-   storflyt32 (
-   -   Except for the last page, the previous thread became a bit long. (

storflyt32 2017-02-10 15:22

Did the shopping and next going to continue.

Perhaps a bit biased or prejudiced in the previous, because at least here the mentioned factorization will not readily do.

Editing the word above for the perhaps the better.

But next, perhaps a bit of true fact as well, because there could be a moment where the end of the road perhaps is reached.


Not a very large number here, but before checking, this one could be a bit difficult.

Should next tell that I do have the individual factors here.

Getting away with all the small numbers and you may be left with such ones and still a far way off from the desired result.


Edit: Becomes the rest of it from another number being worked on.


Together with the first link above, the first link mentioned is the second part for each where these factors came from.


Also becomes that above for a somewhat larger number, but when considering the difficult start, I could give this one a try.


Edit: 2^22 curves with ecm for this one while leaving the machine running.

But apparently no right now, so apparently losing it here.


This one did not made it with ecm using 2^21 curves either.

storflyt32 2017-02-10 21:06





storflyt32 2017-02-11 07:37


Perhaps should be still listed as C (Composite) here?

In fact I do not have it and next perhaps questioning the project and that of being possible "terse" for such a thing.

Yes, one of the "goofy" ones here, or perhaps even good ones, in my opinion.

Mentioned at BOINC, but anyway.

Edit: "We wish to go to the Moon, not because it is easy, but because it is hard".

Perhaps such a thing could be made here as well.

"Wind him up" and I already mentioned that fact.

Factorize a given number and it next means 2 and next forget about the rest.

Make it perhaps 2 and it could be that for starters.

But is perhaps that the true or complete answer?

Should tell that one of the reasons for perhaps factorizing a given number is or could be because of given questions being asked.

Don't tell me the answers, or perhaps even ask me the questions, because this in what in fact did.

Not a good thing.

In the end is most likely supposed to be difficult, meaning complex, in order to come up with a given answer.

Does such a thing mean that is is supposed to be perhaps RSA all the time, or the fact that I could be a stupid idiot?

You never know, but except for that, morning is yet another day.

storflyt32 2017-02-12 11:29



I guess it could be known here as well for the first one, but this one probably can not be done.

Becomes a little too much in running and will have to log off once again.

Possibly some more on the second when returning back, but could be difficult here.

storflyt32 2017-02-12 18:38

Adding a PRP3798 to my list here.


Becomes one among several others and not all have been reported because of both my bad arms as well as the same for the keyboard and mouse.

Perhaps something interesting right now.

If I multiply Mersenne26 (M26) with the factor above and next "divide" from the C12593 of (2^48853-1), it does not do so, but rather I end up with the P1764 in the latter as the result.

Adding to this a couple of smaller factors in between.


Coming up in a short while and becomes this.



Apparently divides with the PRP3798 for this number and for this the C5562 here.

Also it actually works.


The above became a little cluttered, but it was also the Saturday evening and the two remaining beers.

I will get back to that above for a better fix later on.


Here I could add the factors as well, but got the failure to equate equation message here, so a quite difficult one.

P38 = 16474387428274701745662603133380541949

P53 = 24010406660153811410049655911343951981971245474370881

SIQS elapsed time = 1159.1323 seconds.
Total factoring time = 1295.9221 seconds

Definitely climbing Mount Everest should not be the same as doing the same for Matterhorn, but in the end both should be possible.

A possible redo here makes out not with success, including ecm using 2^21 curves.

Trying out with 2^22 curves.

- - -



P38 = 11178697145546329128107145273251192351

P64 = 1347069276403322477642368757445407132722321720997498468223330911

SIQS elapsed time = 6847.1669 seconds.

The elapsed time for the original run which had failure to equate equation listed four times.

SIQS elapsed time = 56.4904 seconds.
Total factoring time = 56.6204 seconds

Elapsed time for the rerun, which started from the P1 = 3 before.

- - -



P33 = 280147430256560316921692784640349

P69 = 633935921101205205295131829212749268046517970078238707501094120875671

The first link above has yet to be done and when doing so, becomes a P40 being added, but not the one that became reported previously.

Could perhaps start adding where it worked out fine.

