mersenneforum.org Polynomial Request Thread
 User Name Remember Me? Password
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

2022-10-16, 15:56   #2289
EdH

"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns

2×32×7×43 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by swellman Ed - can my best deg 6 poly be spun up? And yes I won’t bother reporting anything below 1.3e-15. Seems like we should able to find a couple of good polys (> 1.4e-15) with a few individual machine-weeks between us all but who knows what results we’ll get.
I'll run it in a little while after my current script search test completes.

2022-10-16, 16:41   #2290
wombatman
I moo ablest echo power!

May 2013

73F16 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by swellman CADO got a big one! Code: n: 8095101662371927421703337019465587498085337648622133688278589711654019359923503887978141510461468343349838217540569173400647791769725685803537804186347867144149599002247585690859122186539724272741806859085719 skew: 140138.379 c0: 25913254528907171652995260756449843374970 c1: -1290547516892777857501992555209822939 c2: 6199518954766254144637219981714 c3: 264525951419727864944487871 c4: 67907082683742692904 c5: -4745861603713440 c6: 4669896000 Y0: -2803680302662889860338703572179527 Y1: 1891192000626364510493327 # MurphyE (Bf=3.436e+10,Bg=1.718e+10,area=1.476e+17) = 9.383e-09 # skew 140138.38, size 5.715e-015, alpha -8.931, combined = 1.856e-015 rroots = 6 # # cownoise suggests skew 164898.488 which msieve scores as # skew 164898.49, size 5.715e-015, alpha -8.931, combined = 1.858e-015 rroots = 6 While there is no existing record deg 6 for a GNFS 208, this escore feels close to where such a record would be. This ends my deg 6 searching on this composite. That said, I believe a very good deg 5 poly would be a better choice to sieve a C208 (all past jobs on record used a deg 5). So I will start searching for such using CADO.
Wow! What a find!

 2022-10-16, 18:36 #2291 EdH     "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns 2×32×7×43 Posts The spin came up the same.
 2022-10-19, 15:06 #2292 wombatman I moo ablest echo power!     May 2013 5·7·53 Posts I did a poly search over the whole of the degree 5 space with MSieve's gpu search. Stage 1 was restricted by a factor of 10, and Stage 2 was left as-is. Currently doing the -npr step to see if I get any hits at e-value > 1.25e-15. So far, nothing.
 2022-10-21, 11:18 #2293 swellman     Jun 2012 3,911 Posts I just finished a CADO search for a5 < 10M and found nothing above 1.17e-15. Continuing search to 25M.
 2022-10-22, 22:23 #2294 firejuggler     "Vincent" Apr 2010 Over the rainbow 22·7·103 Posts Can't find anything usefull with polydegree 5. I'm stopping researching.
 2022-10-23, 01:15 #2295 swellman     Jun 2012 F4716 Posts C208 My current CADO run should spit out results this Wednesday. While I’m essentially skimming with my chosen parameters, I’m willing to run it up to a5 < 350M. Will take some weeks. I’m the first to admit my methods are brute force rather than clever technique. Anyone feeling clever?
 2022-10-23, 05:19 #2296 wombatman I moo ablest echo power!     May 2013 5·7·53 Posts So far, I only have two degree 5 polys better than 1.25e-15. Might be worth doing the ol' spin-a-rama on them to see if anything better comes up. Code: # norm 1.898676e-20 alpha -7.749500 e 1.277e-15 rroots 3 skew: 78446684.73 c0: 788674103390397082822993402150006320805506375279 c1: -123261613739370489159095190933308354152359 c2: 1672182592919290927567056563962390 c3: 67185190070628849510532996 c4: -52031469739445864 c5: 759638880 Y0: -6390326152987676825938168085075604202990 Y1: 5710759848231262271 # norm 1.851185e-20 alpha -7.726276 e 1.261e-15 rroots 3 skew: 81551740.38 c0: 72705535330653065998465513414224602340551691069 c1: -132437457260440267567287957738218898841731 c2: 967965377536710414109989328487518 c3: 67999804326098375825162948 c4: -65225037331450664 c5: 759638880 Y0: -6390326152987696663073428814813941763972 Y1: 5710759848231262271
2022-10-23, 14:52   #2297
EdH

