mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > Factoring

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2020-12-19, 00:50   #826
charybdis
 
Apr 2020

2·5·19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by henryzz View Post
Unless I have made a mistake:

f(x)=x^8+x^7-7x^6-6x^5+15x^4+10x^3-10x^2-4x+1
g(x)=6115909044841454629x-6115909044841454629^2-1
Correct :)


Quote:
What size have the previous reciprocal octics been?
As far as I can tell, they range from difficulty 183 to 225, so we don't have much idea of what to expect from larger octics.
I guess there just haven't been many targets in the "16e" range, because for Cunningham numbers of the form b^(17k)-1 it's still faster to use the sextic and ignore the algebraic factor; it's the inconveniently large b that's stopping us from doing that here (it would be diff-320 without the algebraic factor, but we have to multiply by b in order to use a sextic).

Last fiddled with by charybdis on 2020-12-19 at 00:51
charybdis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-12-19, 01:01   #827
henryzz
Just call me Henry
 
henryzz's Avatar
 
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)

2·2,909 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by charybdis View Post
Correct :)




As far as I can tell, they range from difficulty 183 to 225, so we don't have much idea of what to expect from larger octics.
I guess there just haven't been many targets in the "16e" range, because for Cunningham numbers of the form b^(17k)-1 it's still faster to use the sextic and ignore the algebraic factor; it's the inconveniently large b that's stopping us from doing that here (it would be diff-320 without the algebraic factor, but we have to multiply by b in order to use a sextic).
Octics shouldn't be anywhere near as bad at 300 digits as 225. If your estimate is that 225 acts as 255 then I would imagine that 300 could act as low as 310. Test sieving is probably the way to solve this.
henryzz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-12-19, 01:22   #828
charybdis
 
Apr 2020

19010 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by henryzz View Post
Octics shouldn't be anywhere near as bad at 300 digits as 225. If your estimate is that 225 acts as 255 then I would imagine that 300 could act as low as 310. Test sieving is probably the way to solve this.
I expect the gap will be smaller, yes - though 225 may be acting as 265, after all I've only got msieve logs to go on, not sieving data.

But the octic still has rather unbalanced norms: guesstimating that a typical lattice point is (10^9, 10^9), we get rational norm ~10^47 and algebraic norm ~10^72. A difficulty-310 sextic with small coefficients would have rational norm ~10^61 and algebraic norm ~10^54, so the product of the norms is smaller for the sextic and they're more balanced. Increasing the difficulty of the sextic by 6 digits adds a power of 10 to the rational norm, so this would suggest we'd need to go up to around sextic-335 to get the products equal.

This is all guesswork, but I'd be rather surprised if octic-301 was faster than sextic-320, for example.
charybdis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-12-19, 01:24   #829
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

2×3×19×41 Posts
Default

And, since the poly is posted here, I can do that test-sieve this weekend, too!

Whether it's similar to sextic-310 or -340, we still need a ton of ECM.

I agree with the observation that octics will get less-gnarly as difficulty increases- by SNFS-450 or so, an octic should be faster than a sextic of the same snfs-difficulty! My uneducated guess is that it'll be tractable with 16e, something akin to a sextic at 315-320 digits.

Edit2: Charybdis, the unbalanced norms suggest looser alg-side bounds, right? I should test-sieve like 33/34 and 33/35, I think.

Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 2020-12-19 at 01:28 Reason: Changed 400 to 450, as the cusp of degree 6 to degree 7 is theoretically 360 digits or so
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-12-19, 01:33   #830
charybdis
 
Apr 2020

2·5·19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
Edit2: Charybdis, the unbalanced norms suggest looser alg-side bounds, right? I should test-sieve like 33/34 and 33/35, I think.
Yes - and sieving and 3LP should be on the algebraic side too of course. Though NFS@home never goes above 33-bit large primes I believe?
charybdis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-12-19, 01:38   #831
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

2·3·19·41 Posts
Default

That's correct, but the 16e queue can handle 34LP as far as I know. Frmky believes that the disk space and msieve headaches (from back when big data sets could foul msieve filtering, say > 800M unique rels) did not justify the efficiency gains from using 34LP.

I think we could attempt a 32/34 quartic or octic on 16e, so I guess I'll test that too if yield on 33/35 or 33/34 suggests it's reasonable.

