20100210, 07:54  #45  
Jun 2005
lehigh.edu
2^{10} Posts 
Quote:
Code:
44098070546316336069732891124299479167253575131341897248372433 c190c209 to finish t55 ("second smallest 100 Cunninghams", now at either 7t50 or 6t50). I've started on c210c233. Bruce ____ ECM is not dead!! Long live ECM! :) Congratulations on a nice factor! SB. Last fiddled with by Batalov on 20100210 at 08:06 

20100210, 08:07  #46 
Jul 2003
So Cal
2,083 Posts 

20100329, 17:19  #47 
Noodles
"Mr. Tuch"
Dec 2007
Chennai, India
3×419 Posts 
6,355+
<snip>
that snip means what actually? 
20100329, 17:44  #48 
"Robert Gerbicz"
Oct 2005
Hungary
1,459 Posts 

20100329, 17:55  #49 
Noodles
"Mr. Tuch"
Dec 2007
Chennai, India
2351_{8} Posts 
These days can we consider up the factors within the "low sixties" digit range as ECM misses?
6,355+ is easier by SNFS rather If one has to find out a p60 factor by using ECM, then it should be a champion within the top 50 ECM factors table? So, people have to run up with ECM upon all numbers till they find out the factors? One cannot guarantee before itself that all the factors of the number are within the ECM range only This is in my perspective. I always favour SNFS rather than ECM. SNFS does guarantee the factors. That is why I don't actually prefer running up all those ECM curves. Last fiddled with by Raman on 20100329 at 18:30 Reason: Post Script had been added up just simply 
20100329, 19:04  #50 
Nov 2003
1110100100100_{2} Posts 

20100329, 21:53  #51 
Bamboozled!
"πΊππ·π·π"
May 2003
Down not across
10100110011000_{2} Posts 

20100329, 22:53  #52 
Oct 2006
vomit_frame_pointer
2^{3}·3^{2}·5 Posts 

20100329, 23:53  #53 
Tribal Bullet
Oct 2004
3^{3}×131 Posts 

20100330, 00:20  #54 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
5×1,879 Posts 
Postfactum it is fairly easy to run a single "ecm v v 11e7" curve on one's own hardware and estimate if the factor had a 50/50 chance to have been found in 1/10th of the total time spent on NFS factoring. If it had not, sleep well and give an understanding chuckle to those who would invariably call your factor an ECM miss.
Because they will, no matter what... 
20100401, 07:24  #55 
Noodles
"Mr. Tuch"
Dec 2007
Chennai, India
3·419 Posts 
6,355+ c211 = p60*p61*p91
In any case, if you assume that this is an ECM miss Think of 6,365+ c182. Remember that one? That case 6,365+ c182 split up into as p60*p61*p62 That p60 was an ECM hit! Mr. Paul Zimmermann did the remaining c122 of 6,365+ by using GNFS. And then why is there such a similarity between 6,355+ with 6,365+ Which state are you people from? Is this information right then? Mr. Batalov, frmky > California Dr. Silverman > Massachusetts (?) jasonp > Maryland bdodson, Xyzzy > Pennsylvania, where this mersenneforum server is being hosted up Prof. Wagstaff > Indiana Prime95 (aka George Woltman) > Florida philmoore > Oregon jbristow > Washington Last fiddled with by Raman on 20100401 at 08:09 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
5+ table  garo  Cunningham Tables  100  20210104 22:36 
7+ table  garo  Cunningham Tables  86  20210104 22:35 
3+ table  garo  Cunningham Tables  150  20200323 21:41 
5 table  garo  Cunningham Tables  82  20200315 21:47 
6 table  garo  Cunningham Tables  41  20160804 04:24 