mersenneforum.org About M1277
 User Name Remember Me? Password
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2022-06-05, 19:02 #23 VBCurtis     "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 19·283 Posts My source for 3* t65 is Ryan's post here: https://mersenneforum.org/showpost.p...5&postcount=57 Where he believes he completed a t70 over a year ago. 3* t65 is about half a t70, so I was being conservative with my "guarantee", since I figure if Ryan thinks he did a t70 he surely finished half of one at minimum (plus all the other ECM work that everyone else has done, which might be close to a T65 by now).
2022-06-05, 21:02   #24
chalsall
If I May

"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados

3·3,527 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by kriesel With such a cordial invitation from VBCurtis, how could anyone resist.
Clearly, you couldn't. And I thank you for that. Sincerely.

While a bit "lengthy", it sums things up nicely and understandably for the layperson (of which I am in this domain).

IMO, this on par to an Economist (the newspaper) article.

As in, deeply researched, well thought, and clearly argued.

2022-06-05, 23:17   #25
charybdis

Apr 2020

797 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by kriesel (What is t65?)
t65 = expected amount of ECM effort to find a 65-digit factor, if one exists. See here for the actual curve counts.

Quote:
 I estimate the indicated effort already expended corresponds to ~3900. CPU-core-years.
This is way off. I'd be surprised if it was even 10% of this. Don't forget that GHz-days will be a big overestimate because they assume stage 2 is done by Prime95, not GMP-ECM which is much faster.
Exercise for the reader: run a single curve at B1=29e8, using GMP-ECM for stage 2; then multiply the time taken by 115153 to estimate the total CPU-time for Ryan's t70, which probably makes up at least 50% of the total ECM done on M1277.

2022-06-06, 17:34   #26
kriesel

"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

22·32·5·37 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by charybdis This is way off.
Including Ryan Propper's t65 and t70?

2022-06-06, 22:17   #27
charybdis

Apr 2020

797 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by kriesel Including Ryan Propper's t65 and t70?
Yes, that was the whole point of suggesting that the reader (i.e. you) run a curve at the t70 level and use that to estimate the time required for a full t70.
Hint: the time for such a curve is measured in hours. Not days.

2022-06-07, 00:37   #28
SethTro

"Seth"
Apr 2019

19×23 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by VBCurtis Anyone who considers TF on M1277 is assigned the task of determining how much ECM has been run, as it applies to the chances of a factor remaining below some bit level far far out of reach of TF- say, 100 bits. I guarantee that more than 3 * t65 of ECM has been run. Given this, what are the odds of a factor below 100 bits? 120 bits? 150 bits? The only correct answer to any commentary pondering TF on M1277 is "you are wasting your time". But Ken likes to write essays about such things, so perhaps he will do so for this assignment as well.
We already did the math in another post: https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=23280 starting around #60

Re-running my numbers I get a slightly different result (using Dickman's function

t65 - t70: 6%
t70 - t75: 6.6%
t75 - t80: 7.3%

Assuming Ryan has completed most of t70 / t75 we'll see maybe 10% probability of an ECM factor over the next ~10 years assuming GPUs get faster...

 2022-06-08, 21:29 #29 mathwiz   Mar 2019 12416 Posts All this talk of fuzz testing weird/nonstandard inputs to GMP-ECM (including kriesel's essays) should be moved to another thread. This thread is about factoring M1277.
2022-06-09, 14:28   #30
masser

Jul 2003
Behind BB

27×3×5 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mathwiz All this talk of fuzz testing weird/nonstandard inputs to GMP-ECM (including kriesel's essays) should be moved to another thread. This thread is about factoring M1277.
Done. Please see this thread for the very manly (i.e. idiotic with a lot of posturing) discussion of how to use GMP-ECM.

2022-06-09, 23:11   #31
masser

Jul 2003
Behind BB

27×3×5 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by BigNumberGuy [NEWCOMER ALERT] I was messing around in mersenne.ca and saw that M1277 was the smallest composite number with no factor, and all of TF, P-1 and ECM had been done to a high degree. Is it likely that we will factor M1277 in the next, say, 5-10 years? what about 20 years?
Here's a link to the group effort factorization of M991. I'm not sure how the community decided (some discussion here) it was time to tackle that particular exponent, but once they did the effort took about 7 months (November 2014 to June 2015). Very cool!

Here's the M947 effort, too!

Last fiddled with by masser on 2022-06-09 at 23:27

 2022-06-09, 23:51 #32 VBCurtis     "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 537710 Posts Interested potential-factorers / readers may want to review the previous M1277-factoring thread: https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=23280
 2022-06-10, 13:21 #33 BigNumberGuy   May 2022 3·7 Posts first off hang on where the heck did like 5 pages of responses go? second, this isnt related (i dont feel like a new thread) but why doesn't mprime (Mac) use up 100% of the cpu? I thought it was designed to do that??

 Thread Tools

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post sweety439 Cunningham Tables 7 2022-06-11 11:04 Viliam Furik Factoring 61 2020-10-23 11:52 DanielBamberger Data 17 2018-01-28 04:21

All times are UTC. The time now is 21:36.

Fri Aug 12 21:36:14 UTC 2022 up 36 days, 16:23, 2 users, load averages: 0.95, 1.04, 1.13

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