20080623, 19:32  #23 
Noodles
"Mr. Tuch"
Dec 2007
Chennai, India
3·419 Posts 
Sieving was done rapidly on Core 2 Duos at my university (NIT, Trichy) which helped me to sieve rapidly at that time.
When vacation started on 29 Apr 2008, the sieving was 86% done on this number. After that for 20 days, I was without any resources, so sieving was suspended On 20 May 2008, we bought a new Core 2 Quad @ 2.4 GHz at home which helped to finish the sieving rapidly. Around June 9th the sieving was sufficient enough with about 78 million specialq sieved. Five days ago, the linear algebra was started on my Core 2 Duo laptop @ 1.7 GHz. Since there wasn't enough virtual memory available in normal mode, the post processing went in safe mode with the /3GB switch. Regarding square root, each dependency takes about two hours to solve it up, the first dependency failed. Cleverly simultaneously I picked up the 4th dependency on the other core of my laptop. The dependency was a good choice to give me away with the factors! I have chosen up with the fourth dependency in the square root stage because 2,1039 gave away the factors at the 4th dependency! Notice that 6,305 took 8 months to complete. But 7,295 which is twice as harder took only 6 months, eventhough I was idle for sometime between. Sieving was rushed through with those Core 2 Duos at my college. 10,312+ is halfway through sieved. It will take a couple of weeks if 30 million specialq suffice. Last fiddled with by Raman on 20080623 at 20:01 Reason: M1039 gave up factors in 4th dependency 
20080623, 19:58  #24  
Bamboozled!
"๐บ๐๐ท๐ท๐ญ"
May 2003
Down not across
11×1,039 Posts 
Quote:
I'm glad it worked out in the end. Good luck with the next. Paul 

20080623, 20:33  #25  
Noodles
"Mr. Tuch"
Dec 2007
Chennai, India
3·419 Posts 
Quote:
Since 3 and 5 both divide 375, So, the polynomial that I currently think so of, is x^{10}+x^{5}+1 divided by x^{2}+x+1 which is, which has SNFS difficulty of 200 digits Last fiddled with by Raman on 20080623 at 20:38 

20080623, 21:15  #26 
Jul 2003
So Cal
100110001010_{2} Posts 

20080625, 13:27  #27 
Noodles
"Mr. Tuch"
Dec 2007
Chennai, India
3·419 Posts 
Sure? Is biquadratic (aka quartic) the best polynomial that I can use so
for 10,375? No quintics or sextics are available for it, of course with difficulty 200? And eighth degree is not feasible? I think that it makes the algebraic coefficients too larger, right? Code:
Similarly I think that for a multiple of 11, say 7,319 you will certainly not be using and You would be reducing it to degree 5, right? And for a multiple of 13, for example 6,299 should be reduced to degree 6. Although both of these are reduced to degree 5 and 6, a multiple of 17 or higher cannot be reduced this way to degree 8 or higher and should be treated up as a prime exponent, right? For example, for 2,799 Dr. Kleinjung et al. would certainly not have used and or of course, the one reduced up to degree 8 for it. I think that they would only have used up so with and in the Bonn University. this way up to degree 7 directly? and Last fiddled with by Raman on 20080625 at 14:24 Reason: Please remove this reason feature. One always edits so to add up with more points in the post. 
20080625, 15:09  #28  
Tribal Bullet
Oct 2004
5×709 Posts 
Quote:
Most of the smallest cunningham numbers that are left have similar difficulty; if an available cunningham number is unusually small, it's probably because the NFS polynomials involved are unusually bad :) Last fiddled with by jasonp on 20080625 at 15:09 

20080626, 15:02  #29  
"Bob Silverman"
Nov 2003
North of Boston
1110100101000_{2} Posts 
Quote:
Actually, there are a fair number of composites left under 230 digits that do not require a quartic. 10,312+ Raman; in progress 2,2106L quartic; yech 10,378+ 7,384+ 5,341 reserved 2,1694M 3,517+ I will do shortly 7,393+ 2,1104+ in progress; LA 75% 10,259+ 10,339 2,1119+ 2,1128+ 2,1149 2,1161+ 2,1161 10,339+ 7,396+ 

20080626, 18:08  #30 
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
6454_{10} Posts 
I'm about to start 10,259+ if nobody else is interested in it.

20080626, 19:09  #31 
"Ben"
Feb 2007
E35_{16} Posts 
I'm going after 10,339

20080626, 19:25  #32  
"Bob Silverman"
Nov 2003
North of Boston
1D28_{16} Posts 
Quote:
3,565, 580+ 6,335 6,370+ 5,370+, 400+, 410+ 430+ 7,335 320+, 340+ 2,860+, 865+, 925+..... etc. etc. etc. 7,320+, 340+ 3,580+ 

20080720, 13:58  #33  
Noodles
"Mr. Tuch"
Dec 2007
Chennai, India
3·419 Posts 
Quote:
polynomial from the 8th degree one for I am starting to sieve for 10,375 now. 10,312+ is in Linear Algebra and will finish up within about 12 hours or so (Matrix has less than 20 million rows!) EMERGENCY Also that I can't enter the value of m in the GGNFS poly file too, because of the fact that is again not an integer at all Last fiddled with by Raman on 20080720 at 14:46 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
7+ table  garo  Cunningham Tables  87  20220325 19:16 
5+ table  garo  Cunningham Tables  100  20210104 22:36 
6+ table  garo  Cunningham Tables  80  20210104 22:33 
5 table  garo  Cunningham Tables  82  20200315 21:47 
6 table  garo  Cunningham Tables  41  20160804 04:24 