Posts by DSJR9453
|
21)
Message boards :
Questions/Problems/Bugs :
Right?
(Message 2269)
Posted 16 Jan 2022 by DSJR9453 Post: Well…. The numbers after “12,298+ SNFS 323†in this table: https://escatter11.fullerton.edu/nfs/numbers.php will be 5,461+ SNFS 323 3,677- SNFS 324 5,463+ SNFS 324 7,383- SNFS 324 10,323- SNFS 324 10,323+ SNFS 324 11,311- SNFS 324 11,311+ SNFS 324 5,464+ SNFS 325 11,313- SNFS 326 5,467+ SNFS 327 6,419+ SNFS 327 7,386+ SNFS 327 6,421- SNFS 328 6,421+ SNFS 328 7,388+ SNFS 328 2,1091+ SNFS 329 7,389- SNFS 329 3,691- SNFS 330 Is it right? Now I known that the SNFS difficulty of b^n+-1 can be reduced to Phi(n,b) instead of b^n only if n has factors of 3, 5, 7, or 11, so for example, 7,395- and 7,395+ has difficulty 264, 10^371-1 has difficulty 312. |
|
22)
Message boards :
Questions/Problems/Bugs :
Sorted all Cunningham numbers by difficulty
(Message 2206)
Posted 6 Jun 2021 by DSJR9453 Post: The Cunningham numbers in https://escatter11.fullerton.edu/nfs/numbers.html are not completely sorted by difficulty, e.g. 2,1115+ has only SNFS 269, but it is after 3,667- (which has SNFS 318), can you sorted all Cunningham numbers by difficulty? Maybe there is some other numbers not current in list, such as 10,323-, have difficulty less than some number currently in list (e.g. 6,451-, 6^451-1 is larger than 10^323-1, and Phi(451,6) is also larger than Phi(323,10)). |