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

storflyt32 2017-01-23 03:06

Except for the last page, the previous thread became a bit long.
If possible, I could edit the thread title.


Using ecm here and it needed 432312 out of 2097152 curves and took a while.

storflyt32 2017-01-23 10:45



Returning back to the first from the second, here it became a close call.

Apparently quite difficult here, but also good factors.

Needed 1987549 out of 2097152 curves when using ecm and took a while.

storflyt32 2017-01-27 10:02




It should be on Page 1 there and also becomes that when next checking.

The P35 and P42 and also the P33 and P44 there.

Make it all together and it should be that above.

Trying to factor the C152 as a whole, it comes up with the P33, but next pressing it wrong and needs a redo.

I will have it later on, but perhaps I should leave the rest as an exercise.

storflyt32 2017-01-28 18:35

Pondering a possible logoff and logon of the computer right now because of an overcommitment.


P34 = 9137310948603306186646517110437709

Pressing the wrong button once again, it needs a redo and next ends up on its heels and will not do.

I could get back at it, but right now my fingers is close to not willing anymore.

Except for that, perhaps not the best of words above, but the shopping trip made for a strain.

storflyt32 2017-01-30 11:37


This small number has a PRP1071 in the other end from the C1133 of 2^4096+1.

Not reported yet.

storflyt32 2017-02-01 13:05


Did the assignment here of this number listed as "U".

Also should be added the note around that this next shows up as being composite when using Yafu.

storflyt32 2017-02-04 01:35


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

Giving it another try in the usual way.

storflyt32 2017-02-08 00:34



What if it became the first and third here and "next" the second and last here, both separately, in the first link?

The rest, or remaining part in the second link above.

The fact that the third and last together in the first link could make for a quite difficult one (C93).

This slipped me right now, but at least could give it a try.

storflyt32 2017-02-08 03:09



Yes, doable this time, but needed at least two main attempts in order to get a clean factorization.

83760 relations being needed. SIQS elapsed time = 3167.4432 seconds.

Now I am off to bed.

storflyt32 2017-02-08 19:33


P39 = 217902523569237243124596155172342967247

P45 = 896582962507993039136406963757171629375241721

Again, loose factors here, or for this one.

Only makes me curious, of course.

storflyt32 2017-02-09 01:24


This one blew because it became the wrong way of running, namely in a window.

Adding the P9 for now, but lost much of the day here and it was probably two more factors and next down to a C130.

Edit: Staying with the P27 in the buffer, the second factor could take a couple more hours.

Ending back at Windows 32 bits for now, because of other problems, I do not know if or whether this became my last post here,
or even the answer here.

I could leave the machine running and perhaps report the result back tomorrow, but except that is what goes, or perhaps is happening right now.


Not any multiply this time either, because here it took quite some time and perhaps is close to what I could get when on 32 bit Windows.

But here also a prime number when flipping around and doing it the opposite way, so perhaps also of some importance here.

Next those restarts as well and should tell that I do not recognize the factors here.

These were not supposedly what I am was doing and for now not ending up in my list.

Beware the wolf, or either it could be about number theory here, or perhaps the prime number that was being missed.

Becomes another story, except for perhaps Pierre de Fermat meeting up with Marin Mersenne himself and next that both adding and subtracting a little,
could perhaps yield some results.

I will add the first name here as well, but next still funny.

Next should add that we perhaps could be soon having a new theory for that of living as well, except for perhaps chewing and next throwing a couple of things away.

Much or more of the needed factors probably ended up on my 64 bits partition, for as long as it could last. but next apparently nothing more.

Rather than question such a thing as numbers itself, perhaps that of number theory could be doing it even better, because then we could know what it is all about.

Again that of the Cunningham project in one of my files, but next only the listing for that of a P96 or so, except for the number itself.

Definitely a bit of tedious, but perhaps could make it to the FDB in the long term, except for perhaps not having all the details, or making it a complete sequence.

If perhaps listed, these factors could perhaps help for that of a possible understanding, if not perhaps add to the whole piece.

But next that it perhaps should also mean Loria here as well and again needs checking in with my logs.


Here perhaps rather and next that it took a long time on 32 bits Windows.

Total factoring time = 98114.6922 seconds

Edit: Flips around the opposite way as well and here also the possible result.


Here perhaps not the highest priority either for each such task, except for have it done.

Adding this time, because here it become a successful factorization.

Forum versus fora, if not any quasilledback either.

Forget that.


Not for free here either, and spending a bit of time and resources here.

Anyway, here just a little problem being noticed.



Here I key in that number above, and next get the other number instead, for still adding the P40, for already known, but that it ends up in the wrong place.

Here it should be the number just above, but rather getting the 1101... number instead, and for only my eyes, still not any blanks or asterisks ("*") for that of possible multiplication.

Any suggestions welcome, because here perhaps an error of sorts.

Should tell that I may have been doing it wrong a couple of times here, for still the asterisk it could be, and my apologies only here, for just let it slipping.

Kind of embedded it could be, for perhaps not any hidden either, at least only an error for just making, when also the thing that could be happening.

One suggestion could be that of refreshment of a line, for just blank, when still the asterisk it could be in between, for only multiplying a couple of numbers.

The problem is that if I make it just X*Y for that of an input line, and next double-clicking with the mouse, only marking the first number here, for still not the second number,
for only the whole or complete line it should be.

Here needs a fix in order to get that problem sorted, because perhaps only numbers should be allowed for that of input.

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.

storflyt32 2017-03-24 01:35

Making a new post right now, because I am still thinking about, or fearing about the following.

Namely: C180 equals or is P90 * P90.

C309 - C180 is a C129 or so.

We already know that story.

"Wind him up", the common phrase being around or heard.

Is it not the fact that this is in fact happening right now?

Gradually it becomes more difficult within a given sequence, or interval of numbers, because of such a thing being a reality.

Perhaps not visible and perhaps not the best explanation either, I mentioned the "method of elimination" and regardless or whether or not a different translation or explanation of such a thing could be possible,
I could be fair right now and only thinking in the context of numbers.

Multiplying a P25 with a P37 could be somewhat difficult and next what about such a composite numbers in regards to or related to something else?

Needs checking.

storflyt32 2017-03-31 15:38

Apparently a fly or insect woke me from my late sleep and perhaps I should say thanks this time.

Need the cup of coffee first, but the clock on the computer is showing wrong, also a reminder about the weekend shopping in a similar way.

More important perhaps, at least two good factorizations yesterday, where one still returned a "failure to equate equation" message.

The number was a C94 and the smallest factor was a P44.

Also a pair of P39 and P40 factors earlier on.

Getting back at the list in Notepad, it becomes a P44 and P51 pair.

This one definitely was a quite difficult number to factorize.