- - -


Total factoring time = 69992.9342 seconds

Should be the flip-side factor as well for this here.

Could add something more here before next reporting.


P32 = 87069920344939376473831443686959

P57 = 232649397875563340750418140913110571387753429540612096847

Failure to equate relation listed two times during or after the SIQS.

SIQS elapsed time = 742.4895 seconds.
Total factoring time = 853.1548 seconds

Apparently jumps back to another factor than which it came from or were started.

Also perhaps makes for better readability by listing the larger factor first.

I mentioned the bad arms and hands being experienced, as well as the cold start in the morning.

Could therefore end losing a couple since I am not able to write it down myself.

If no objections, could perhaps report these factors, but should be considered not that easy ones for such.

Need the second cup of coffee.


P40 = 1734183576154975555860382440659216963239

By means of the nfs command here.

This one I probably could add without no problem and also perhaps squeeze the above a bit tighter as well.

Again, I could have it in proper or due order, but checking out, not all of this is working out.

Next I will not continue on this each time, but only goes to show that this may now be possible.

storflyt32 2017-02-19 05:18

I better make a new post right now, but could possibly add if needed.

You probably do not know, but here it became P1 = 2 one time only, for the mentioned "magic number" and apparently both ways, meaning the flip-flop for this.

The factors became reported.

Needs checking for this, because right now there are two main browser windows being launched and for the first of these, there are almost three dozen tabs opened.

Also the similar number of DOS command prompts for the factorizations, so right now losing track of it.

Going for the cup of coffee and cake right now and I could have the links for this coming up later on.



storflyt32 2017-02-24 17:45

Having a look around, I posted somewhere else related to possible problems, including that of the Factor Database.

Noticing the following today.

I happened to factorize a number a couple of days ago and it gave me a P161 back in return as the end factor.

But in between was a small composite number which only should be read as being so, because the whole factorization is still "CF".

When next entering the composite number in order to make the rest of it complete, I typically use Yafu-Win32 for this, because of the simplicity.

The result back is then some two or three small factors, which could next be reported within the small number.

I am using Google Chrome as the default web browser.

It has the left and right arrow at the top, below the tab icons at the top.

Next to it the circle arrow, which at times could be a locked cross, or the similar.

To me this could mean the same as the F5 button for refreshing a page, at least when using Internet Explorer (IE), but noticing today that when returning back from the small number to the previous page for the main number and next
pressing the circle arrow, which means refresh, the page hangs, or does not refresh, something which makes me think of a Database hang.

Could perhaps be written better above, but need do the weekend shopping first.

In my opinion, "Factorize" means factorizing a given number in order for a particular result to become available.

Updating part of a record, or result, therefore becomes something else and not the same as neither factorizing, or even that of refreshing a page by means of a button like F5.

Either the F5 button is having a wrong functionality here, or there could be a possible difference around.

I ended up pressing the "Factorize" button once again when the page still hung and did not update or refresh.

storflyt32 2017-02-27 10:32

Edit: Back from the weekend shopping, I happened to add both a P38 and P49 separately where it should go.

Choosing to multiply the P38 with the P54 Fermat factor (starting with 5686...) it becomes a C92 or so.

Looking around for the P38 after a possibly mentioned restart of the computer and the possible change of environment, the two factors are not there anymore.

The only thing being noticed is that the factorization for the C92 apparently blew or did not work and also ecm with 2^21 curves did not work out either.

My guess is that you could end up getting a couple of these, because for some reason the factors do not like each other, or it becomes the 90 degree angle, or possibly that close.

Could perhaps also mention that for the sake of prime numbers, a mentioned such with more than 100,000 digits apparently became factorized as such using ecm.

Need to get back for the precise number for this, because it was mentioned somewhere else.

The only thing is that I will not use Prime95 or the like in order to look for those big prime number candidates.

It becomes a shot in the dark, in my opinion and right now I do not recall any sieving for this like that being done or carried out at PrimeGrid.

Except for that, no similarity, because I do know that there in fact happens to be even more to choose between.

Using Genefer as an example and not any Mersenne prime, I know that 171 * 2^2097152+1 is a composite number, but for more or less the rest, it becomes that of a lookup of a similar number,
something which may not be always that easy to do.

