20221031, 15:58  #122 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
5,077 Posts 
I believe 28^114 and 35^98 were both run at t50, before I scaled back to t47.8. It seems the only t47.8, actually was running a t45 (third time counting your two) when it found the factor instead of moving to the t47.8 step. T45 was taking about 20 mins and I was timing things and testing scripts.

20221031, 21:21  #123 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
31×179 Posts 

20221031, 22:19  #124 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
5,077 Posts 
Great! Thanks!

20221101, 12:12  #125 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
13D5_{16} Posts 
96^99 shed a p49, but left a c131. I'll go ahead and GNFS it today to see how long it takes with only a small portion of my machines.

20221102, 07:01  #126 
May 2007
Kansas; USA
2^{2}·2,887 Posts 
There have been 6 more splits since my last post. I've run ECM and a little NFS on their subsequent index(es). Here are their statuses:
ECM to t35. Move along; nothing to see here: 69^97: 177/142/3 94^100: 196/165/3 96^97: 193/164 96^99: 197/182 ECM to t40. Some potential: 96^94: 176/143/71 (6 indexes added) 210^78: 181/146/49414853 (large smallest factor) I'm done with these. Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 20221102 at 07:08 
20221102, 13:21  #127 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
5,077 Posts 
I ran the c131 because it had survived t50, the sequence was still at index 1 and I wondered how long it would take using the machines that weren't doing ECM via the cluster. It took 9.5 hours, without any GPU support. I will probably use those machines for some more NFS, but I haven't figured out where, yet.
I'm not going to run 96^99 again, since the sequence is past index 1 and not of matched parity interest. c14x composites would take my machines longer than the expected double doubling of c13x composites because most of those machines do not run overnight. 
20221112, 22:53  #128 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
5,077 Posts 
All index 1s with a composite > 153 have been ECMed to t50. My interest has drawn be elsewhere for a while.

20221115, 09:29  #129 
May 2007
Kansas; USA
11548_{10} Posts 
For the recently added new bases, the following sequences can be added to the 1st post:
1305184^30: 184/180 1727636^27: 169/155 1727636^28: 175/172 I have ECM'd all of these to t45. I've also done some work on other large oppositeparity exponents on these 2 bases. No other index 1's remain. Ed, would it be helpful to show the ECMlevel of each sequence in the first post? I believe all sequences with cofactors <= 153 digits plus the 3 sequences above would be at t45. Everything else would be t50. 
20221115, 15:04  #130 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
1001111010101_{2} Posts 
I'll look at that later today. My interest has dragged me away from this and the "easier" thread lately. My current script for this thread completes all by itself and I'd like to keep it that way, if possible, without me making any edits manually. Maybe for now, just a note for the ECM level done will work. I can add that into the script rather easily. Maybe I'll put that in a couple places in the post.

20221124, 08:59  #131 
May 2007
Kansas; USA
2D1C_{16} Posts 
47616^36 can be added.
It was ECM'd to t45. I worked all of the untouched exponents on the 3 recent new bases. This is the only one that still remains at index 1. Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 20221124 at 09:23 
20221125, 13:03  #132 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
5077_{10} Posts 
1727636^28 index 1 broke for t50: c172 = p47 * prp126.

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 