20200518, 11:10  #34 
Jun 2012
3,203 Posts 
Bump. Any interest in revisiting this poly search and possible team sieve? Summary of poly search targets:
Global best C205 escore: 2.215e15 Local best (EdH): 2.60680364e15 Global best C204 escore: 2.630e15 Threshold (msieve): 2.78e15 Objective (msieve): > 3.20e15 Last fiddled with by swellman on 20200603 at 13:50 
20200518, 14:34  #35 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
2^{7}·3·13 Posts 
Sure taking 3e7 to 6e7 on CADO with incr=4620, P=8000000,nq=15625.
Interested parties can run with P changed to much higher or much lower, with little to no overlap with my search. One might try P=4M or P=14M for new runs; the closer one chooses P to my run, the more overlap in polys found there will be 2x (or half) should have nearzero overlap. 
20200518, 14:57  #36 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
2·1,999 Posts 
interesting  I did a quick run and got a poly that cownoise wouldn't comment on, as well. It, too, had a large skew and much smaller original MurphyE than the earlier one posted that cownoise didn't like. BTW, no manual copy/paste error, as I use a script to run cownoise. There is still copy/paste, but it's done by the script.

20200518, 15:39  #37 
Jun 2012
3,203 Posts 
I will attempt 6e7 to 7e7 with P = 4M. May also attempt P values of 8M and 14M if my hardware can handle that search space in a reasonable time.

20200520, 17:45  #38  
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
2^{7}·3·13 Posts 
Quote:
Code:
n: 533439167600904850230361756102700151678687933392166847323827307497363839257031077774321424872955045754669625$ skew: 98578127.386 c0: 543850183462425327198930487409925109829785629120 c1: 68212999208925720003012825859916399522882 c2: 638443675326649192046822053722117 c3: 17982199392452538405419168 c4: 39487971248308278 c5: 171157140 Y0: 1563731901211757910450408924988302711541 Y1: 5408299121980104968049211 # MurphyE (Bf=1.718e+10,Bg=8.590e+09,area=1.074e+16) = 1.503e08 This took about 40hr on 40 threads. 

20200520, 18:33  #39 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
111110011110_{2} Posts 
I had a 2.3 I didn't post because it was less than the earlier VBCurtis one. Should I post close ones?

20200520, 18:51  #40 
Jun 2012
3,203 Posts 
I’m still working on my range but I’m playing around a bit in a vain attempt to tune/optimize CADO poly searching a c204. Learning something if nothing else, but collecting data as I go.
So far nothing found worth reporting, though the escore of the poly keeps increasing. 
20200520, 18:53  #41 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
1380_{16} Posts 
Max's 'spin' can yield a 58% improvement for one poly vs another, so I would say posting anything within 10% of the expected best is worthwhile. For this job, we should get to 2.5x, so I'd say 2.3's are worth posting. Max may reappear and spin a dozen polys for us to turn up the best.

20200520, 21:33  #42 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
2·1,999 Posts 
Here's the 2.3 poly:
Code:
n: 533439167600904850230361756102700151678687933392166847323827307497363839257031077774321424872955045754669625577486179222154434651598903112919949771321416511589029559325246084363632977829645558547714072241 skew: 10042040.26 c0: 627354527254627652475332655176329358596636356 c1: 213018845490759638721666401827674851417 c2: 95937374251117784023748647685013 c3: 5623556931527657096482154 c4: 479102663461196184 c5: 2511784800 Y0: 1385041351159270154396558379928364326380 Y1: 262954605447105862796669 # MurphyE (Bf=8.590e+09,Bg=4.295e+09,area=2.684e+16) = 4.040e09 # f(x) = 2511784800*x^5479102663461196184*x^45623556931527657096482154*x^3+95937374251117784023748647685013*x^2+213018845490759638721666401827674851417*x627354527254627652475332655176329358596636356 # g(x) = 262954605447105862796669*x1385041351159270154396558379928364326380 Code:
16158683.33848 2.31283325e15 Code:
n: 533439167600904850230361756102700151678687933392166847323827307497363839257031077774321424872955045754669625577486179222154434651598903112919949771321416511589029559325246084363632977829645558547714072241 skew: 61173787.626 c0: 84551986041964239497940179882870301230255594832 c1: 1390964012076111490370063297140812459596 c2: 522002006121443981512032398747760 c3: 1762901709293407365122057 c4: 15943093281758022 c5: 318686760 Y0: 1380919702784425269323122024964712327251 Y1: 237213586863942644893691 # MurphyE (Bf=8.590e+09,Bg=4.295e+09,area=2.684e+16) = 4.390e09 # f(x) = 318686760*x^515943093281758022*x^4+1762901709293407365122057*x^3+522002006121443981512032398747760*x^21390964012076111490370063297140812459596*x84551986041964239497940179882870301230255594832 # g(x) = 237213586863942644893691*x1380919702784425269323122024964712327251 Code:
71610307.84090 2.60680364e15 
20200521, 12:29  #43  
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
2×1,999 Posts 
Quote:


20200521, 12:33  #44 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
7636_{8} Posts 
Here's another 2.4:
Code:
n: 533439167600904850230361756102700151678687933392166847323827307497363839257031077774321424872955045754669625577486179222154434651598903112919949771321416511589029559325246084363632977829645558547714072241 skew: 7740451.622 c0: 87401746937311294254606780488329283829954120 c1: 490423710004317779309293496266025547493 c2: 15973994938279417938365011227398 c3: 5798512478553491282564621 c4: 1272023397153994830 c5: 3220711200 Y0: 1378005267963093178565993313863772054930 Y1: 140867852901938662382179 # MurphyE (Bf=8.590e+09,Bg=4.295e+09,area=2.684e+16) = 4.170e09 # f(x) = 3220711200*x^5+1272023397153994830*x^45798512478553491282564621*x^315973994938279417938365011227398*x^2+490423710004317779309293496266025547493*x+87401746937311294254606780488329283829954120 # g(x) = 140867852901938662382179*x1378005267963093178565993313863772054930 Code:
12314038.28594 2.42609295e15 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Using 16e on smaller numbers  fivemack  Factoring  3  20170919 08:52 
NFS on smaller numbers?  skan  YAFU  6  20130226 13:57 
Bernoulli(200) c204  akruppa  Factoring  114  20120820 14:01 
checking smaller number  fortega  Data  2  20050616 22:48 
Factoring Smaller Numbers  marc  Factoring  6  20041009 14:17 