I appreciate the reminder to sieve -a side! I would have tested both (and I might anyway, a 1kQ test isn't hard on -r side to see how bad it is).
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-12-19, 01:45   #832
RichD
 
RichD's Avatar
 
Sep 2008
Kansas

22×32×7×13 Posts
Default C301

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
Thanks! I'll start some ECM on the C301 at B1 = 15e7 tonight.
There has already been at least 30K @ 29e8 (if not more) and 10K @ 76e8 on this number.

Last fiddled with by RichD on 2020-12-19 at 01:46 Reason: add title for clarification
RichD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-12-19, 01:55   #833
charybdis
 
Apr 2020

2768 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
That's correct, but the 16e queue can handle 34LP as far as I know. Frmky believes that the disk space and msieve headaches (from back when big data sets could foul msieve filtering, say > 800M unique rels) did not justify the efficiency gains from using 34LP.

I think we could attempt a 32/34 quartic or octic on 16e, so I guess I'll test that too if yield on 33/35 or 33/34 suggests it's reasonable.

I appreciate the reminder to sieve -a side! I would have tested both (and I might anyway, a 1kQ test isn't hard on -r side to see how bad it is).
Aha, this reminds me: due to the peculiar nature of this polynomial, even yield per 10kQ on the algebraic side will be highly variable. For 7/8 of all primes p, the algebraic poly has no roots mod p, and so this p cannot be a special-q. For the remaining 1/8 of the primes (those with p=+-1 mod 17), the algebraic poly splits completely mod p, so we get 8 special-q from that one prime! In the long run, we will get one special-q per prime on average, as usual. But there will be a LOT of variation over small ranges, so pay attention to rels/sec and yield *per special-q*, rather than yield in a range of a given size.

Last fiddled with by charybdis on 2020-12-19 at 01:57
charybdis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-12-19, 02:17   #834
ryanp
 
ryanp's Avatar
 
Jun 2012
Boulder, CO

26310 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
That's correct, but the 16e queue can handle 34LP as far as I know. Frmky believes that the disk space and msieve headaches (from back when big data sets could foul msieve filtering, say > 800M unique rels) did not justify the efficiency gains from using 34LP.

I think we could attempt a 32/34 quartic or octic on 16e, so I guess I'll test that too if yield on 33/35 or 33/34 suggests it's reasonable.

I appreciate the reminder to sieve -a side! I would have tested both (and I might anyway, a 1kQ test isn't hard on -r side to see how bad it is).
I'd be interested in taking a crack at this one, if someone can provide the poly/params.
ryanp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-12-19, 02:49   #835
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

2×3×19×41 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanp View Post
I'd be interested in taking a crack at this one, if someone can provide the poly/params.
Give me the weekend to do some testing- my university course grades are due Monday, so maybe I need till monday night, but I'll provide at-least-decent params for the poly posted a few posts ago.

Will you be CADOing or ggnfs-16e? If cado, I will likely test larger LPs than with ggnfs.
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-12-19, 02:53   #836
ryanp
 
ryanp's Avatar
 
Jun 2012
Boulder, CO

263 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
Give me the weekend to do some testing- my university course grades are due Monday, so maybe I need till monday night, but I'll provide at-least-decent params for the poly posted a few posts ago.
Thanks!

Quote:
Will you be CADOing or ggnfs-16e? If cado, I will likely test larger LPs than with ggnfs.
Almost certainly CADO'ing; it's my go-to now. Haven't used the GGNFS sievers for a while.
ryanp is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Passive Pascal Xyzzy GPU Computing 1 2017-05-17 20:22
Tesla P100 — 5.4 DP TeraFLOPS — Pascal Mark Rose GPU Computing 52 2016-07-02 12:11
Nvidia Pascal, a third of DP firejuggler GPU Computing 12 2016-02-23 06:55
Calculating perfect numbers in Pascal Elhueno Homework Help 5 2008-06-12 16:37
Factorization attempt to a c163 - a new Odd Perfect Number roadblock jchein1 Factoring 30 2005-05-30 14:43

All times are UTC. The time now is 14:16.

Mon Mar 1 14:16:15 UTC 2021 up 88 days, 10:27, 0 users, load averages: 1.79, 2.00, 2.30

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.