Factoring humongous Cunningham numbers

[FactorEyes]

Originally Posted by FactorEyes

Regrettable if it happens, but I make no guarantees. Force majeure.

Aw, blast!

11,3,163+ (P62.P108):
30556091035598962077698413132112923836577405502889334458978433
130551495116541763225357524118631332769933048513963325900652166033897790522339536207900945944303230194493409

11,7,167+ (P58.P84):
1272005442321579689524365952305632226814228274000116089827
312015433733802621889618775001201778298458362790254918197751109933640094316694263793

Looks as if my rho or SQUFOF executed spontaneously.

[FactorEyes]

10^178+3^178 done. C137 = P60.P78:

642148002219988747424531941683071921531867826590194512541277
153517327861601300083057135437187570295275388635805491755426490673321233322221

49 composites remaining.

[unconnected]

10,7,193- done

r1=7893467543205277403724250794278746426391603828821170993333449 (pp61)
r2=39159559142036115302705244870655361826198555900479867328910173188115893391258203140703563684381158586800097377311322283 (pp119)

48 composites remaining, it's time to extend tables?

[Andi47]

Originally Posted by unconnected

48 composites remaining, it's time to extend tables?

I agree - wanting a few easy c9x's for benchmarking the new msieve 1.42 beta

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Andi47

I agree - wanting a few easy c9x's for benchmarking the new msieve 1.42 beta

I'll see what can be done. The delay is largely because I've been over-busy with Real Work (TM).

Everything in the extentions under C100 has long been completed, though.

Paul

[yoyo]

Where is the complete list of to be done numbers?
Should I run some ECM curves on it?
yoyo

[Yamato]

Originally Posted by yoyo

Where is the complete list of to be done numbers?
Should I run some ECM curves on it?
yoyo

Pick a number listed on the reservation page:
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/uc...mack/homcun.pl

These numbers have been extensively ecm'ed. If you run some curves, then I would recommend a high B1 value. I have run thousands of curves with B1=43e6, without success.

[henryzz]

Originally Posted by Andi47

I agree - wanting a few easy c9x's for benchmarking the new msieve 1.42 beta

c92=51325607227672924960802054317640105872789069642849645350853420071019609526091704973842463367
c93=339772802883176116304543854244958639157459375892786024089728468713335683937078357811016693439
are these helpful?
if you factor them could you add them into the factorization database please and let me know

[Andi47]

Originally Posted by henryzz

c92=51325607227672924960802054317640105872789069642849645350853420071019609526091704973842463367

c92=7714719584596623051393814070279*6652945277512192262797437411178207423940726861172254378227073

GNFS with msieve 1.42 beta poly selection, GGNFS sieving and msieve postprocessing took 1:21:20 hours on a core 2 duo @ 2.0 GHz (every step running only one-threaded).

For comparison: yafu took 1:50:00 hours for this number.

[10metreh]

If you want a number with n bits (remember it's bits!) for benchmarking, just run

yafu rsa(n)

It will give you the number, but it will not run QS or anything on it.

[Andi47]

Originally Posted by henryzz

c93=339772802883176116304543854244958639157459375892786024089728468713335683937078357811016693439
are these helpful?
if you factor them could you add them into the factorization database please and let me know

c93 = 2720757458437987220081314406549*124881694922649562358134231192479292003389532514645189643108611

poly search (msieve 1.42 beta): 13:24 minutes
sieving + postprocessing (FactMsieve.pl): 1.95 hours (with some bad luck - filtering wanted a fistful (~20k) more relations in the first place, and then - according to the factmsieve-parameters - it sieved another 60kQ range (getting 614k additional relations) and ended up quite oversieved.)