20220919, 16:43  #12  
"Garambois JeanLuc"
Oct 2011
France
3×359 Posts 
Quote:
But I won't have the time to start that work quickly. I won't do much serious work until November  December. 

20220919, 18:03  #13  
Apr 2020
13·71 Posts 
Quote:
There are still a few SNFS targets in Ed's list, namely index 1 of 137^89, 173^83 and 193^83. 

20220919, 18:44  #14 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
145A_{16} 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.

20220920, 07:27  #15 
"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS
2×3^{2}×5×131 Posts 
Some notes about this effort:
All sameparity exponents and doublesquare bases have been ECM'd to t35. All oppositeparity sequences that are not doublesquare 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 oppositeparity 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 autogenerated, 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? 
20220920, 12:03  #16  
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
2×5×521 Posts 
Quote:
I'll start a t35 ECM effort from the bottom up. We can meet along the way. 

20220921, 02:21  #17 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
2·5·521 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.

20220921, 06:07  #18  
"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS
10111000001110_{2} Posts 
Quote:
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 20220921 at 06:44 

20220921, 08:43  #19 
"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS
10111000001110_{2} 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 20220921 at 08:44 
20220921, 09:36  #20 
"Oliver"
Sep 2017
Porta Westfalica, DE
2·659 Posts 
How complex and time consuming is it to set up an ECM server for those?

20220921, 12:31  #21 
"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS
27016_{8} 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 20220921 at 12:33 
20220921, 13:19  #22  
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
12132_{8} Posts 
Quote:
The index 1 effort is based on some research JeanLuc 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 subproject, at least not in the near future. Quote:
All factoring efforts are worked directly with the db. All factors found are uploaded at that point. Quote:


Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
A new idea for OEIS "triangle read by rows" sequence  sweety439  sweety439  4  20220528 06:20 
Aliquot Sequence 18528  Team Project?  EdH  Aliquot Sequences  45  20210627 12:30 
Is there a copy of "the" aliquot tree anywhere?  Dubslow  Aliquot Sequences  11  20161102 05:05 
Possible extention to the "GPU to 72 Tool" project?  chalsall  GPU to 72  332  20120104 01:45 
Collaborative mathematics: the "polymath" project  Dougy  Math  11  20091021 10:04 