----- Original Message ----- From: "George Woltman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 3:41 AM Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: Factoring benefit/cost ratio
> I think more of the discussion has centered around stats and the > formula for picking how far to trial factor, rather than whether factoring > is of some mathematical value... That's true, at least for my own recent contributions to this discussion. However, what I've been trying to do is float a few ideas for increasing the effectiveness of the factorising effort. If P-1 was done early, as I suggested, with bounds unchanged, then exactly the same Mersennes will get factored sooner, on average, and with less work. Ditto with the smooth k sieving idea. And if the cost of factoring is reduced, the optimal depth increases. The benefits of such an exercise are even greater if factors are given an intrinsic value of their own. Of course, the real scarce resource is not computer cycles, nor even ideas for improvement, but in programming effort to implement. Calculating that particular trade-off I leave to others. > -- George Daran G. _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
