20100611, 17:57  #1 
Noodles
"Mr. Tuch"
Dec 2007
Chennai, India
3·419 Posts 
Extensions to Cunningham tables
The extensions to Cunningham 3 tables are available at this website.
http://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~ssw/cun/xtend/index.html 3+ tables as well as other tables will be too extended soon. People can try out with ECM upon these numbers, or also GNFS/SNFS upon those easy candidates. How are the factors being used up? Code:
> From raman22feb1988@gmail.com Thu Jun 3 10:20:26 2010 > Subject: How are factors used? > To: Samuel S Wagstaff <ssw@cerias.purdue.edu> > > May I know how people make use of that Cunningham factors in other > mathematical works? Where are they used? See Section 2 of my paper http://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~ssw/cun1.pdf for uses of Cunningham factors. You can search MathSciNet for papers that refer to the Cunningham Book (Brillhart et al.) to see more uses of Cunningham factors. > You told that for extending the tables, you wait for customer requests. > Who are those customers? Some people need the prime factors of 3^n + 1 (and perhaps other bases, too) to construct elliptic curves with nice properties for cryptography. > How do you drive traffic into your website, how do you make people > visit your site often? If I build up with my own website, then how > can I drive people into my own site, especially that right people? That is a trade secret; I will never tell. > After that 6,355 6,365 has been done > I hope that 6,349 would be in your next "Most wanted" lists :) > as well as 3,563+ after that 3,562+ has been over, the next hole is > only being at exponent 589 for that base 3 tables actually > What about that for 3,563 3,569 truncating up with that base 3 tables... No Most Wanted number has been done yet on Page 117. The new Most Wanted list for the next page is likely to be the same as the old one. > Time to extend up with that base 3 tables... > For current limits of that Cunningham tables, base 6,7,8,10 are up to > index 400 while that for base 9 is only actually upto index 300 The Cunningham tables are being extended and you can help. See http://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~ssw/cun/xtend/index.html > At least those multiples of 3 would be easier beyond 600 index for that > base 3 tables If you respect that Aurifeuillian extension tables for > those numbers splitting up into two parts that are easily being > factorable, then why not respect those splitting up into 3 parts that > are easily factorable, as being two thirds part of that original number > itself? Such as for example > 3,603 3,621 3,627 3,633 3,651 3,657 3,675 3,681 3,687 3,699 > 3,636+ 3,654+ 3,678+ 3,696+ Most of these (all the ) are listed on the page http://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~ssw/cun/xtend/index.html The others (+) will be added soon. > Sometimes, right now, even multiples of 5, 7, 11, 13 for base 3 tables > extension beyond index 600 are being easily accessible in order to be > factorable, like those of 3,611 I would say that rather this base 3 > tables are indeed strongly lagging behind those of that other tables, > really only actually, right now, by now itself, thus I agree. The 3+ table will be extended soon. > After that, even extension for that base 2 tables will provide provision > in order for others to do work upon that Mersenne Numbers with no known > prime factors list of numbers, that is candidates like > 2,1237 2,1277 > after that enclosed list of numbers such as those of > 2,1123+ > for which no nonprimitive prime factors is being known up so right now, > at all, first of all as well as 2,1061 with no known prime factors at > all, thus indeed really All of the Cunningham tables will be extended, even the base 2 tables. Keep the factors coming! Sam Wagstaff Last fiddled with by Raman on 20100611 at 18:33 
20100611, 18:33  #2  
Nov 2003
2^{2}·5·373 Posts 
Quote:
Let's make more progress on the current tables before extending them. As soon as the tables are extended, people will go after the low hanging fruit and ignore the current tables. 

