Quote from: RetiredCoder on October 08, 2024, 04:26:12 PM

Such papers is just a way to get a degree, zero new ideas.
And all this is not important actually.
The main problem that you won't get better than K=1.7 this way even if you use 1000 instead of 3-4-5-7 kangs.
K=1.7 is boring, really. It's like solving puzzles #6x Grin

Why don't you try this? https://www.iacr.org/archive/pkc2010/60560372/60560372.pdf
Going this way (a long way btw) you can "invent" something interesting and get real K (not in theory but real) around 1.2 if you are smart enough Cheesy

I call this approach "mirrored" kangs.
But, of course, this way is not so easy as "normal" kangs that always jump in one direction.
Just a tip for you because it seems you read some papers instead of creating magic circles/code as most people here Cheesy

Though I doubt that you will break #135, it's always fun to invent and discover so you can spend a lot of time having fun...

Most people here don't have access to/possibility to rent much computing power, so it doesn't matter to them whether the K is 2.0, 1.7 or 1.2. That's why attempts to do some kind of magic begin. How many GPUs did you use to solve 120-130?

Fruitless cycles is the main problem of using equivalence, but there is few good ways to deal with them. By the way, I was very surprised when I saw how quickly kangaroos get into a primitive two-point cycle.

Also, thanks for sharing 120 PK.

_Counselor

Posts

Merits