Again, with the cup of coffee in my hand and next have to do the shopping, the right moment is not there right now.

I will get back at it later, together with the links for this.

Right now it became 20 minutes past midnight here, but in fact was thinking about going for my first beer right now.

I came across a P155 a short while ago which could be added later on.

Also not tested this factor yet, but will do so in a short while.

I was thinking about both a factor upload once again from my list of small factors, which was added on.

Also the slightly more important thing of doing the same on the P100 or larger factors still in my list, but which has not been reported.

The problem is that the list both became unsorted and also not completely clean.

I will need to remove both the dashes separating those blocks where the sorting could eventually take place and also a couple of composite numbers should
better have another file for its location.

Also could be added that luck apparently struck late in the last session, which makes me being late in the day.

I happen to know that a number like RSA-2048 could be having both a privacy issue, as well as that of a similar cryptographic such as well.

Because of that I happen to be of the opinion that we could perhaps stick with this issue and keep it this way, if possible.

But also the fact that this number is not too far off now when it comes to its possible factorization and could be so in the near future.

Saying so, because as mentioned, the last session ended up quite well and here another example that this could in fact be accomplished.

More after the first beer or two.

A little more right now. The P155 being found is not the same as a P155 already reported, but slightly larger.

Multiplying the two factors and you get a typical example of a "semimprime".

My guess is that this term perhaps should go for prime numbers instead, but next the question of any practical use of multiplying one of the largest Genefer primes with the largest Mersenne prime
in order for the composite number being returned.

In my opinion keying in a 94 digit number for a secret code because it has only two quite good factors, is a better option in my opinion, but here it became known.

Two people speaking different languages need an interpreter in between in order to understand each other.

The same goes for numbers like RSA-1024 and RSA-2048.

We use the latter as a means of encrypting information being transmitted between a sender and a receiver across the web, or net.

At least we may think it should be so.

This probably has been discussed before, but either RSA labs happen to have each of the factors individually, or the composite number was being chosen because it was found impossible to factorize.

We probably are left with the fact that if you happen to ask a cryptologist about the time of clock, he or she would only come up with or give you an empty face.

Therefore it becomes that of "scrambled" eggs for dinner when you rather wish to see both the codeblocks and the necessary keys being needed for such a purpose, but again the same thing.

At least from a limited knowledge of this, I could perhaps choose to define a given set of numbers as that between 0 and 255 (8 bit numbers) and next have these in 2^n pairs, where n is again a power of 2.

But if perhaps doing so, I could be back at where I once started by doing this, namely thinking that 2^n+1 could be slightly harder to do.

When I originally started with this, such a thing as 2^64+1 or 2^128+1 (or perhaps slightly larger) was relatively new.

Take the factors of these numbers, together with the known Mersenne primes, at least the smaller ones and there could actually still be some work to do.

Here a good example is 2^127-1.

Speaking of this makes a reminder of the attempt being made at bringing all of this together, by means of a composite number which should be familiar.

For now apparently no breakthrough, but also the fact that the asterisks (*) being put or placed next to "almost" matching factors, happened to be removed.

The factors are still in my list, but the whole testing needs to be redone, where needed.

For now it should suffice to say that I came quite close on this, but next do not have it in front of me.

The C147 probably could be broken or found in the near future, but also here we probably are still a bit off as well.

Two P34 factors, together with a P79 apparently makes a close call here, but need to get back here for the product of these three factors.

Should tell that my father passed away some 1 and a half week ago.

Therefore it gets a point of not forgetting that even such a thing as numbers could tell about your place of living, or the intended meaning of such a thing as well.

Such a thing as "Flatland" could have its possible explanation, but not necessarily by means of the tools being used for either computer graphics, or that of computer aided construction (CAD).

Definitely not the same as going in the Church either, because you could be left between a choice between the food you eat and next get rid off, in the same way as that of both birth and death could be that of
cyclic processeses for which no definitive explanations are being known.

chalsall 2017-03-31 22:08

[QUOTE=storflyt32;455904]Apparently a fly or insect woke me from my late sleep and perhaps I should say thanks this time.[/QUOTE]

Just wondering... You're talking to yourself.

I find myself very boring, and I find you much more boring. And you are talking to yourself.

Connect the dots. Answer?

storflyt32 2017-04-01 02:16

Ding, ding...

Edit: Could I perhaps make it "Reply to"?

Edit2: What if I happened to be a scientist and next I possibly could be having an idea?

Oh, we happen to know about that thing, don't we?

Namely that of "In the beginning".

Here at, our main concern or trivial fact occupying our day is that of coming up with a ("possible") prime number which could beat anything else currently known.

The slight culprit, or thing possibly in disfavor is or could be that of "join a project", next be told about given things, or facts, next take these as granted, if possible, but next and most importantly,
the method or methods being used for or in order for a given result or accomplishment in order to be obtained.


Perhaps not the most important here, but the fact that if you happen to be doing any science, including that of possible numbers.

Nasa, as a space organization, chose to both employ and also use the skills of talented scientists in order for a given purpose, namely that of putting a man into space by means of an orbit around the Earth and also that of a
manned mission to the Moon, a total of six successful ones and one ending in failure.

If your talent could perhaps be that of detecting or finding the largest prime number, perhaps not too bad.

But if such a talent could next be put into an even broader perspective, namely that of both understanding that of science, as well as relating that of possible numbers as well, probably even better.

One of the reasons for this blog, if I am not wrong and also even more could be added here as well.


science_man_88 2017-04-01 02:38


there fixed it for you.

storflyt32 2017-04-01 03:11

Thanks, science_man_88 .

For now watching the video.

Watching the light being visible in the video.

Becomes a short commercial break in between.

Possibly two tabs open for this and I have to press the play button in order to continue.

Anyway, no direct reference between that of both light, laser beams, interferometry and that of gravity, which as as possible force, has been previously discussed.

I will check in with the word above.


Despite, regardless, or nevertheless that of, or the force of gravity, or perhaps something else, we should know that this force is not necessarily about any numbers at all, regardless of perhaps being interpreted as such by either Isaac Newton,
or perhaps by Albert Einstein, by means of a given notion of time.

And definitely not that of possible prime numbers either.

Should tell that I give both of these much of my time.

Einstein was dealing much of his "time" with the subject or notion of time, but rather it became that of mathematics for such a thing, including that of both "Field equations" and also that of tensors for this.

If I happened to attend a mathematical lecture or lesson about that of (meaning the subject of) algebra at school, a given notion, or rather a practical explanation about this or such a notion could possibly not be returned or given by means of such algebra.

For some reason, the movie industry chooses to make, or rather popularize, a given subject, which by means of a scientific approach may seem or appear to be either unrealistic, or most likely not possible, namely that of "travel into the future".

