20050118, 14:13  #1 
Aug 2002
Termonfeckin, IE
5·19·29 Posts 
7+ table
Code:
Size Base Index + Diff Ratio 311 7 376 + 317.7 0.978 320 7 379 + 320.2 1 245 7 386 + 326.2 0.751 314 7 388 + 327.8 0.957 221 7 395 + 267.0 0.827 /5q 300 7 397 + 335.5 0.894 332 7 398 + 336.3 0.987 260 7 401 + 338.8 0.765 316 7 412 + 348.1 0.906 256 7 416 + 324.5 0.787 /13 331 7 422 + 356.6 0.926 231 7 425 + 287.3 0.802 /5q 224 7 430 + 290.7 0.76 /5q 351 7 431 + 364.2 0.962 301 7 436 + 368.4 0.815 313 7 439 + 370.9 0.842 261 7 442 + 344.8 0.755 /13 365 7 443 + 374.3 0.973 366 7 446 + 376.9 0.969 303 7 448 + 324.5 0.932 /7 254 7 875 M 316.9 0.799 300 7 889 L 321.9 0.93 310 7 889 M 321.9 0.961 Last fiddled with by Batalov on 20200416 at 06:48 Reason: 7,373+ is done 
20050822, 23:49  #2 
Aug 2004
New Zealand
2^{2}×5×11 Posts 
7,350+ C139
5168898551438758822224323913308984024753373866126288201 (p55) * 577933906565255372277248693235754607933851459064795784559428005583229072181753383001 (p84) by GNFS, 11 days 
20051108, 09:27  #3 
"Nancy"
Aug 2002
Alexandria
2,467 Posts 
2300 curves at B1=11M on 7,277+ 7,308+ 7,340+ 7,361+ 7,369+ 7,374+ 7,377+ 7,380+ 7,386+ 7,393+. Adds 0.50108 to p45 and 0.06662 to p50 for each.
Alex Last fiddled with by akruppa on 20051109 at 19:54 
20051109, 19:18  #4  
Nov 2003
7460_{10} Posts 
Quote:
If I interpret a recent email from Bruce Dodson correctly, Bruce has run sufficient curves to add (at least) 1.0 to p45 for all Cunningham numbers below 260 digits. He is working to achieve the same result for those over 260 digits. Bruce suggested that in another year, running ECM on the current Cunningham numbers will not longer be worthwhile. I would like to see ECM run to at least level 1.0 at p50 before succumbing to this point of view. 

20051111, 17:59  #5  
"Phil"
Sep 2002
Tracktown, U.S.A.
45E_{16} Posts 
Quote:


20051111, 18:55  #6  
Nov 2003
2^{2}·5·373 Posts 
Quote:
factor will still leave a composite cofactor that must be finished with NFS anyway..... 

20060717, 00:10  #7 
Jun 2005
lehigh.edu
2^{10} Posts 
p49 finishes 7, 284+
That's p49 = 5980904229992785230777515196566061969934200643121,
found with b1=260M (and ecm6.1). It's my 2nd July factor, the first from the Opterons, for 17days. In the last 600 curves needed for a complete t50. I've spent something like 38K curves since my last Opteron factor, a p47. If condor were able to support sieving, the time might well be better spent on snfs? I'll likely be running ecm through Nov 2006, with good progress on 1.0 t50 (cf. elsewhere). Bruce Dodson 
20060818, 22:55  #8 
Mar 2003
New Zealand
2205_{8} Posts 
7,539L done
7,539L C142 = P63 * P80
P63 = 628632369546652104427939137048349725113498032710782245605608731 This was by SNFS (difficulty 195.2) with GGNFS (CVS 20060513) using 28 bit large primes and factor base limits of 20 million each side. Sieving took 104 GHz days on a mix of P2 and P3 CPUs, linear algebra (on the second attempt) took 24 GHz days on a P4. Peak RAM usage was 978 MB. 
20061104, 12:09  #9  
Jun 2005
lehigh.edu
2^{10} Posts 
p50 finishes 7,377+
Quote:
to finish 7,377+ C248 with p50 = 46215747540095507833650423122055432531249537597319 and a p198 cofactor. An xpcondor factor for ATH's "Prescott without" binary of 6.1.1, the 3rd so far. This is the first of the lowmemory run, on public pcs unlikely to switch to sieving, so other things being equal, another 3500/7830 curves to go for t50. The Opterons are on the last run of 525 curves with b1=260M to finish t50 on c211c233, running the last 75 numbers. Bruce 

20070109, 05:38  #10  
Jun 2005
lehigh.edu
1024_{10} Posts 
7,391+ c281 > c235 (p46)
Quote:
from 2007, in the nonsticky 2+ discussion). p46= 4429642801163795117773992875901047668871730239 As reported in the title (especially for people that don't read titles!), the cofactor is a 235digit composite. Quite some ways to go on this one. An earlier report in this thread mentioned an additional 3500 xp curves (that's b1=43M, gmpecm611 ATH's prescott binary; b2 so that 7830 curves are needed to test for p50) being needed to complete p50 on c234c250. Looks that would have been with 800 curves finished; while the current count is 2400 finished, so 35001600 = 1900 left to go? This p46 is from the c251c299 range, which had an initial t45, and is now at new 1200 curves, b1=43M. The 2+ and 2 in c251c366 have had 2000/7830, enough for a bit more than a 2nd test to p45, so I'm working on bringing the rest of c251c299 up to 2000. The least tested range of Cunningham numbers is the part of c3xx (i.e., 300c366) that's not on the 2 or 2+ list (for n<1200, so c3xx's from 2LM is undertested, relative to the rest)  these ones have only had 1000 new b1=43M curves beyond the initial test to p45. Hope this suffices for a current reportfromthefront, pending a comprehensive update on my July post on the 2.0thread. In brief, the race between the AMD's, xp's and the old P3's here isn't a very straight comparison, on several counts. Nevertheless, 1 for the Opterons, 1 for the xps, so far in 2006. Regards, Bruce 

20070109, 06:52  #11 
"Nancy"
Aug 2002
Alexandria
2,467 Posts 
> (especially for people that don't read titles!)
Huh? Who, me?? Alex 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
3+ table  garo  Cunningham Tables  150  20200323 21:41 
5 table  garo  Cunningham Tables  82  20200315 21:47 
5+ table  garo  Cunningham Tables  99  20200110 06:29 
6+ table  garo  Cunningham Tables  79  20200101 15:26 
6 table  garo  Cunningham Tables  41  20160804 04:24 