Next, deducing the "next" prime number in a sequence and once again we are back at the way this is supposed to be working.

Together with a cup of coffee on the table, it becomes a little more about what could be happening in the not too distant future.



What if the first one slipped my fingers and not able to find it when perhaps looking it up?

Possibly a P46 or so by means of that way of doing it, but next which one?

The only thing possible is adding a little more to the second link, which I could do later on.

There could eventually become a point where most of it has been carried out and next we could be left with such as those remaining.

Perhaps not impossible here, but what about a C180 coming from two P90 factors?

The remaining part becomes more or less similar as well, at least by being composite.

Do possibly the same for the largest Mersenne prime versus the biggest Genefer prime and you have more or less the same way of doing it.


Becomes a little long and I could make a new post and split it in half later on.



Adding the P17 in the second link.

P44 = 62251823980796134824167599809732061573476059

P69 = 757286867242091433116219120453265980719203556326986745409001364582521

Becomes loose factors here and found while looking for a P46 for the mentioned C124.



Needs checking for the links but should go in here and next the remaining part will be known as well.

But could perhaps be difficult here.



P57 = 459820473033521602812581720595547872354598154786869009807

P82 = 7585585174810379989940684669932638065417037112480267919028156244440018423496001743

What next about the P69 and the P82 versus something else?



Giving it a try and next adding a P9 in the second link when using ecm with 30 curves.

The rest I could finish off as well, but may take a couple of hours.

Perhaps you read my previous words at BOINC that this might never work.

storflyt32 2017-03-05 18:54


Here the second factor is a composite number.


Even better, this one, which was in the window most of the day, but not able to do anymore because of the dinner being consumed, sending me to bed.

Makes it possible to continue from there and both getting quite good factors, while still not too difficult.

Apparently it becomes a restart of the computer, so I leave it there for now.

Before going to the shop for the weekend beer and food (still only Thursday, but I ended up nursing my pain in bed), I eventually missed the P148 in the window prompt before the restart.

Adding my list of factorizations right now, some two left to go before finished, but in total, not too much while being away.

The first one still remaining is a pair of P31 and P111 factors.

The second one is somewhat better, with a pair of P29 and P168 factors.

Both coming up shortly.

Next could add that reading the time of the day by means of the clock wrong, I ended up too late in the shop and the beer was not for sale.

Becomes tomorrow for this instead, but together with a couple of other things makes a damper on both the sense of humor as well as a given willingness.

Perhaps blame such a thing on the winter, but at least such a thing does not help at all.

The thing perhaps being noticed when it comes to a given number is that we may end up backtracking in a way which may not be possible.

Finish off with the easy part and next the remaining part is being left.

If not perhaps difficult, it could also end up being almost impossible.

But before that, is it possible to make the trick in order to overcome such an impossibility?

Supposedly you could be left with only one answer here, in which there should be some two factors.

With most of the other factors for this lying around, I could be using these as a template, but still the precise answer may not be found.

Now I will lock the door until someone perhaps knocks on the same door.

storflyt32 2017-03-11 00:15

Thinking about this in the late night.

I happen to be having a couple of accounts at BOINC, all with different user names and passwords.

Here at we typically keep most of the discussion clean, without annoyances and such characters like "#" or "*" most likely could be interpreted as something else, if anything at all.

Standing up right could make you perhaps one thing, including that of possible poisture, but next sitting, possibly in a chair for such, could make you either a possible thinker, or maybe even believer at times.

A given project could be having a possible goal as its intended meaning or purpose.

Always the same words for a couple of things.

When so, the individual parts of it, or details, could end up being of no meaning or importance at all.

Yes, definitely such a thing as that of Project management could be part of your day, at least as being a Systems Administrator, or the similar.

But is it not the fact that you could end up being a possible scientist and if so ending up sitting on your "butt" for such a thing?

Should tell that there definitely could be both numbermaniacs as well as even pedophiles around at times for a given thing or purpose.

If such a thing could rather be that I for some reason happen to "love" science, because I could be able to make a possible difference or separation between that of any numbers and a similar "Heaven and Hell" when it comes to that of possible numbers,
guess such a thing could rather end up making up an idiot of myself, rather than perhaps something else.

Back tomorrow.



