mersenneforum.org new project ?
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2004-06-01, 01:50 #1 junky     Jan 2004 13310 Posts new project ? hi, i just restart the client into the Fenland pool and at my surprise, i see: Code: 01:47:38 Requesting assignment... 01:47:38 Received assignment (Fenland 3_491P_3 10132063-10132065)... 01:47:38 Building .in file... 01:47:38 Updating project .in file with assigned range... 01:47:38 Launching siever... 01:48:33 Siever finished... 01:48:33 Submitting results... 01:48:33 Results successfully submitted... 01:48:33 Requesting assignment... 01:48:34 Received assignment (Fenland 3_491P_3 10132065-10132068)... 01:48:34 Building .in file... 01:48:34 Updating project .in file with assigned range... 01:48:34 Launching siever... is it the project after 11_206P ?? can we have more info related to both projects please ? Thanks.
 2004-06-01, 02:49 #2 dsouza123     Sep 2002 2×331 Posts Maybe that's why I am not getting an assignment from 11_206P_2 Longhorn pool. 02:38:36 Initializing... 02:38:36 Initialized. 02:38:36 Requesting assignment... 2 02:38:38 RequestAssignment() failed, sleeping for 10 seconds. Last message was: 02:38:48 Requesting assignment... 2 02:38:50 RequestAssignment() failed, sleeping for 20 seconds. Last message was: 02:39:10 Requesting assignment... 2 02:39:12 RequestAssignment() failed, sleeping for 40 seconds.
 2004-06-01, 02:52 #3 junky     Jan 2004 7×19 Posts maybe, i don't know. I was getting that error too, so i've switched to Fenland, and its like im on the new project. I don't know if 11_206P is done or not, we'll wait for some news from Richard or Paul, but it sounds good.
2004-06-01, 11:23   #4
xilman
Bamboozled!

"𒉺𒌌𒇷𒆷𒀭"
May 2003
Down not across

2×73×17 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by junky maybe, i don't know. I was getting that error too, so i've switched to Fenland, and its like im on the new project. I don't know if 11_206P is done or not, we'll wait for some news from Richard or Paul, but it sounds good.
Yes, we've switched to the Cunningham number 11,206+.c234 over the last day or two. This number (11^206+1 as you probably realise) has no known non-trivial factors. It's intermediate in difficulty between the last couple we've done and 2_811M which was quite hard. The latter, by the way, is still being crunched, slowly but surely. I'm hoping to be able to report more on it in a day or two.

Paul

 2004-06-01, 11:35 #5 Wacky     Jun 2003 The Texas Hill Country 32×112 Posts Well, Paul is almost correct. The switching is FROM 11,206+ TO 3,491+. And only some pools have switched. There are still some more lines to be handled by the two largest pools "Longhorn" and "Bristol". But they will be switching soon. Richard I need a couple MacOSX people to check the latest client before I post it for public use. Please PM me if you can give it a test.
2004-06-01, 11:44   #6
junky

Jan 2004

2058 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by xilman Yes, we've switched to the Cunningham number 11,206+.c234 over the last day or two. This number (11^206+1 as you probably realise) has no known non-trivial factors. It's intermediate in difficulty between the last couple we've done and 2_811M which was quite hard. The latter, by the way, is still being crunched, slowly but surely. I'm hoping to be able to report more on it in a day or two. Paul
when ya meen this number has no known non-trivial factors, do ya meen this number will never been factorised ? it was a most-wanted number, so maybe that's why that number is a bit hard. I'd like to know a bit more about the status of this number please. Will we leave this number at 86.86% complete (6670.29 of 7679 workunits) or we will we reached the 100% too ?

Which methods can we use to find a "non-trivial factor" ?

Thanks.

2004-06-01, 11:47   #7
Wacky

Jun 2003
The Texas Hill Country

32·112 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by junky maybe, i don't know. I was getting that error too, so i've switched to Fenland, and its like im on the new project. I don't know if 11_206P is done or not, we'll wait for some news from Richard or Paul, but it sounds good.
The errors from Longhorn have to do with a systems problem here. It should now be OK again.

As for manually switching pools, let me STRONGLY discourage it.
There are presently 8 different pools running 3 incompatible protocols.
If you place yourself into the wrong pool, bad things happen.
Please do not switch pools unless you are directed to do so.

2004-06-01, 14:02   #8
xilman
Bamboozled!

"𒉺𒌌𒇷𒆷𒀭"
May 2003
Down not across

2·73·17 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Wacky Well, Paul is almost correct. The switching is FROM 11,206+ TO 3,491+.
Doh!

I'm clearly not at 100% today.

Paul

2004-06-01, 14:10   #9
xilman
Bamboozled!

"𒉺𒌌𒇷𒆷𒀭"
May 2003
Down not across

2·73·17 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by junky when ya meen this number has no known non-trivial factors, do ya meen this number will never been factorised ? it was a most-wanted number, so maybe that's why that number is a bit hard. I'd like to know a bit more about the status of this number please. Will we leave this number at 86.86% complete (6670.29 of 7679 workunits) or we will we reached the 100% too ? Which methods can we use to find a "non-trivial factor" ? Thanks.
Wacky corrected my earlier error. The new project is to factor 3^491+1. This number is obviously even, so 2 is a trivial factor. It turns out that the number is actually a multiple of four. After dividing by 4, what remains has 234 decimal digits and it is this one that we are factoring.

A whole bunch of methods can, in principle, find non-trivial factors. Whether they actually find them depends on a number of properties of the factors. If they are small enough, up to 15 digits perhaps, Pollard's rho algorithm should find them. If they are reasonably small, up to 40 digits say, the ECM method has a very good chance of finding them and still stands some chance if they are as big as 50 or 55 digits. That fact that ECM hasn't found any yet suggests that the factors are over 40 digits in size and could well be much larger.

Other methods include the number field sieve and, in principle, quadratic sieve though 234-digit numbers are way beyong what's possible now and, anyway, SNFS will do it much easier. Guess what we are using ...

Paul

 2004-06-01, 20:36 #10 junky     Jan 2004 7×19 Posts let me think.... SNFS :) what's the estimated time required for the 3^491+1 project ?
 2004-06-02, 18:43 #11 Wacky     Jun 2003 The Texas Hill Country 21018 Posts Cue "the fat lady" The last of the relations for 11,206+ just arrived at the Warehouse for post-processing. You may now safely delete the factor base for this project from your projects/ folder. Thanks to all who helped in the sieving. Richard

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post schickel Aliquot Sequences 307 2011-10-28 01:29 schickel Aliquot Sequences 29 2011-08-12 17:45 opyrt Prime Sierpinski Project 6 2010-04-20 10:51 ATH Miscellaneous Math 4 2006-08-30 17:59 junky NFSNET Discussion 18 2004-03-08 03:05

All times are UTC. The time now is 21:47.

Mon Feb 6 21:47:59 UTC 2023 up 172 days, 19:16, 1 user, load averages: 1.11, 1.16, 1.15

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