"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns

2×32×7×43 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by wombatman So far, I only have two degree 5 polys better than 1.25e-15. Might be worth doing the ol' spin-a-rama on them to see if anything better comes up. . . .
Slightly different, but no real improvement:
Code:
Y0: -6390326152987687524829734872112680955192
Y1: 5710759848231262271
c0: 1025026738644251267252344644067953720724098594145
c1: -128818307681962567346812363665212037417279
c2: 1293430201503452976052263755397838
c3: 67601768256244284728204868
c4: -59147242616458664
c5: 759638880
skew: 67623197.061
# lognorm 65.94, E 58.19, alpha -7.75 (proj -3.11), 3 real roots
# MurphyE(Bf=1.000e+07,Bg=5.000e+06,area=1.000e+16)=1.274e-15

Best poly cownoise values: 78683838.15716      1.27717680e-15

2022-10-23, 17:04   #2298
wombatman
I moo ablest echo power!

May 2013

34778 Posts

Sean mentioned that the degree 6 might benefit from a 34/34 job, so I'm going to attach all the test-sieving I did way back when (TM) with the best degree 5 and degree 6 polys I had found for comparisons. I'll also put it in this thread for ease of viewing too.

Code:
A/RLIM of 536M

Degree 5 best:
n: 8095101662371927421703337019465587498085337648622133688278589711654019359923503887978141510461468343349838217540569173400647791769725685803537804186347867144149599002247585690859122186539724272741806859085719
skew: 771127364.56
Y0: -17068243492239505219994785346910834818341
Y1: 1873940548553722757
c0: 165792391853474935561243616954647727516748946250496
c1: 2160239644350504494844955872920952825447896
c2: -21514458180493538566295548810659238
c3: -5887571126475837688637761
c4: 35919796435243602
c5: 5588280
type: gnfs

rlim: 800000000
alim: 800000000
lpbr: 33
lpba: 33
mfbr: 65
mfba: 96
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 3.6

Final Q-block timings (2000 Q):

50M: total yield: 1888, q=50002009 (2.61830 sec/rel)
100M: total yield: 3060, q=100002011 (2.20105 sec/rel)
200M: total yield: 2736, q=200002007 (2.31068 sec/rel)
300M: total yield: 3433, q=300002029 (2.45759 sec/rel)
400M: total yield: 2929, q=400002011 (2.65905 sec/rel)
500M: total yield: 2690, q=500002003 (2.87627 sec/rel)
600M: total yield: 2548, q=600002003 (2.86426 sec/rel)
700M: total yield: 2231, q=700002011 (3.56041 sec/rel)
800M: total yield: 2877, q=800002003 (3.12972 sec/rel)

Q-blocks of 2000, 15e
33A (lpba/r = 33, mfba/r = 96, alambda = 4.6)
25M:
50M: total yield: 914, q=50002009 (2.37756 sec/rel)
100M: total yield: 1346, q=100002011 (2.16573 sec/rel)
150M: total yield: 1291, q=150002003 (2.23960 sec/rel)
200M: total yield: 1152, q=200002007 (2.47107 sec/rel)
300M:
400M:
500M:

32A (lpba = 33, lpbr = 32, mfba = 96, mfbr = 64, alambda = 4.6)

150M: total yield: 933, q=150002003 (3.02251 sec/rel)

Q-blocks of 2000, 16e
33A
50M: total yield: 2030, q=50002009 (2.37828 sec/rel)
100M: total yield: 2986, q=100002011 (2.19112 sec/rel)
200M: total yield: 2663, q=200002007 (2.28734 sec/rel)
200M (rlambda=2.2): total yield: 2739, q=200002007 (2.45979 sec/rel)
200M (rlambda=3.0): total yield: 2774, q=200002007 (3.03055 sec/rel)
300M: total yield: 3343, q=300002029 (2.41504 sec/rel)
400M: total yield: 2874, q=400002011 (2.70271 sec/rel)
500M: total yield: 2619, q=500002003 (3.04544 sec/rel)
500M: (rlambda=2.2) total yield: 2692, q=500002003 (2.98365 sec/rel)
600M: total yield: 2464, q=600002003 (2.94305 sec/rel)
700M: total yield: 2263, q=700002011 (3.67559 sec/rel)
800M: total yield: 2904, q=800002003 (3.70078 sec/rel)
900M: total yield: 2771, q=900002017 (3.72014 sec/rel)