20100611, 18:38  #3 
Jan 2005
Minsk, Belarus
2^{4}×5^{2} Posts 
On the other hand, people with smaller CPU power would help on the extended tables, while on the current tables they won't give any help.
Last fiddled with by XYYXF on 20100611 at 18:39 
20100611, 18:49  #4 
"Robert Gerbicz"
Oct 2005
Hungary
7×223 Posts 
And it looks like that sam doesn't use/know the factordb.com, because using that: p=10739917689782934291348634826555020368414408001; is a factor of 3^7751 found/added by Jonathan Crombie on March 4, 2010, 12:25 am.
(by hand I've checked that there is no more factor on this extension table, and added some to the factor database.) 
20100612, 05:20  #5 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
10011001011101_{2} Posts 
I wonder if anyone (Paul?) knows how much these targets are ECMed.
Probably well above 40 digits. I'll do 3,705 for a warmup in one quadday (diff.180). There's also 3,777 (diff.211), a nice sextic. 
20100612, 14:30  #6  
Jun 2005
lehigh.edu
10000000000_{2} Posts 
Quote:
get hardly any interest in extending the tables. I wonder whether having the SmallerbutNeeded numbers headed into the c180's triggered the extension this time? I can't recall ever having seen the "2nd smallest available" (& etc, 1st, 3rd ...) listed on the "who's" before, which suggests that Sam was giving some of his attention to that. We used to have similar bumps in the available easy numbers back in the RSA partition Challenge  factoring the last number in a 10digit range would bring a bunch of new numbers up into the range where points were given (0 points > 1 points, 1 points > 2). Depending upon how many new numbers are in the pending extension (base2, even!), I wonder whether much of the lower lowhanging fruit will have cleared in a few months, and we can see where things settle. Bruce PS  Maybe we also needed some new Cunningham 2^n1's for PS3 search targets? 

20100612, 16:09  #7 
Sep 2009
2·3^{3}·43 Posts 
3^6071 is one of the odd perfect roadblocks and has had a lot of ECM run against it, see http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthr...991#post202991 for details. Also 3^6611, 3^8571, 3^9711 and 3^9911. So don't start running curves shorter than B1=260M against 3^6071or shorter B1=43M against any of the rest.
It would be nice if the tables said how much ECM etc has been run against unfactored numbers to prevent wasted effort. Chris K 
20100612, 16:15  #8  
Nov 2003
2^{2}·5·373 Posts 
Quote:


20100612, 16:53  #9  
Noodles
"Mr. Tuch"
Dec 2007
Chennai, India
3·419 Posts 
Quote:
I agree that the extended tables will be a target for people with limited resources as well as a practice tool for newcomers. I think that it is time to expand your world of tables, rather than focusing upon a small room of Cunningham candidates. 3,607 3,661 have no known nontrivial factors at all. Let us make use of this thread for extended Cunningham table reservations as well as posting up with new factors? What about that of the extended 3LM tables? Please explain how factoring up with help in order to find out new odd perfect numbers (if any does really exist up, in any case), or clear roadblocks or possibilities upto a certain limit. Last fiddled with by Raman on 20100612 at 16:56 

20100612, 17:06  #10  
Nov 2003
2^{2}×5×373 Posts 
Quote:
Quote:


20100612, 19:13  #11 
Bamboozled!
"๐บ๐๐ท๐ท๐ญ"
May 2003
Down not across
10110000011100_{2} Posts 
("They" are presumably are Arjen Lenstra's group at EPFL.) There are several possible answers to this question. The first is that computations modulo 2 are very easy on a binary computer. It's clear that their current software has been written to exploit this.
Another answer is that they haven't (yet) recoded their arithmetic library to exploit the more difficult but still simple reduction modulo 2+. A third answer may be that they don't want to. There are still plenty of 2 numbers which have not yet been tested to the p75 level. You should be able to think of other plausible answers. Paul 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Extended Cunningham tables  ZetaFlux  Factoring  2  20080303 18:34 
Cunningham Tables @mersenneforum.org v2.0  garo  Cunningham Tables  3  20060704 08:00 
New Cunningham Tables forum.  garo  Factoring  1  20060323 22:17 
Current Status of the Cunningham Tables  rogue  Cunningham Tables  4  20050610 18:28 
A question about Cunningham tables  T.Rex  Factoring  14  20050527 00:27 