Look at such a thing as both algebra and also that of a given understanding of both number factorizations, as well as that of prime numbers itself and it should be evident that such a thing is neither feasible, nor possible.

Heck, if I happened to know that a C200 was the product of two P100 factors, the scientific method, or at least the method being used for such a factorization could tell me this not to be either true, or at least not possible.

So, why are we speaking about such a thing at all?

Really, not the most important thing of all, because I already mentioned Albert Einstein above and the fact that a couple of things could still be "murky" science.

storflyt32 2017-04-01 03:30


A couple of factorization attempts being done or carried out here.

This number is having a P35 or so, meaning factor.

Pressing CTRL-C when running out and next the NFS command on the number, nothing more here.

Needs a complete redo here, which could take an hour or two.

Yes, the NFS command, or its possible implementation in Yafu is definitely better than nothing, but from above not perfect or flawless at all.

Here the developers need to look at a couple of things in my opinon, because here it is not perfect.

Giving a try on the number above using ecm.


Here "failure to equate relation" is being listed nine times in a row before the factors become visible.

Despite being an uneven pair in relative size, this C97 apparently was not the most easy one to factorize.

Also finished the circle here after noticing that there is also a P144 at the other end.


Next I will need to get back at the relationship between these numbers, because there are two other such ones as well, both quite difficult.

storflyt32 2017-04-07 01:30


Perhaps a bit of fun, or possibly that of an irony instead.

At the moment of writing, this number is still a CF.

The C86 remains to be factorized and could be so in not too long.

But the funny thing is that the factors are being found in one of my files, by means of pure numbers only.



The last two factors in the sequence above.

Where did these factors came from, at least the two last or latter ones?

Still needs a redo in order to have it uploaded.

Edit: So where is the "heavy" hand located in all of this?

Should I perhaps make it "heavy hand" instead?

The C67 made it into a pair of P31 and P36 factors.

You probably know that such a thing partly could be processor dependent or dependant and for such a reason I could be sitting on a list of factors which still have to be reported.

What if science perhaps could be fun, including that of dealing with possible numbers?

If I for some reason was able to say that a C300 was a product of two P150 factors, you probably would make a fool of me, because that or such a thing would be impossible.

But next, if you happen to think, or perhaps believe, that a number like RSA-2048 could be having some 617 digits, next a couple of questions could be on your mind.

Oh, if this web-page should still about the possible largest prime number which could be found, such a thing definitely could make a fool of myself, of course.

storflyt32 2017-04-07 07:29

In fact, I hesitate to report a couple of these ones because of the software itself, meaning algorithm.

Meaning perhaps better off, such a thing should perhaps go for that of RSA-1024.

Oh no.

In the world of Seti@home perhaps.


Or perhaps the hit-in your head hammer, meaning that of a possible sledge hammer for such.

Give me or perhaps "it" a try if you will and next why (or how) it don't or doesn't work.

Anyway, should tell that at least some of these broke and is lying aroud here.

Really it depends on the number itself or alone.

Some of these are more difficult to handle or deal with.

One of these, a pair of P35 and P191 factors are a typical example.

I will have it for you later on.



Here are some nice factors, but the FDB only returns P1 = 2 in the second link when keying in.

Anyway, at 08:25 AM in the morning, time to go to bed.

Should tell that with respect to both that of privacy, as well as possibly cryptography, I ended up with two factors this morning, which are having P1 = 2, P1 = 3 and P1 = 5 in between,
both ways for that of a 617 digit number.

I probably will not report this right now, but for now should tell that I recall such a thing in the past and also being mentioned here.

Right now I do not have this number, but as far as I am able to tell, this is probably the closest call or match yet.

Could next test each of the two factors against the C1133 of (2^4096+1) because there definitely is a relationship here which have yet to be found.


Should tell that this one became one of my better ones during the week.

I took the opportunity of comparing with RSA-100 when it comes to this number.

This makes for still one part of it, some 100 digits yet to be reported, but need to look around for this.


This one someone else was able to do when checking in.

Nice and it will add to the whole thing.



Here really only the C89 becomes in question.

Should tell that apparently this one could be a difficult one, because when doing it the opposite way from the magic number you know, it becomes a quite good pair, a P21 and P197.

Also the bad thing that I went out for the weekend shopping just before 6 PM yesterday and found the shop being closed.

Therefore I will have the shoes and jacket on in a short while for a second attempt, but the Saturday shopping is not necessarily fun.

Still some three or four numbers in progress, but these are difficult ones and I will have the fun of reporting what I have when back from the shopping.

With the C100 at the top on my mind, this became most of it right now.

Edit: Noted down the factors of the C89 before getting up and running here.

Not as difficult as originally thought, at least when using ecm on this number.





Also the same P56 end factor here, but here referring to the first link above and not the second.

Came across this before the evening coffee.

The two first ones may not be readily done, but at least giving them a try.

The software is telling about an ETA of some 23.06 hours from the start of it when it comes to the second link.

Down to some 18 hours remaining now.

For the first link above I do not have a similar estimate available.

In comparison, the pair of P30 and P56 factors took 53.6911 seconds to factorize.

Next the sad fact that doing the Saturday shopping and next enjoying the beer apparently took a toll, or beat on me.

I was thinking about doing a couple of things, including that of reporting a couple of numbers, but may have to postpone or delay that for later.

Sorry about that, but so it goes.

Check in with the C100 in a while if you wish.



Apparently a P226 at the other end here, but at least the C74 was being done by the server this time.

Perhaps time making another post right now.

But ever heard about "loopback"?


Example here and next try it out yourself.

Apparently it becomes a loopback here and not any or that difficult at all.

One of my factorizations during the day gave me a composite number in between.

For now I have not been looking at this and I will have to get back up my list for this.

Everyone knows that I am working on this....

I have to stop here.

Back tomorrow.


Anyway, became a bit long perhaps, but here was a quite good one at the end.


Got a bit more than expected here as well.

Apparently a "failure to equate equation" message, but this is a quite good pair.

SIQS elapsed time = 4512.1151 seconds.

Needs to get back to checking for the Magic number directly against or versus this number, because there could be intermediate results, or still a composite number.

But only 09:23 AM in the morning here, so this will have to wait after the evening coffee.


Anyway, it becomes giving a try on the C146.




Became finished after taking some time and as should be noticed, it becomes a loopback here, with the same three factors for all of it.

Right now wondering about how much there is still to go or remaining on this, since I am only left with a poor keyboard and mouse and only a Notepad search function or button for a couple of opened files.


Becomes a P123 being added and I do not know from where.

Needs checking, but a couple of more factors being stored which have yet to be reported.

Also had to write down the numbers and store them here as well.

I will have a cup of coffee before continuing with the rest.

There is a P74 in my factorizations. I will have it for you later on.

Meaning that P27 * P37 * P44 * P74 makes for something I still do not know, but could be able to find, except for also a P54 and a P123 as well.

