10- table

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by sweety439

Should we start to factor this number in this forum? Like 2^991-1

Simple answer: No.

[rudy235]

I agree.

[VBCurtis]

Originally Posted by sweety439

Should we start to factor this number in this forum? Like 2^991-1

Be my guest. Go ahead and figure out proper parameters for CADO and how many relations will be needed, and let us know what hardware you'll contribute and for how long. The first half is healthy for education, and the second half would benefit our forum-siever-team. The numbers we've worked recently have happened because someone around here cared to do the dirty work, and others agreed to help. Try it, see how it goes.

Or did you mean you wanted everyone else to do the work, while you watch for entertainment?

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by VBCurtis

Be my guest. Go ahead and figure out proper parameters for CADO and how many relations will be needed, and let us know what hardware you'll contribute and for how long. The first half is healthy for education, and the second half would benefit our forum-siever-team. The numbers we've worked recently have happened because someone around here cared to do the dirty work, and others agreed to help. Try it, see how it goes.

Or did you mean you wanted everyone else to do the work, while you watch for entertainment?

No. It means that he just wanted to say something about a number that had been
previously beaten to death extensively discussed for the sake of
making himself heard.

[fivemack]

I'm unsure as to whether R323 is accessible with the 16e siever. It seems that x^6-10 sieves slightly better than the octic, but with a yield of about 0.8 relations per Q the search range is annoyingly large. Will compare 33/34/35-bit large primes for the sextic under CADO; for the octic the yield boost going to 35-bit LP isn't enough.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by fivemack

I'm unsure as to whether R323 is accessible with the 16e siever. It seems that x^6-10 sieves slightly better than the octic, but with a yield of about 0.8 relations per Q the search range is annoyingly large. Will compare 33/34/35-bit large primes for the sextic under CADO; for the octic the yield boost going to 35-bit LP isn't enough.

Several numbers have been done that are larger: 2, 1076+, 2,2158L, 2,1084+..
The last is 4 digits larger. I expect that numbers up to ~330 digits should be doable
by NFS@Home.

Perhaps you are not allowing the 16f siever? Do you really mean to restrict which siever
is used?

[chris2be8]

Would the 16f siever support -j 16? That boosts yield on 16e (It makes the sieve area 16k x 16k) but raises memory required.

Chris

[VBCurtis]

When I tested -J 16 a couple years ago, it worked on some numbers and Q-ranges but not others. I didn't find a pattern in which polys were resilient, and which crashed a bunch, so I deemed it unusable.

That 40% yield boost would clearly extend GGNFS sievers another 6-8 digits!

[pinhodecarlos]

10,371- Done by NFS@Home

[Max0526]

10,337- / C202 = P101 * P102 is done by Kurt Beschorner's team on Jan. 30
Congratulation!
FactorDB: http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000013091437
Kurt's page: http://kurtbeschorner.de/
Studio Kamada: https://stdkmd.net/nrr/repunit/changes.htm
R1740M, c204, GNFS is 66% sieved.
I will restart polyselecting for the next GNFS repunit candidate(s) soon (have an 85% good poly already).