Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2014-08-28, 13:12 #166 Wick   Nov 2012 23×32 Posts Code: 17033^53-1 = 319391252920161429560547697830623021848733 * 33330520337724660774026719117185864816084423298503770977448713371276795862990739368941333958579469564572049892835902778824236910135478940052210949429612763456195776438992014984777
 2014-08-30, 16:02 #167 chris2be8     Sep 2009 79916 Posts I won't have finished ECM'ing 7643^59-1 when 13147^53-1 starts LA (I'm using a GPU and 1 core for ECM so it takes a while). So I'll reserve some small fry to do while ECM finishes: 21407^47-1 60259^43-1 61799548199^17-1 Chris
 2014-09-07, 15:43 #168 chris2be8     Sep 2009 5×389 Posts Reserving one more for ECM, to be followed by SNFS if that fails: 3251^61-1 Chris
 2014-09-08, 05:49 #169 Wick   Nov 2012 23×32 Posts Code: 13331^59-1 = 80755497159734947485059693840546839 * C205
 2014-09-11, 11:19 #170 Pascal Ochem     Apr 2006 9510 Posts http://www.lirmm.fr/~ochem/opn/i_51_2000_101.txt This file is the intersection of the composites encountered in the proof of the bounds \Omega(N) >= 2\omega(N)+51, N > 10^2000, and \omega(N) >= 101. So if you get a factor, it helps for all 3 proofs. Also, as we branch on the smallest prime for omega(N) >= 101 and on the largest prime for N > 10^2000, a composite in the file is likely to derive from a prime that is the only available prime at some point of the execution of the algorithm. So these composites are bottlenecks. The amount of ECM varies from "maybe not so much" to "a lot, really" for 6115909044841454629^17-1. Last fiddled with by Pascal Ochem on 2014-09-11 at 11:21
2014-09-11, 17:19   #171
chris2be8

Sep 2009

36318 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by chris2be8 Reserving one more for ECM, to be followed by SNFS if that fails: 3251^61-1 Chris
It won't need SNFS:
Code:
********** Factor found in step 2: 9937677757664476852904593531609640792365970218237
Found probable prime factor of 49 digits: 9937677757664476852904593531609640792365970218237
Probable prime cofactor 4933435390111026832796658137713158696690314285678621089166487442937825189905611449855687999637684794906443696039349871186136410748647635964240864254651 has 151 digits
Chris

2014-09-14, 15:25   #172
chris2be8

Sep 2009

194510 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Pascal Ochem The amount of ECM varies from "maybe not so much" to "a lot, really" for 6115909044841454629^17-1.
What is the lowest amount of ECM any will have had? Should we start at T30, T35, T40 or higher to look for factors?

Chris

 2014-09-16, 16:02 #173 Pascal Ochem     Apr 2006 5·19 Posts You can start at T40. And thank you for the factors you already obtained.
 2014-09-17, 15:32 #174 chris2be8     Sep 2009 79916 Posts I've reached the point in mwrb2000.txt where the next most cost effective number would be 6115909044841454629^17-1 or 11^311-1 (depends how fast 6115909044841454629^17-1 would be as an octic). They are both out of my range so I'll stop there. It would still be worth running ECM against the rest of it, there is probably some low hanging fruit waiting to be found. Chris
 2014-09-17, 17:23 #175 Wick   Nov 2012 23×32 Posts Code: 6853807^29-1 = 112590938436045242392801854371922664426393 * C151
 2014-09-24, 05:34 #176 Wick   Nov 2012 23×32 Posts Code: 22787^47-1 = 4543639013539669426613291598225427127 * 62549558218207738524332749889176473882724629210639329124410765199872180435689083679828086455715730270805552655974310311001299087407579824443318458077069317807742131

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Xyzzy GPU Computing 1 2017-05-17 20:22 Mark Rose GPU Computing 52 2016-07-02 12:11 firejuggler GPU Computing 12 2016-02-23 06:55 Elhueno Homework Help 5 2008-06-12 16:37 jchein1 Factoring 30 2005-05-30 14:43

All times are UTC. The time now is 16:51.

Sun Nov 29 16:51:14 UTC 2020 up 80 days, 14:02, 4 users, load averages: 0.94, 1.00, 1.02