Next the fact that any prime number possibly in between could be still as hard to find.

Better create a new post.

storflyt32 2017-04-17 17:36

A bit interesting while finishing off the last three beers.

P54 * P74 makes for (2^3) * 5 * P180 when doing it the opposite way.

A P37 different than the P37 above makes for a better factorization of a C147 in pair, so here not too far off.

Also a P60 being added to my list and also a P37 from a C184 (a different one).

But right now it became the end of the day here, so the rest will be for tomorrow.

- - -


ans = 16821990343253548090669268872290873662704331595155716853215743223815573253


SIQS elapsed time = 107131.8256 seconds.

***factors found***

P71 = 86008001756563880037319705217603661451969414306295966789160804218805323
P41 = 19558634080194454480169313467673487022977

ans = 1

Guess what I found.

I have not reported this factorization yet, but this is a very good one, in my opinion.

I think it should be no point reporting it yet, because there is a P27 and a P74 in another window and it could be nice to put the P71 and P74 together for a comparison.

Also could add that the C112 becomes a bit too small for the flip-around in the other end and therefore stumbles or gets lost on a C177 which could be even more difficult.

Rather it could be interesting to compare the individual factors with the larger Fermat factors, at least when it comes to my preference.

Even better would be comparing with any similar factor when it comes to size and next see what could be in between when making the "division" from the larger number.

Make the discovery before the details perhaps, but not getting it looking well.

Returning back at the computer before 8 AM in the morning, it now also has made it through the other way as well.

Becomes a pair of P47 and P131 factors here.

Total factoring time = 28085.3254 seconds, but not any SIQS here, since this is a direct factorization only.

I will have the cup of coffee first.

Becomes a P140 added to my list, but the C146 in progress ran out and nothing more from the NFS command either.

Also to large for SIQS here.

P44 * P47 * P54 makes for a P147 the other way, as well as some small ones.

Could perhaps add a little more here, since there was a post in edit which I canceled after making a copy of the contents.


This one was difficult, by the way.





Here rather the larger factors should be sufficient, but the fact that when "adding" more factors by means of multiplying, like the P14 above, the sequence becomes a different one and needs a new run.

The problem is that if I multiply four P60 - P80 factors with each other, I get a C240 - C320 or something like that.

Or, perhaps make it a bit simpler, doing this with only two factors and next adding or subtracting 2 from the product, it likely will be a composite number.

Multliplying a possible endless sequence, or at least long such factor list and you still end up with a composite number.

If a given method could show me directly (except for sieving) that being able to find a prime number only by such addition or subtraction, that would probably be a nice thing.

But apparently this is not so, so here we are still back at the way we think this should be done, for the lack of anything else.

storflyt32 2017-04-20 19:20

Becomes the cup of coffee right now and next having a couple of beers.


Only a C40 here, but had to add the factors manually.

Also could add that there is a P248 in the other end from the Magic number.

Or should it perhaps be at the other end?

Have not yet checked this factor, because it came in the door with the coffee.

But it will be added to the database at least when continuing with the factor upload.

Again the problem with both the stuck hands and the poor keyboard and mouse here.

Editing above and the P248 should be reported as soon as possible.



Anyway, I should have rather left alone the original text, or be leaving it as it was.

I have not been working on the C617 in detail, but the question becomes how many factors by means of numbers meet with each other, or becomes fully factored each way.

Here it apparently does with a P20 in between and next a PRP336.

I could add this one as well before I take a break.

Also it becomes a loopback at the P248 here, but perhaps not necessary to add.

More interesting perhaps should be the P20 in relation to the C617, since both the P248 and the PRP336 mutually excludes each other from the number in question.



Adding the P10 in the second link, but having the rest of it for both.

I could leave it for now and not doing anything, but using ecm with 2^21 curves here, it needed 4293 curves for the P29 and P36 factors here.

Also it should be a flip around from a larger number which needs checking as well and they do not always have to be that large.

Being a C147 this time, it becomes a P25 and P46 pair here, with 3979 curves needed for the ecm.

Getting back at it if there are not anyone else who does, but for now it became the end of the day.

Except for that, also that the C147 almost factorizes close to midnight with P1 = 2, P2 = 17 and P2 = 29 for two factors.

Apparently all three right now with a P36 and P46 for the C82 and I could be having some fun at looking at these results.

Doing so and the C82 becomes the "join" or perhaps merge between the other two factors, sharing one of them, meaning factors, for each of the other two.

I will have it later on, but apparently someone did it for me and I could leave off with the C135 running in the background.

Anyway, this is not something that I do during the day, but still something that could be looked at.

The factorization of RSA-768 is as you know available by means of a .PDF document for this.

768 is not meant to be divisible from 1024, at least not in a similar way or like that of 512 for the same.

There is a number somewhere down my list which could be an "official" RSA-512 number, but next the fact that I happen to lose track of it.

If a possible comparison between that of RSA-155 and that of RSA-512 (notice the difference) should be made, the latter number could "theoretically" be more difficult,
but here I have no proof.

Only the fact that RSA-155 became factorized and also is the perfect "slingshot" number, except for that of 2^4096+1, as you probably know.

Next what I believe to be RSA-512 still has to become factorized and could be a very difficult one so.

Need looking up the number for this here.

Anyway, if I got the factors for the C82 here, assumedly it would be similar to or like that of the C135 above, I guess.

Remember the fact that both the individual factors for RSA-768 and also the C232 as a whole does not match in or fit with that of the "Magic number".

Of course we rather could be discussing Mersenne 48 or Mersenne 49 instead, but for now I rather do not see the point.

My guess is that before checking, none of the factors in my list do not divide the magic number.

Also there could be one more such available in my list, but I have not been looking at that one.

Perhaps "fake it", or maybe cheating a little and assume or presume the factors of RSA-768 to be "loose" factors.

But apparently not so when it comes to the Magic number and in mathematical terms it becomes "RSA-1024" for this.

From what I am able to tell, this number is the perfect research number for a computer like this one and possibly the " " 's above are not needed.

Perhaps should not be discussed or mentioned, but I happened to give some time regarding that of a possible "RSA-4096", but apparently not able to find an example.

If someone could have been so polite or "cordially" in the past telling me that a prime number could possibly be found by means of 2^n - 1, where n is a P9, or the like,
most likely I would be happy, but apparently not so.

A P12, meaning 2^n -1, where n is a P12, most likely should be composite and next we also should know about that of sieving for such a thing.

The fact is that I happened to be running PrimeGrid and also getting PPS Sieve Jade (10 million sieve or sieving credits) without actually knowing what I was doing.

That is the silly part or point of it and also another part of the story.

Any factors or factor list being returned for now being returned becomes part of the internal structure, or storage system and at least I do not have it.

