20201212, 02:25  #815 
Jun 2012
Boulder, CO
10A_{16} Posts 
I currently have 1,576 composites left in my local "input.opn" that is {mwrb2100}  {factors found}. I've updated https://cs.stanford.edu/~rpropper/opn.txt with a list of factors found so far. (I also don't seem to have a cert issue).

20201213, 17:45  #816 
Sep 2008
Kansas
2×31×53 Posts 

20201213, 23:31  #817 
Oct 2007
Manchester, UK
3^{2}×149 Posts 
I've just submitted a rather large haul of factors to factordb, but I like the look of ryanp's factor reporting format so I processed my factors into the same format and attached them to this post.
I believe many of these factors have already been accounted for in the t2200 file, but at least 130 have not. Unfortunately my script does not currently separate out the two yet. Here is my progress on the t2200 file: For the ~13500 composites less than 2^1018 which can be run on GPU, I'm running 1152 curves per candidate @ B1=3e6, B2=14e9. So far 3000 composites have completed stage 1 and 2000 have also completed stage 2. It will be 23 more months before this finishes. For the ~58000 composites larger than 2^1018, all of them have finished 100 curves @ B1=50e3, B2=13.7e6. I'm starting another run of 100 curves now which should take a couple of weeks. 
20201214, 16:30  #818  
Oct 2007
Manchester, UK
3^{2}×149 Posts 
Quote:
This will cause a minor delay until I can aquire a replacement and check that the rest of the machine is OK. Progress on the sub 2^1018 composites will be unaffected. Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 20201214 at 18:49 

20201218, 21:58  #819 
Apr 2006
97_{10} Posts 
The run for \(10^{2200}\) hit this roadblock:
\(11^{18}\) \(6115909044841454629^{16}\) / \(3^4\) / \(5^1\) / \(103^{172}\) / \(227^4\) \(2666986681^{36}\). It is difficult to circumvent because the abundancy is close to 2. Without a factor of \(\sigma(6115909044841454629^{16})\), \(\sigma(103^{172})\), or \(\sigma(2666986681^{36})\), I will have to find a better way to handle roadblocks. Also, this roadblock prevented the program to produce the file mwrb2200. http://www.lirmm.fr/~ochem/opn/ropn_comp.txt These are (probably easier) composites that might simplify the proof in section 6 of this paper. http://www.lirmm.fr/~ochem/opn/OPNS_Adam_Pace.pdf 
20201218, 23:08  #820 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
4678_{10} Posts 
Does the first link contain the actual composites you need to factor? I mean, should we throw some ECM firepower at those three large blockers?
Are these three all SNFS difficulty above 320? We can crack some pretty tough numbers these days, but I'm not sure ~330 is within forum firepower. 
20201218, 23:18  #821  
Just call me Henry
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)
2×41×71 Posts 
Quote:
(2666986681^371)/2666986680 is 340 digits (6115909044841454629^171)/6115909044841454628 is 301 digits It looks to me like (6115909044841454629^171)/6115909044841454628 probably has an octic polynomial at difficulty 301(using the degree halving trick). I am not sure how doable this is. 

20201218, 23:39  #822 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
2×2,339 Posts 
Thanks! I'll start some ECM on the C301 at B1 = 15e7 tonight.

20201218, 23:52  #823 
Just call me Henry
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)
2·41·71 Posts 
I would suggest checking that I am correct about the octic before going too crazy on it. Maybe checking whether it would be sane to do as well. While it is large I am fairly sure octic is suboptimal. It could be like doing a quartic in reverse.

20201219, 00:30  #824 
Apr 2020
193 Posts 
x^171 does produce a reciprocal octic. NFS@home have done a few of these, but looking at the postprocessing logs, I'd guess they're as difficult as sextics at least 30 digits larger? The octic here will still be faster than the difficulty339 sextic with an enormous coefficient, but I'm not sure it's sane. Lots of ECM is surely the way to go.

20201219, 00:37  #825 
Just call me Henry
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)
2·41·71 Posts 
Unless I have made a mistake:
f(x)=x^8+x^77x^66x^5+15x^4+10x^310x^24x+1 g(x)=6115909044841454629x6115909044841454629^21 What size have the previous reciprocal octics been? 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Passive Pascal  Xyzzy  GPU Computing  1  20170517 20:22 
Tesla P100 — 5.4 DP TeraFLOPS — Pascal  Mark Rose  GPU Computing  52  20160702 12:11 
Nvidia Pascal, a third of DP  firejuggler  GPU Computing  12  20160223 06:55 
Calculating perfect numbers in Pascal  Elhueno  Homework Help  5  20080612 16:37 
Factorization attempt to a c163  a new Odd Perfect Number roadblock  jchein1  Factoring  30  20050530 14:43 