted the second group of 8 that had split, there were 145 sequences remaining. It seemed a little more than dwindling slightly. :) At this point, knocking 10% off the list is not easy. Look at it this way, could you run NFS and knock off 16 or 18 or 19 sequences in that amount of time? I'm thinking not even if you did only 150s and 151s. Here you're doing all kinds of huge sizes. It definitely feels like it's been worth it. 

20221031, 13:01  #121 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
2^{3}·677 Posts 
The confusion was that I was thinking back down the size of the cofactors: 189, 186, 184..., rather than down the sequences in the list.
A rough calculation says I should be able to GNFS a 180 digit composite in two weeks (which actually sounds amazing to me ATM). I guess three hours of ECM is a pretty small sacrifice for that. It's just that after several of those three hour failures, it becomes questionable. And, the ECM is a gamble while GNFS is going to work (most probably). 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
A new idea for OEIS "triangle read by rows" sequence  sweety439  sweety439  4  20220528 06:20 
Aliquot Sequence 18528  Team Project?  EdH  Aliquot Sequences  45  20210627 12:30 
Is there a copy of "the" aliquot tree anywhere?  Dubslow  Aliquot Sequences  11  20161102 05:05 
Possible extention to the "GPU to 72 Tool" project?  chalsall  GPU to 72  332  20120104 01:45 
Collaborative mathematics: the "polymath" project  Dougy  Math  11  20091021 10:04 