20120131, 15:40  #1101 
"Kieren"
Jul 2011
In My Own Galaxy!
2×3×1,693 Posts 

20120131, 17:57  #1102 
Basketry That Evening!
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 89<O<88
3×29×83 Posts 

20120201, 03:38  #1103 
Account Deleted
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA
2·5·7·61 Posts 
On a four core machine, is it expected to be around 1000 or around 4000? Mine is currently at 3707 (it was lingering around 2000 when I manually bumped it up to ~4000, as I mentioned), which is roughly accurate. The CPU is an i5750@2.8GHz. If you want more info (e.g. for debugging, to make the estimate more accurate) let me know.

20120201, 09:36  #1104  
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA
2^{2}·3·641 Posts 
Quote:


20120202, 12:00  #1105 
Jun 2003
1169_{10} Posts 
44 relative primes is just fine, finishing stage 2 in eleven passes. 40 would need twelve passes, while 48 would do it in ten. The difference in performance would be miniscule.

20120202, 18:26  #1106 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA
1E0C_{16} Posts 
"Miniscule" (or, at least, "Detail Oriented") is some of our middle names around here.

20120203, 07:30  #1108 
Oct 2011
7·97 Posts 
I was looking for some easy numbers to get a better understanding of the P1 process, and in looking at M2011, it lists bounds of 5 and 27 where K=2*2*3*3*3*5. As I was working through this, I got to thinking, couldn't this also be found with bounds of 5 and 9? In using 27, you'd have 2*2*5 from S1 and 27 from S2, but wouldn't 2*2*3*5 from S1 and 9 from S2 also work?

20120203, 08:35  #1109  
Jun 2003
1454_{16} Posts 
Quote:
With B1=27, you'd use an exponent of 2^4*3^3*5^2*7*11*13*17*19*23, which'd find the factor. 

20120203, 10:24  #1110 
Dec 2003
Paisley Park & Neverland
5·37 Posts 
29.8 percent chance of finding a factor!? Is that expectation correct? Until today I have only seen values from 4 to 7 percent...

20120203, 10:31  #1111 
Jun 2003
2^{2}×1,301 Posts 