For now, Prime Sierpinski under PrimeGrid is back at more or less "nominal" values or perhaps numbers when it comes to the tasks in question.

For that of SoB, or Seventeen or Bust, the tasks apparently has become lost or in "haywire", meaning limbo and also I am not running these tasks either.

You probably know that I am not the one doing the "cryptographic" thing either, by means of perhaps guessing a couple of things from what should not be there.

I have yet to add Mersenne 49 to my disc, but next remember the fact that I did so when it comes to Mersenne 48 versus the largest Genefer prime.

For which purpose you may ask and could such a thing perhaps fit your wallet, or perhaps notebook?

You probably know that there should be no point of doing such a thing here, or at all, but what next about the rest of it?

Should it matter at all, or could it rather be more or less wasteful?

For now I will key in the number I got ending with 5 and next continuing from there when it comes to my factorizations.


Here another problem being noticed.

Getting slightly tired, should I return back to the Magic number for the rest or remainder here, or should I perhaps or rather continue in the ordinary or usual fashion?

You know, during the day, the rest, or remainder of it, could be in another window, but in the late night, together with a beer, I get stuck in the mud.

For now it becomes a C139 when returning back to the Magic number and here it will no more.

My guess, or presumably the same will be when it comes to the FDB as well here.

Perhaps this is the reason why I am having a list of P100 + factors, but not any similar for that of any P50 - P100 factors.

Again there is no point for me, or anyone else for that matter, of multiplying two P90 factors and next think you have the rest.

Oh no and so it goes, or should have been for a long time.

Anyway, or oops, the square root function or the "straight number" may of course not be used here.

Next. I forget the correct or proper word being used here.

Getting back at it.

If we rather could look at smaller RSA numbers, it probably could be shown that there is a given method for it.

But next which one, or why.

Again, reminds me about the feather for such a thing, but right now lost the word.

Also the problem that the text, or contents, could still end up being a bit long and when chioosing to edit, the contents could become lost, making for yet another copy and paste into Notepad.

Not a good thing, but except for that, if I get a C135 for which I do not know the factors for, what is in the other end?

Always needs or becomes checking and most likely it becomes a composite number.

Here is perhaps one of the main points.

A P112 "divides" or rather factorizes from the Magic number into a composite number which is having no small factors.

Then, or next. it becomes yet another sequence, with a given number (like RSA-155) in between and guess I am not silly.

Still, this becomes a fact and for this a possible workaround by a given method, resulting in yet another factor most often, or most of the time.

Another edit, or perhaps posting.

I had the Thursday beer. My apologies.





Here is a bad example for you.

By the way, I lost the C135 in progress overnight and needs a redo.

Need checking with the links before finished, but here is an example where it apparently does not work.

Only remembering that I gave the C186 a couple of hours a while back, without success.

Adding the P41 and PRP (or P99) factors for a C139 a little while ago, we have one side or endpoint for at least one more such pair, but still many more left.

A P138 in one of my windows for the factorizations probably does not make it with the Magic number this time either and this could go on forever.

Definitely this is the main point when it comes to this, but the question is how or in which way you get to such a number first and next being able to know that it is of such complexity.

For most of these numbers, starting the factorization the opposite way only makes it a composite number, like the C186, so the trick here is that of breaking it up in some way, making it easier.

The trick, as you probably know is that of taking RSA-155 for this, multiplying with the composite number and next the square root, because I found it to be an excellent example or choice.

The fact is that it could be difficult or impossible to determine if such a number and also that of RSA-768 happened to be "loose" factors from the start and next could be made such a slingshot at times.

Apparently bit length is a factor to consider as well and therefore the reason that the latter factor or number above did not find any much use for the other numbers being worked on.

I could add the link for the C139 next.




Here the problem is where you should be going next.

It should be quite obvious that pressing the "More information" button should be done, but next which numbers relate to each other.

Here the third link is from the first link and not the second, which becomes another number the opposite way.

storflyt32 2017-04-21 01:52

Anyway, adding a P125 to my list now, together with a P15, I have not checked yet.

But also being reminded that unlike the highest point or mountain of my own country, Matterhorn as a mountain is a steep cliff and therefore inaccessible, or not climbable, on both or all sides.

Here I was giving that of infinity a thought and also a possible approach when it comes to this subject, at least by means of being a possible number.

In the world of Project Management, like a couple of other places, you could be setting possible goals for that of a possible achievement.

Meaning that possibly one third of a vertical wall or climb for a mountain could be climbed or ascended in one piece or portion.

Such a thing is not available or present when it comes to that of infinity, or even RSA-1024, for that matter.

Yes, we call such things "checkpoints" when it comes to that of computing and also such a thing is having a specific or given name when it comes to that of Project Management as well.

For perhaps one thing it could be "Mission impossible" when it comes to a given thing, but does that mean Project Management, or possibly goals?

"We choose to be going to the Moon..." and so on.

Everyone knows that a prime number, or factor like 2^127-1 does not come from either 2, or 10, for that matter.

So, which end, if I may ask.

The fact is that except for 1, which is either "dubious", or no prime number at all, every or all other numbers could be regarded or viewed as composite for a simple reason.

Should it be 2 * 3 * 5 * 7, or perhaps 2 * 3 * 5 * 7 * 11 and so on, only because of the 2?

Or is there rather another or different reason for this happening, or being the case?

This because you are not supposed to neither factorize, or even be sieving, except for LLR, when it comes to numbers like 100 or 200 for this and this should be quite obvious.

The only thing in the end is that you could determine a number to be at least composite, but without knowing the factors, making up such a number.

Back tomorrow.

Should tell that in the early morning I forgot keying in the whole number using the factorization software and it became a P154 back in return the opposite way.

When next using the correct number by adding some nine digits on the second line, it also became a smaller factor, but here it was more difficult.

Except for that, the cup of coffee does not help today and I only have for one more over the weekend.

Also both a P20 and P30 together with a P108 and I will continue on this now.

storflyt32 2017-04-22 19:52

Here is a slightly bad example, but apparently with a happy end.



Adding a C63 for the P24 and P39 in the first pair, the rest is a P76.

Next flipping around the opposite way and at least one of the P21 factors was added.

Thinking a little more, it already knew about the smaller P21, but not the P16.

The larger of the two P21 factors became part of the final factorization.

But for the first part of at least the story, I really do know that I should be doing it one way and not the opposite way around, meaning that of multiplication this time.

Here is a bit of difference when it comes to the factors in size and also I was used to the fact that it did not work very well for a couple of other numbers around.

Perhaps something to give a thought about for a later time, including that of perhaps keying in the C63 before the rest of it.



Here apparently a P42 or P43 or so, but it ran in a window and I lost the whole thing.

Also it should be only the P113 end factor here, because I think there may be another factorization having a P36 before it.