2k q-blocks, 16e, 33A, rlambda=4.6---total yield: 3675, q=300002029 (7.76544 sec/rel)
2k q-blocks, 16e, 33A, rlambda=3.6---total yield: 3675, q=300002029 (5.01857 sec/rel)
2k q-blocks, 16e, 33A, rlambda=3.0---total yield: 3485, q=300002029 (3.74347 sec/rel)
2k q-blocks, 16e, 33A, rlambda=2.6---total yield: 3485, q=300002029 (2.75728 sec/rel)
2k q-blocks, 16e, 33A, rlambda=2.2---total yield: 3440, q=300002029 (2.54916 sec/rel)

200M: 2k q-blocks, 16e, 32A, rlambda=2.6, mfbr=64--total yield: 2002, q=200002007 (3.54419 sec/rel)

200M: 2k q-blocks, 16e, 32A, rlambda=2.6, mfbr=66--total yield: 2002, q=200002007 (3.25064 sec/rel)
200M: 2k q-blocks, 16e, 32A, rlambda=2.6, mfbr=65--total yield: 2002, q=200002007 (3.24379 sec/rel)
200M: 2k q-blocks, 16e, 33A, rlambda=2.6, mfbr=65--total yield: 2737, q=200002007 (2.90922 sec/rel)

200M: 2k q-blocks, 16e, 33A, rlambda=2.6, alambda=3.6, mfbr=65, mfba=96---total yield: 2736, q=200002007 (2.29248 sec/rel)

***********************************************************************
Degree 6 best:
n: 8095101662371927421703337019465587498085337648622133688278589711654019359923503887978141510461468343349838217540569173400647791769725685803537804186347867144149599002247585690859122186539724272741806859085719
skew: 62700718.06
Y0: -11353290441397119072312837579451455
Y1: 721472725254353419
c0: -7268878955932321043506178633175304342255310769376
c1: 11016155344762659492616649313015306910692260
c2: -233336062956902148240614789416199020
c3: -16367152013593221654947383405
c4: 233435941623797381261
c5: 2509253035955
c6: 3780
type: gnfs

Q-blocks of 2000, 15e
33A (lpba/r = 33, mfba/r = 96, alambda = 4.6)
25M:
50M:
100M:
200M: total yield: 946, q=200002007 (1.86964 sec/rel)

16e:
200M: total yield: 1901, q=200002007 (2.74610 sec/rel)
Attached Files
 c208_hp2_index314_testsieving.txt (4.2 KB, 17 views)

 2022-10-23, 21:06 #2299 VBCurtis     "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 52·229 Posts I think this job is fastest as a 34/34LP with MFB of 66-67/98-99, but for test-sieving we should either use lims that nfs@home would use with ggnfs (like 200/260) *or* use larger & faster lims like 350/500M but test-sieve with CADO. May as well test-sieve using the settings and tools that will be used to run the factorization, you know? alambda of 4.6 seems crazy for this test- is that a typo?

 Thread Tools

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post ixfd64 mersennewiki 169 2018-09-21 05:43 carpetpool Miscellaneous Math 14 2017-02-18 19:46 cheesehead Forum Feedback 6 2009-07-28 13:02 R.D. Silverman NFSNET Discussion 13 2005-09-16 20:07 TauCeti NFSNET Discussion 0 2003-12-11 22:12

All times are UTC. The time now is 11:40.

Thu Mar 30 11:40:41 UTC 2023 up 224 days, 9:09, 0 users, load averages: 0.66, 0.94, 0.87

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, 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