![]() |
![]() |
#1 |
Just call me Henry
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)
2·2,909 Posts |
![]()
While using the information on http://www.loria.fr/~zimmerma/records/ecm/params.html with gmp-ecm 6.1.3 i noticed that v6.1.3 wanted less curves run at most levels
why then are we still using the v6.0 amount of curves Digits v6.0 v6.1.3 Diff 20 77 74 3 25 206 214 -8 30 401 430 -29 35 948 904 44 40 2,440 2,350 90 45 4,590 4,480 110 50 7,771 7,553 219 55 17,899 17,769 130 60 43,670 42,017 1,653 65 69,351 69,408 -57 also how are these numbers calculated |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Bamboozled!
"πΊππ·π·π"
May 2003
Down not across
3×3,529 Posts |
![]()
Because small changes in the number of curves makes essentially no difference to the amount of cpu time required to find factors.
Left as an exercise in the use of Google. Paul |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Just call me Henry
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)
10110101110102 Posts |
![]()
surely 1600 curves at 60 digit level is worth missing
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Bamboozled!
"πΊππ·π·π"
May 2003
Down not across
3×3,529 Posts |
![]()
Read the numbers again.
Approximately 43K curves are recommended at this level. 1600/43K is under 4%. That in itself is barely worth worrying about. When you take into account (whiich you clearly haven't) that the extra work gives you a larger chance of finding a factor if one is to be found, then it really isn't worth making a fuss over it. Paul Last fiddled with by xilman on 2007-12-21 at 16:14 Reason: Fix tyop. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Number of curves needed? | jibanes | GMP-ECM | 3 | 2018-02-04 19:55 |
ECM - why 3 curves? | James Heinrich | PrimeNet | 3 | 2017-11-14 13:59 |
JKL-ECM: ECM using Hessian curves | CRGreathouse | Software | 1 | 2017-09-06 15:39 |
B1 and # curves for ECM | Walter Nissen | Factoring | 36 | 2014-02-16 00:20 |
Need help with elliptic curves... | WraithX | Math | 12 | 2010-09-29 09:34 |