Will be leaving the computer running after the evening cake and will check in tomorrow.

There should be no doubt that these large factorizations brings us closer to the target, or final destination, but the question still remains how many such are needed.

Multiplying the P99 Fermat factor with another P99 being found today, slightly larger, made for a factorization the other way which was somewhat difficult.

For now it becomes lost and close to 2 AM, I am not in for it right now.

Checking in with it here at 4 PM, it still says some two hours to go and it has been running since yesterday evening.

Anyway, returning back at the computer for the second time, it has been turned off and next losing everything.

Only becomes what I was able to save, but for now the work on the C135 is gone and needs a redo.

Also I need buying more coffee at the start, or in the beginning of the week.



An example here.

For now perhaps skip the P28 for a moment and look at the remaining composite number.

If you compare with the rather large list of factors being stored here, it should be quite clear or evident that there is no P120 or the like in these two.

It needs only two minutes of running in order to see or notice such a thing.

But also the fact that the prime numbers or factors making up these numbers are or could be the "missing" link when it comes to the remaining part.

Factorizing a number like the other C135, if possible, makes for doing such a thing with a number having a larger bit depth and therefore making up a larger part of the whole process.

Here it is a P28 preceding it, so perhaps difficult here. The C161 could perhaps return something during the day.

The only thing which should be known is that dealing with known prime numbers and their possible relationship could be one thing, but not necessarily for your pocket.

When it comes to myself, I am not into that of secret codes or cryptography, but the fact that the possible "King of numbers" is not about neither the square root, or the Golden Ratio,
perhaps is the most interesting part of it, or thing to consider.

Multiplying the C135 above with the C161 and next the square root and once again it become too high a bit level.

But next when flipping it the other way, it becomes a P25 added to the list from a C160.

I will add the link later on, but do not forget that I wrote quite a bit of it down yesterday.


Really no point of adding a P11, P13, or a P16 to neither the FDB, or my own list, but here it for now became a P156 added, when flipping around from a C152.

Also it became a P175 added to my list right now. I had two above P200 yesterday, meaning factors, which needs reporting.

Next both a P179 and a P130, which needs checking for the latter, but I will have the fried eggs for my dinner first.

The factor list here got very large right now.

The mentioned coffee and I have to go to the shop.



Here it became a pair of P18 and P128 factors in between, meaning fully factored, which I could add when getting back.

Becomes the cup of coffee after getting back from the shop and also a P145 added to my list, together with a P128.

Only the result output from the P128 right now, because it was two minutes ago.

But supposedly it will not divide and therefore become the same story all over again.

Once again that about the corresponding bit length, or perhaps bit depth for such a composite number.

Multiplying with the snapshot number, which should be well known and next the square root of the product could return a possible end factor, but only when doing so repeatedly,
or at least a couple of times.

Therefore, probably the better number, or perhaps factorization from the larger such task, which is not always possible.

Giving a try on a C123 being returned, it says or tells that 480144 relations are needed and next this tells me about a possible week of processing.

Doing the flip around on this number probably could be somewhat easier, but not having the links right now.

I bought two six-packs of beer for the weekend, but one of the bottles was leaking.

If it is supposed to be for cryptographic purposes, the .PDF document for that of the factorization of RSA-768 is no exception.

Rather I could have wished for a better explanation for this and next the fact that you could be doing one thing using a 8-bit or 16-bit processor and next another with a 64-bit processor.

Always the beer at the end of the day, but I could be looking for the one quite big one which made it through.

The P128 makes it to a P119 at the other end, so here it becomes an excluding pair.

Fun perhaps, but should tell that I have most of the original listings available to me when it comes to the factorizations in the FDB, but not by means of direct copy and paste.

In fact, it did not work very well, because of the web-based (.html) format.

So for now, apparently 2^12+1 becomes the farewell, or leaving point, but not so because 2^4 = 16.



Possibly we should know why it happens to be so.

Still Fermat numbers rather than Mersenne numbers, you know, but there is really no point of listing the factors for the possible "semiprimes" in full here, because this is not the point.

Only that you should know that I happen to know about it.

Make it that of perhaps a "numbermaniac" for such a thing, or that of cryptography, I do not think this really matters the most either.

Rather my guess is that possible number theory could be about finding the "better number", meaning prime number and for this you have to dig in the sand and not skim the surface.

If I multiply the largest Genefer prime with Mersenne 48 (for now being stored locally), what is supposed to be the large, or largest prime number "in between" these two?

Is it possible to determine whether or not any of these prime numbers are perhaps the "better" or "best" such numbers, only because they are the largest known?

For now unable to get across a possible example number for that of RSA-4096, but for a number being a megaprime, probably no similar thing should be available or present.

Anyway, for the first of the two links above, how do I get to the product of the factorized part of this number, meaning the prime numbers, or factors, except for the four composite numbers at the end?

Please have me corrected, but it should be 1252...15 (or 015 for the last three digits) here.

From the output, I make it at some 1520 digits in total, because I next get P1 = 3 and C74 = 52441485942607521390693352751866808144157473645328701417880476970246676565,

which includes most of it including two P10 factors, but apparently skips 26017793 and 63766529 when it comes to the factorization of the C74.

The P1 = 3 makes it one digit less on the last line of the first result output.

Did I perhaps make it wrong, but digging a bit further, I do not get these two becoming visible.

In the end, the C1133 is a semiprime number when it comes to the factors, but I removed the small mark, or asterisks for the closest match in my list.

Better make a copy of the remaining number and use the Yafu factor command instead.


If I let this one run, it will probably end up in the C1133, but are you next supposed to think or believe that 2 could be a prime number when doing the possible loopback, or flip-around?

My guess is that I could be able to find these numbers right now.

The two small factors became added when trying a little harder.

The only thing being noticed is that this may not be necessary, but what next if you do or try it the opposite way, meaning from (2^8192+1 and so on, including perhaps 2^65536+1 for now).

Or perhaps 2^127-1 as a prime factor and also Mersenne prime versus the P27 of (2^65536+1) one or the other way?

Supposedly this could go on forever and we do not know all the factors yet.

Also a little bit of surprise right now.

Dividing, or at least "trial-dividing" the remaining C1251 with the C1133 of (2^4096+1), it does not divide, but rather it becomes a separate P85.

Down to a C1230 right now and I will give it a little more, because here is apparently something else.

Apparently works right now, except for the keyboard and mouse.

Adding a P13, P19 and a P256 to my list and now I am off, but check in for the link to the factorization on my mind.

Anyway, before I leave off for tonight, the P256 makes it for P1 = 2, P1 = 3, C8 = 40483175 (5 * 5 * P7 = 1619327 * P12 = 307552285267 * P341 the other way, but again I am not a numbermaniac.

