mersenneforum.org Index 1 Sequence Work for the "n^i" Aliquot Project
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

2022-09-19, 16:43   #12
garambois

"Garambois Jean-Luc"
Oct 2011
France

13×83 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by EdH How much of a priority would you place in advancing the list to term 2?
If we do all this work of raising all the indexes above 1, I will be able to resume some works that has been on hold for quite some time.
But I won't have the time to start that work quickly.
I won't do much serious work until November - December.

2022-09-19, 18:03   #13
charybdis

Apr 2020

39B16 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by gd_barnes As for the recent base 100-195 effort, there were next to zero index 1's there because most bases in that range are prime. For prime bases, the index is always >= 2 due to another factoring project.
The real reason is that index 1 can be done by SNFS if the base is prime. For bases under 100, these would have been done as part of the Brent project, but I don't think bases above 100 are part of any other project. They've probably largely been done by individuals who like doing relatively easy SNFS jobs.

There are still a few SNFS targets in Ed's list, namely index 1 of 137^89, 173^83 and 193^83.

 2022-09-19, 18:44 #14 EdH     "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns 23×653 Posts I've queued the three base 6 entries to run after the current sequence I'm working on. They should be done by tomorrow. I intend to work upwards through the bases as interest permits. I may skip over >150 composites for now, unless I feel like completing a base, like the c154 for 6^209.
 2022-09-20, 07:27 #15 gd_barnes     "Gary" May 2007 Overland Park, KS 22×13×227 Posts Some notes about this effort: All same-parity exponents and double-square bases have been ECM'd to t35. All opposite-parity sequences that are not double-square bases for bases >= 95 have been ECM'd to t35. I'm not formally working on this effort yet but I do have an ongoing effort to initialize all medium and large opposite-parity exponents that results in factoring many sequences that are at index=1. I have done all bases >= 95 so far and am working my way downwards. Currently loaded up are bases 94 thru 90. The effort effectively ECM's everything to t35 on the last iteration of a sequence and continues until it can't completely factor a cofactor >= 110 digits. Since the list was last updated, here is some work on base 95 that has been done to index=1: Completely factored: 95^66, 70, 82, 84, 92, and 100 Partially factored: 95^74 and 98 Ed, since your list is auto-generated, do you need me to mention the partially factored exponents? In other words, will it automatically update the cofactor size if a sequence is not eliminated?
2022-09-20, 12:03   #16
EdH

"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009

23×653 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by gd_barnes . . . Ed, since your list is auto-generated, do you need me to mention the partially factored exponents? In other words, will it automatically update the cofactor size if a sequence is not eliminated?
This should be yes. The script takes the current list and strips the sizes, checks the db and if still at index 1 calculates the sizes from the new info and places it in a new list. Those that are no longer at index 1 are noted, but left off the new list. My only potential trouble is that each run uses up 1/3 of my db limit. I can add new bases easily. I may add a countdown to show progress. There shouldn't be many new sequences of workable size ever added. It should be a true countdown with just a few upticks.

I'll start a t35 ECM effort from the bottom up. We can meet along the way.

 2022-09-21, 02:21 #17 EdH     "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns 23×653 Posts Everything up through 69^100 has been ECMed to t35. I'll start with the next one heading up further tomorrow. Overnight I'm running 12^145 via NFS.
2022-09-21, 06:07   #18
gd_barnes

"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS

22×13×227 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by EdH Everything up through 69^100 has been ECMed to t35. I'll start with the next one heading up further tomorrow. Overnight I'm running 12^145 via NFS.
My opposite-parity initializing is done down through base 93. I'm entering everything now for bases 93-94. It will run down thru base 90. It generally completes ~2 bases a day since it's doing a lot more exponents on each base than are just in the index=1 effort.

Having everything ECM'd to t35 gives us a much better idea of the scope of this effort. So much stuff falls quickly to ECM at this point. Then it's just a matter of testing our way up the cofactor size list. Everything up to 115 digits would have sufficient ECM. After eliminating all sequences with cofactors <= 115 digits, we could do another mass ECM effort on the remaining ones to t40. Then everything up to ~130 digits would have enough. Or...we could just start testing sequences individually with everything at t35.

