On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 5:29 PM kcrisman wrote:
>
> Is there any notion that the default should be changed, or is that pretty
> unique to this example?
IMHO a small default is not expensive, as checking for smallish prime
factors should be quick.
But perhaps I'm missing something here.
Dima
>
Is there any notion that the default should be changed, or is that pretty
unique to this example?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
I think everybody understands what's going on regarding ECM now,
thanks to Dima's quick answer.
Paul Zimmerman who wrote this code (and reads sage-support via a daily
digest), sent me this
note to pass on as well:
" Hi William,
please can you forward my answer below?
Thanks,
Paul
dim...@gmail.com schrieb am Sonntag, 29. Januar 2023 um 20:50:29 UTC+1:
Basically, the default B1 value is too large in this case.
sage: ecm.factor(71281426948143699070565,B1=200) # almost instant
[5, 53, 337, 1873, 2833, 7507, 20037791]
sage: ecm.factor(71281426948143699070565,B1=2000) #
Thanks Dima, you taught me something new today.
Guillermo
On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 at 20:50, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 3:04 PM G. M.-S. wrote:
> >
> > For me, with SageMath version 9.8.beta7
> > sage: ecm.factor(71281426948143699070565)
> > does not return quickly either.
> >
On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 3:04 PM G. M.-S. wrote:
>
>
> For me, with SageMath version 9.8.beta7
>
> sage: ecm.factor(71281426948143699070565)
>
> does not return quickly either.
>
> Indeed, running
>
> sage: ecm.interact()
>
> seems to show a strange behaviour for 71281426948143699070565 when
For me, with SageMath version 9.8.beta7
sage: ecm.factor(71281426948143699070565)
does not return quickly either.
Indeed, running
sage: ecm.interact()
seems to show a strange behaviour for 71281426948143699070565 when
factoring the factors found.
As this is probabilistic and the output changes