Skipping the P1 = 5 above for better clarity, but the C597 or so should be having something in between when going in the top-down direction (meaning the C1133).

storflyt32 2017-04-25 03:06

And now a PRP1071 being added to my list, which is a titanic prime.


Adding the P14 here, but what is 1071 + 51 ?

Becomes P12 = 332244975823 for now.



But apparently no mentioning of the number of digits in 10^9999 + 33603

FDB says 10000 digits even or straight here, but the isprime command in Yafu is not listing the number of digits.

Except for the parentheses around, quite plain or obvious here why no need for punctuation above.

Doing it using ecm, it takes almost an hour for the same thing.

Not in my list either, so therefore adding the prime number.

Could make another post right now, but again was thinking about that of number theory.


Shh, please do not tell.

P62 = 55355442522357911987182585300149823795012425450699173116409459

P69 = 266464646194847274613461762045055903679186603153520547486021564492567


Because for now it becomes only loose factors here and is therefore not a fair way of doing such things.

At least it could be fun doing so a couple of times.


Becomes the above for the rest, except for the possible switch-around which could be next done.

I still have the beer in my hands and also the rest of it (if any) remaining.

My possible problem right now is that of BOINC right now, or for the moment.

You probably know that I am perhaps dealing a bit with the part of it which is not necessarily repeatable, or perhaps straight-forward.

The PRP12576 I found could perhaps be in my thoughts and next how it perhaps works with, or interacts, with something even bigger or larger.

For now the answer may not be known, but my guess is that it could be "jump into the sky and next into the heaven" for such a thing.

Although not specifically mentioned, the word "fallibles" versus "infallibles", meaning possible "fallability" versus that of a given "infallability" was not being mentioned here.

Rather it could be so, or mentioned at BOINC, but for now just telling, or perhaps explaining, what science is supposed to be all about.

If rather "all about" above, I perhaps could be proud, but next perhaps not so.

The reason is that the word "Credo" is supposed to mean or meaning "I believe" for such a thing.

Next, possibly "Out of the blue" and it could mean that of Credo for this.

If such a thing as "I believe" next could be about perhaps doing so, it could be just fine, or great.

I got the sense, or perhaps feeling, earlier on when posting, that seeing could perhaps be believing, or in fact it could be even more so.

Should tell that from a Moderator's point of view (here Seti@home) and not the view that science could perhaps be of a priority.

Why so? Is it perhaps of possible results, or maybe that of ridiculing instead?

Being kind of a scientist myself, I happen to be dealing with, or being concerned, with the Scientific Method currently being used.

For one thing, that of possible ridiculing, or even that of blasphemy itself, could mean the possible "dead end" of a scienitst when it comes to his or her doing and also whereabouts.

So, for one thing that of science at least, or for sure and next the scientist.

"Dig me a grave", perhaps, because it could, or is supposed to be in the history books,

So it pehaps could be or mean that of possible "truth", but if not so, are we supposed to be still scientists?

What if the method of proof, err. meaning possible science could be about such a "truth" as well and not necessarily about any science.

I mentioned the fact before that "science could perhaps be believing" and still we are supposed to believe in the Scientific Method.

Except for that possible "witness to the execution" could perhaps be doing it better, but next why possibly so?

In fact, am I supposed to believe in possible UFO's, or even aliens, because such a thing could be present, or visible in the sky?

Please have me excused right now, but except for that of possible witness, or witnesses, we most likely are back at the original, or perhaps true facts, of this story.

Who knows, in fact and the question possibly still is remaining, but except for that, we are supposed to be relying on the sources.

Looking for the second, or perhaps third typo above.

storflyt32 2017-04-25 15:37


For that of fun of course and not necessarily anything else.

Perhaps too much beer the other evening.


Same goes here, because in fact it is still running, by means of ecm.

Working on another C88 right now and will have the link in short while.

Still a bit left to eat when it comes to the dinner, but the ... (not finished)

Oops, again.



Becomes a SIQS number for the second link above and next you are welcome at giving it a try.

Becomes C78 = 183379428322420464701721229273679259235432168721706230357025935095022081476687, for this.

Presumably this way of order as well, because I could report the factors, but not necessarily all the factorizations in between, because then it becomes a copy of a Notepad list.

Finishing off the coffee and cake first.

Before doing the rest above, also thinking about that of a possible overcommitment and the fact that the number above could also relate to the Magic number.

Becomes an odd number at first, ending in 7 and possibly not keyed in before.

It should have at least one or more small factors, but next I do not yet know the answer.

For now it becomes a C231 and also with no factors, but next also the known error message,

Assertion failed: (__builtin_constant_p (1UL) && (1UL) == 0 ? ((F[deg])->_mp_siz
e < 0 ? -1 : (F[deg])->_mp_size > 0) : __gmpz_cmp_ui (F[deg],1UL)) == 0, file pm
1fs2.c, line 1843

Apparently working in the second attempt, but next could take some time to complete.

Becomes both 74/74 curves and also 214/214 curves here for only a P10 or P11 and I will let it continue.

Before the cup of coffee, a couple of small factors, but next the same set, or sequence on each side for a couple of previous factors and I did not have the time for it.

Also did not make it to my notes, but possibly became keyed in.

For this, needs a rewind of the log if possible and it may perhaps not work.


P36 = 150893591465383076176058986471020677

P54 = 163611028396365955823312333320675514474810935635362887

Still running by means of ecm and yet I know the answer.

How come?

Except for that, becomes a C202 at the other end and I will have the link next.

Becomes 3:40 AM in the morning and finishing off with a better one, which actually broke before checking.

The rest or remaining part was an easy one, but will have to get back at the links tomorrow, because the computer is telling me so.

Becomes the whole text when continuing with the edit, so confused at first.

Need doing the weekend shopping again.





Here an example where it becomes way to high, at least when it comes to that of bit depth, or bit size.

Needs checking here, but except for that need the correct order of the links.

Just in case, but the C117 is not having the P23 or P40 as one of its factors.

Becomes the factorization here and also that I did this yesterday.

The factors are P30 and P88, respectively.

Also breaking up the C179 in the usual way returns a C183, which although larger, is easier to do.

The C118 the other way is more difficult and could take a while.

Becomes a P27 or more likely P28 here and still running.

Next should be adding the link as well.

Takes 92.3683 seconds for the redo of the C117, but original running time was 526.9651 seconds.





I think I rather should add the latter pair to my list and continue from there.

Posting first before looking at what I have, but for now it becomes in wrong order.

Adding the P19 and P147 to my list, but as usual it becomes the "impossible pair" one way versus the easy pair, but without any complete solution.

Becomes a P145 as well when back from the shop and still cold and also one of the bottles was leaking in the bag without my fault.

I will have the cup of coffee first, because the factor list here became very large.

