20100311, 06:05  #12 
Oct 2004
Austria
2×17×73 Posts 

20100311, 16:28  #13 
Jan 2005
Transdniestr
503 Posts 
Very exciting stuff

20100311, 17:06  #14 
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
2·3,191 Posts 
Will try to run a large number of curves at 43e6 while I'm on vacation (set off 16 jobs at 1e8 but this made the machine swap beyond the point of usability).

20100311, 17:07  #15 
Nov 2003
2^{2}×5×373 Posts 

20100311, 17:34  #16 
Jun 2003
4856_{10} Posts 
2000 curves completed @ 3e6.
currently running 43e6 
20100312, 16:45  #17 
Jun 2005
lehigh.edu
2^{10} Posts 
I've spent the past 10daysorso "whack"ing on the current NFS@Home
reservation, with another 10daysorso left to go. I recently completed p55tests on the Cunninghams from c190c209.99 (either 7t50 or 6t50, depending on the difficulty); and am currently working toward t55's on c210c233, in between NFS@Home and Batalov+Dodson numbers. I'm also making a lower priority run through c234c289.487 plus the 2 and 2+ numbers (not including 2LMs) the rest of the way up, through C355; working toward 3t50. Likely enough to keep our cpus busy the rest of 2010. Almost all curves are with p60optimal limits (B1=26e7=260e6, gmpecm default B2); except for a few xp's with just 500Mb available for condor jobs, running p55limits. Uhm. This is a c256 gnfs number, currently in testing for p50's? I'm having some trouble seeing this as the first gnfs number above 768bits (232digits). Bruce 
20100312, 18:53  #18 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
3×3,109 Posts 
By definition, the single smallest factor is enough to continue the sequence.
But from the current status, it is going to take a leap of faith, if (e.g.) a p54 factor is found. This iteration may need a lot of subsequent ECM to minimize the probability that that would be the smallest factor (and still not remove the doubt entirely). Tough! (The same was or still is the case on the 1 analog of EM sequence, right? I don't see the p51 there, it was mentioned earlier in this thread. Sloane's A005265) 
20100312, 18:59  #19 
Nov 2008
2×3^{3}×43 Posts 
Remember that if we do find a factor with ECM and the cofactor is composite, we will still have to factor the cofactor to check that the ECM factor is indeed the smallest prime factor.

20100312, 19:03  #20  
Jun 2005
lehigh.edu
2^{10} Posts 
Quote:
to our current gnfs range; or perhaps better yet, leave a large prime cofactor. I'd consider running a second t55, once the first one fails. So somewhere past the effort of 4 t50's (with t55 = c. 5.7*t50?). Finding a p53/p54 isn't among my objectives, unless it's from a Cunningham. Once p53/p54 is unlikely, EM48 is as good as any other candidate for finding a nice p60+ factor (which would get recorded, for a while at least .... uhm, maybe p62+, Brent's list of p60+ is already past 10). Bruce 

20100312, 20:03  #21 
Aug 2006
2^{2}·1,493 Posts 
10,000 curves done at 11M, so the smallest factor should be at least 45 digits. Just for fun, I'm running some curves at 260M... but even if there was a factor in the appropriate range, there's only about a 2% chance I'd find it with as few curves as I'm running.
Last fiddled with by CRGreathouse on 20100312 at 20:25 
20100312, 20:08  #22 
Oct 2004
Austria
2·17·73 Posts 
p+/1
Has any p+/1 been done besides my p1 with B1=1e9, B2=1e14?
For p1 I have extended B1 to 1e10 (no factor with B2=1e13) and I'm currently extending it to B1=2e10 or even further (maybe 5e10). As soon as my laptop will get free (currently running a GNFSjob, will be finished around Wednesday) I will do B2=1e15 for whatever B1 I will have reached by then. (B2=1e18 will be left to someone with a machine with 8 cores and 32+ GB RAM) Last fiddled with by Andi47 on 20100312 at 20:08 