You might consider having a second list sorted by cofactor.

Eventually we could do an index=2 effort. :-) That would be much bigger because all of the prime bases come into play and that would be a load of them!

Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2022-09-21 at 06:44

 2022-09-21, 08:43 #19 gd_barnes     "Gary" May 2007 Overland Park, KS 22×13×227 Posts I'm now done with my other initialization effort down thru base 92. Here are the index 1's affected for bases 92 to 94 in the last day: Done: 92^63, 67, 69, 71, 73, 75, 79, 83, 87, & 89 93^64, 74, 78, 80, 92, & 94 94^71, 87, & 89 Partially factored: 92^91, 93, & 99 93^96 94^85 & 93 Ed, I started a process to ECM only the index 1's down thru base 80. I'll stop it there and you can take care of the 70's. It's a separate effort from my other initialization effort that will finish quickly. Question: When you partially factor one of these, I assume that you are entering the factor in the DB. Is that correct? It is what I do so that we know the remaining cofactor size. I want to make sure that we are on the same page. Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2022-09-21 at 08:44
 2022-09-21, 09:36 #20 kruoli     "Oliver" Sep 2017 Porta Westfalica, DE 1,319 Posts How complex and time consuming is it to set up an ECM server for those?
 2022-09-21, 12:31 #21 gd_barnes     "Gary" May 2007 Overland Park, KS 22·13·227 Posts I'm nearly done with the aforementioned ECM effort down to base 80. I'll report here when it's done. I'm estimating ~2 hours from this post. Note that all cofactors for index 1 will be C>=110 but it stops immediately before doing anything with index 2. I run QS/GNFS on anything below that for index 1. At this point, I'm assuming that you don't really need the details on everything that is either fully or partially factored. Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2022-09-21 at 12:33
2022-09-21, 13:19   #22
EdH

"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009

23×653 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by gd_barnes . . . You might consider having a second list sorted by cofactor. Eventually we could do an index=2 effort. :-) That would be much bigger because all of the prime bases come into play and that would be a load of them!
I thought of a sorted list, too, but haven't implemented it yet.

The index 1 effort is based on some research Jean-Luc is doing with the factors of index 1. We've factored some large ones in the past to validate some things. I don't believe index 2 will gain us the extra insight to warrant a sub-project, at least not in the near future.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by gd_barnes Ed, I started a process to ECM only the index 1's down thru base 80. I'll stop it there and you can take care of the 70's. It's a separate effort from my other initialization effort that will finish quickly. Question: When you partially factor one of these, I assume that you are entering the factor in the DB. Is that correct? It is what I do so that we know the remaining cofactor size. I want to make sure that we are on the same page.
Do know yoyo's intention with the "70" bases? I always check his list of currently worked sequences when I make my lists, but he reserved the entire base for several of the "70s" recently. I may leave those for now and run t40 on the leftovers from yesterday's efforts. I'll also start running NFS on any c135-c145s you left in the "90" region.

All factoring efforts are worked directly with the db. All factors found are uploaded at that point.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by gd_barnes At this point, I'm assuming that you don't really need the details on everything that is either fully or partially factored.
I agree. My list has no dependence on any of those bits, although some are interesting to us. The script just looks for index 1 being open.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by kruoli How complex and time consuming is it to set up an ECM server for those?
I looked at ECMnet a long time ago and it seemed more complicated than I was interested in at the time. I was looking at it for a LAN only setup, with no outside access.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post sweety439 sweety439 4 2022-05-28 06:20 EdH Aliquot Sequences 45 2021-06-27 12:30 Dubslow Aliquot Sequences 11 2016-11-02 05:05 chalsall GPU to 72 332 2012-01-04 01:45 Dougy Math 11 2009-10-21 10:04

All times are UTC. The time now is 13:15.

Sun Jan 29 13:15:13 UTC 2023 up 164 days, 10:43, 0 users, load averages: 0.80, 0.91, 1.23