20040813, 01:16  #1 
Aug 2004
way out west
2·13 Posts 
What's next?
So, by the looks of things, we'll have reached the goal for 3_491P easily by the end of the month. Then what?
Also, out of curiousity, how are things going with the factorization of 10_223P and 11_206P? The nfsnet website home page said the linear algebra could be done by the middle of June, but I haven't found any more current info. 
20040813, 04:58  #2  
Jun 2003
5179_{10} Posts 
Quote:


20040813, 13:03  #3  
Nov 2003
16444_{8} Posts 
Quote:
have lagged behind others. Possible targets include 2, 709+, 2,716+, 2, 719+, 2,736+, 2,764+, 2,772+ although the first 3 may be a little small. Other possibilities include the first two holes in the 2 table: M739, & M743. I intend to do 2,667+, 2,689+ and 2,697+ as soon as I finish 2,1238L (80% sieved) and 2,1262L. But I only have a very small number of machines (6). There are also 3 numbers on the 'Most Wanted' list that have been there for quite a while: 7,232+, 7,233+, and 6,251+, although these may be a little small as well. Paul Leyland is doing the last number with exponent less than 200: 11,199. 

20040813, 13:36  #4  
Jun 2003
The Texas Hill Country
3^{2}·11^{2} Posts 
Quote:


20040813, 14:16  #5  
Nov 2003
2^{2}×5×373 Posts 
Quote:
Will you use x^5  11 or 11x^6  1? The latter should be better. Bob 

20040813, 15:12  #6 
Jun 2003
The Texas Hill Country
3^{2}·11^{2} Posts 
Yes, we will be using the 6th degree polynomial.

20040813, 16:18  #7  
Apr 2004
Copenhagen, Denmark
164_{8} Posts 
Quote:
Jes Hansen 

20040813, 16:41  #8  
Nov 2003
2^{2}·5·373 Posts 
Quote:
What machines are you using? They seem a lot faster than mine. (1 GHz Pentium III's). Bob 

20040813, 21:19  #9  
Apr 2004
Copenhagen, Denmark
2^{2}×29 Posts 
Quote:
I'm using the idle time on our servers at the math dept. As far as I can recall they are a twoprocessor 1GHz and a fourprocessor 2GHz machine (I'm using the last processor for a ECM run ). Usualy there are a lot of other using them, so my available processing power is very fluctuating. However, since our summer holliday lasts until september, there aren't that many users right now. I'm using Frankes lattice sievers with CWI postprocessing tools, maybe that has some influence too? Jes Last fiddled with by JHansen on 20040813 at 21:21 

20040816, 11:29  #10 
Jan 2004
10000101_{2} Posts 
what's the estimated time for 11,199 ?
in what using the 6th degree polynomial is better then the 5th ? it takes less time ? 
20040816, 11:47  #11  
Bamboozled!
"πΊππ·π·π"
May 2003
Down not across
2^{4}×13×53 Posts 
Quote:
Now that we no longer have access to the cluster at Microsoft Research to run the linear algebra, I chose parameters for 11,199 which will make the matrix much smaller than would normally be the case but at the cost of requiring more sieving effort. There is no point in sieving rapidly if as a result we would have a matrix that could not be processed with the resources available. The sextic polynomial does indeed make for less sieving than the quintic. This holds true irrespective of whether one optimizes for matrix size of sieving effort. Paul 