Adding the P17 in the second link and should also tell that the first one broke as well, with a pair of P33 and P60 factors using ecm.

No need to copy here, because it needed 1164846 out of 2097152 curves here and therefore took a long time.

I could have it tomorrow evening, together with the usual weekend show.


Here is a quiz for you before I get to bed.

For each of the numbers above, I may take the square root of the number and next factorize it.

Initially starting with 2, next adding two zeros (00), finding that both 20, 2000, 200000, 20000000 and so on did not work out for this.

This because I want to know the square root of 2 and its possible decimal fraction, next converted into integer format.

For example,


is having factors 5, 59, P6 = 992819, P13 = 3593536361299 and
P108 = 134369548651938017176139421906339735378019314062572747468361443924137074473715498936940774215739440134076299 ,


I have not checked yet with this, but adding the P13 above.

The rest of it is still worked on, but I got the factors for the smaller ones here.

Is it possible to generate a sample input sequence for this in order to have some results coming back?

Suggestions welcome.

Or perhaps these rather than they.

As mentioned, it became the beer and such a thing right now,

Also the fact that it could be my rear butt for such a thing, but also that I am receiving a warning message about Motherboard 60,0 centigrade.

Your butt perhaps, but is next such a thing taken for granted or given when possibly carrying out any science?

Next the fact that any science does not always sell, but for such a thing we could still be left with those occasional hiccups at times.


storflyt32 2017-03-17 02:52

At least it became the weekend shopping for now and back right now with a cup of coffee and a biscuit.

It became the restart of the computer once again because of too heavy load, so for now nothing more than that ending up in the files.

The P108 mentioned above is too far away from that special number and a quick snapshot gave me only a composite number back.


For now nothing smaller in front.

The P28 and P58 pair did not want at all using the factor or siqs command, but with ecm it took only 178 out of 2097152 curves here.


Example number once again.

The problem here really becomes the remaining composite part of such a CF listed number.

Backtracking ourselves in one given fashion or another, you may end up with the fact that a C180 may not be readily factorized because of two P90 factors making up it.

I was once rapped at Seti@home, one of my 50/50 projects when it comes to resource share under BOINC.

Apparently there were someone who believed that I rather should be like Benjamin Franklin with his kite in his hands and running around for those lightning strikes in order for us to both understand that of electricity and also that of
the Scientific Method for such a thing as well, if I happened not to mention such a thing as Electromagnetism for the same.

Should next tell that I happen to have all the smaller Mersenne prime numbers up to M23 (before checking) and also M48 on my disk.

You probably are well aware of the syntactical fact or feature related that of prime numbers, namely the fact that these could be written as k * p^n+1 for the Proth prime search, or the similar 2^n-1 for that of the Mersenne numbers.

Editing myself twice here in order to get at the correct syntax.

Like also such numbers like Riesel primes and Genefer primes, any prime numbers being found could be viewed as factors of a hierarchical tree centered around 2^n on each side.

There is no point in telling that 2^n is prime for any n, but only the fact that such a prime number as M48 could be referenced as such a number, not only because of its given syntax, but rather because of the number for n in 2^n that could be
succeeding or following it.

Next the fact that 32 does not divide with 11, for example.

My experience from that of factoring of numbers tells me that a factor, or prime number is always found or coming from a number even larger, which then most likely would be at least composite.

For this, the sieving process, of course.

The number 2 is the only prime number or factor which is both even and also a prime.

Am I supposed to believe that such a number like M48 could be related to a given 2^n only because that of n is sufficiently large enough to make this possible?

Or should I perhaps add 1 to that of n (not the same as n+1 or n-1 for a given syntax).

Edit: Probably should read "add" above.

Every single prime number or factor are unique. This means that such numbers may not be divided with each other.

Rather they only may be doing so by means of being products of each other. For example 6 is 2 * 3.

As far as I am able to tell, there is no general method available in order to come up with a prime number or factor from something else which is larger.

Rather we are still more or less left with a tree of still mostly unknown or unknowns, because the fact that all numbers are in fact built up, or composed of such prime numbers, for which some which never might be found.

Back tomorrow.


Not one of the very best perhaps, but right now became added.

Here a total of 329406 curves needed for the ecm of this number.

All times are UTC. The time now is 05:29.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.