Index 1 Sequence Work for the "n^i" Aliquot Project - Page 12

EdH · 2022-10-31, 15:58

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.

VBCurtis · 2022-10-31, 21:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by VBCurtis

I'll run 94^100 C156.
I marked it in post 1.

Finished, reported to factordb, and the entry has been removed from post 1.

EdH · 2022-10-31, 22:19

Great! Thanks!

EdH · 2022-11-01, 12:12

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.

gd_barnes · 2022-11-02, 07:01

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.

EdH · 2022-11-02, 13:21

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.

EdH · 2022-11-12, 22:53

All index 1s with a composite > 153 have been ECMed to t50. My interest has drawn be elsewhere for a while.

gd_barnes · 2022-11-15, 09:29

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 opposite-parity exponents on these 2 bases. No other index 1's remain.

Ed, would it be helpful to show the ECM-level 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.

EdH · 2022-11-15, 15:04

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.

gd_barnes · 2022-11-24, 08:59

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.

EdH · 2022-11-25, 13:03

1727636^28 index 1 broke for t50: c172 = p47 * prp126.

2022-11-02, 07:01	#126
gd_barnes "Gary" May 2007 Overland Park, KS 11849₁₀ 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 2022-11-02 at 07:08

2022-11-24, 08:59	#131
gd_barnes "Gary" May 2007 Overland Park, KS 17²·41 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 2022-11-24 at 09:23

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A new idea for OEIS "triangle read by rows" sequence	sweety439	sweety439	4	2022-05-28 06:20
Aliquot Sequence 18528 - Team Project?	EdH	Aliquot Sequences	45	2021-06-27 12:30
Is there a copy of "the" aliquot tree anywhere?	Dubslow	Aliquot Sequences	11	2016-11-02 05:05
Possible extention to the "GPU to 72 Tool" project?	chalsall	GPU to 72	332	2012-01-04 01:45
Collaborative mathematics: the "polymath" project	Dougy	Math	11	2009-10-21 10:04

2022-10-31, 15:58	#122
EdH "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns 2²×5×263 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.

2022-10-31, 22:19	#124
EdH "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns 5260₁₀ Posts	Great! Thanks!

2022-11-01, 12:12	#125
EdH "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns 2²·5·263 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.

2022-11-02, 13:21	#127
EdH "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns 2²×5×263 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.

2022-11-12, 22:53	#128
EdH "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns 2²×5×263 Posts	All index 1s with a composite > 153 have been ECMed to t50. My interest has drawn be elsewhere for a while.

2022-11-15, 09:29	#129
gd_barnes "Gary" May 2007 Overland Park, KS 17²·41 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 opposite-parity exponents on these 2 bases. No other index 1's remain. Ed, would it be helpful to show the ECM-level 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.

2022-11-15, 15:04	#130
EdH "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns 5260₁₀ 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.

2022-11-25, 13:03	#132
EdH "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns 148C₁₆ Posts	1727636^28 index 1 broke for t50: c172 = p47 * prp126.