The thing being both noticed and also learnt here is that a factor like the P147 factorizes down into a composite number the other way.

Next breaking it up by multiplying with a well-known slingshot number, next taking the square root and continuing the factoring process, this time it becomes a P119 when doing it this way,
this time from the P145, which becomes a later reporting.

Therefore it is the composite number in the middle which is or becomes the sticking point, or perhaps key here.

Depending on both size, as well as that of bit depth, this number could at times be very difficult and at other times easier.

Together with a P18, it ended up in my list before continuing here, despite a couple of problems.

Right now a P168, which is not that bad and needs checking after the cup of coffee.



Here a P31, in the second link past midnight, but needed 202123/2097152 curves by means of ecm.

I will have it in a short while, but getting a sense that this could soon be coming to an end.

Next, becoming P1 = 2, P5 = 11867 and next a P123 and really you should know that I already know.

It is like being perhaps a little greedy and having a piece of cake lying on a desk.

For some reason I could have the large piece, while I am rather not supposed to be doing so.

Each time I do this, it rather becomes a thin piece at the edge, leaving the rest of it still behind.

Therefore, I also knew the fact that although perhaps many digits, a factor on its own is still only one single number, or entity.

Because of that, not only that of gcd (Greatest Common Divisor) as included or a built-in feature in Yafu when it comes to that of composite numbers, but also that of
prime number or factors could be having a possible "weight", not only from their respective digits, but also their difficulty when it comes to possible factorizations.

In fact noticing this for at least composite numbers, but right now also becoming evident for that of the individual factors as well.

Also the fact that while becoming slightly long, no such thing as RSA-8192, or even RSA-4294967296 and you probably know why.

Guess it is supposed to be numbers and I could perhaps make it a bit smaller.

Read back at the mentioned cake above and we are supposed to believe that the better prime number could be in the middle and not close to the edge.

But next the fact that it most likely becomes a composite number before any factors for such a thing.


Apparently one of the possible failures of the software here, because I went back at the starting file for this.



But also the fun fact that the software is being left undecided here because of pure multiplication only.

Trying with nfs on the C309, which is not the Magic number, by the way and it becomes an endless sequence of failure output still running.

Becomes a P27 from a C280 right now, which I think the FDB may not have.

Adding it to my notes before continuing from there.

Sensing the fact as mentioned, perhaps getting a bit closer just before 2 PM.

Here a C369 factorizes into a P21 and a 348 and becomes added to my list.

Always the question around how many times this may be needed, because I could grab a piece of cake, not necessarily "mine", while you also could be doing the same thing and next we may never
meet or encounter each other in the middle.

If Mersenne48 or Mersenne49 could perhaps be the largest prime numbers known, they could still be at close to their end branches and not somewhere in the middle.

If I could be able to define that of Mersenne48 versus the largest Genefer prime number at least a composite number, but not necessarily any RSA number, I could next say "nothing in between".

But in fact this is probably not true and for this that of the mentioned cake above.

In fact, I had a C94 becoming lost in my notes and unable to find it.

Here it became almost impossible and next could be the paper in your wallet for the secret code to the safe or vault.

Two separate P174 factors in their separate boxes here and I think it became noted down.

The product of these two becomes a C348 or the like and theoretically could be a semiprime from a C617 of regular or (perhaps) commercial use.

Really, I do not think that P5 = 65537 is a factor of this number, but supposedly this could be the chosen way of doing things, by means of a certain .PDF document.

Rather I choose to thread lighter here, as mentioned, because of this, rather than taking this for granted.

Needs a possible edit above.

Yes, perhaps slips, but next add (or multiply) some 100 P100's (not to confuse).

What do you next get?

Yes, a composite number which should be hard to factorize.

Rather the fact that if I happened to be one of those scientists, I could perhaps choose or go for some 2^152788627 -1

Brr. Needed opening up my small factor list here, but next you probably know the answer.

In my opinion, perhaps making it that of 152788627 like above could next make for a possible excuse, because you most likely could tell me the readily answer.

What if I rather made it a P10 or above instead and like the movie itself next perhaps ask "Shall we try", or perhaps "Give it at try"?

Here I was thinking about that of "War Games", but right now missing both the fictional characters as well as their names.

Nice one above, but next getting back at it.

Noticing here that one of my C136 in progress apparently blew and needs a very big SIQS for this.

Apparently some 844336 relations needed here, which could make for some fun.

For now remebering the first four digits and it should become stucked, or perhaps stuffed away in the FDB.

Doing it the opposite way from the Magic number should be more easy.

Checking and I will add the links here.

The P108 here is definitely way of target, like most of it as well, but you probably never know.

storflyt32 2017-04-29 14:26

Making a new one and thanks as well.


Running since yesterday afternoon and also could be some four hours left to go.

My guess is that this could perhaps not be the whole story.

Some P131 * P168 makes for a composite number which except for anything else could be a possible semiprime.

Again that discussion as well, perhaps.

In the world of 64-bit processors, I am also supposed to be entering the number, or numeric "superhighway".

Yes, make it that of numerical.

This may not always work and whether or not it is the factorization software, or perhaps something else to blame, could be an open question.

The fact is that at times I could be pushed or given the result anyway and it could be kind of below the table, or perhaps "underhand", meaning without notice.

Is the possible (still) missing result there because there may another or different way or method of doing this?

If it was decided that the case was closed for every number less than 120-150 digits, what next?

Should I perhaps believe in the software, or perhaps my ability, for such a thing, or if it happens?



Not a good one here and you probably know as well.

Except for that of possible "number saturation", meaning that of possible overflow of numbers in the FDB, which I also heard about.

Really, or in fact, we probably do not know it all, as mentioned above or earlier, because of that cake in question.

My personal computer probably makes a guarantee that both 3 * 7 = 21 and also that 5 * 7 = 35.

Next the fact that the 7 becomes that of gcd here, meaning that thing.

What if I could be able to say the same for that of the larger RSA numbers?

Next the answer here that it will probably not work, for a good reason and the same most lilkely goes with that of other numbers of similar size, or possibly larger.

Should tell that because of that, there could be a P400+ factor somewhere in my list, but next from where or perhaps what?

Doing the same thing over and over again, only returns either a composite number, or perhaps a prime number, meaning factor, which next does not divide.

Oh, come on. Should we not be familiar with this story, only because of that little +1 at the end, because it is supposed to be about numbers?

Killing off the last sentence, because rather bingo at 3 AM in the morning, both the C104 and the P99 being worked on gave in.

The C104 is a P35 and P70 pair and not too difficult.

The C99, however, is a big pair of P43 and P57 factors and gave me "failure to equate equation two times", before finally listing the factors.

But now I got tired and perhaps I should wait until tomorrow for this, including the links for this as well.

Total factoring time = 1161.1184 seconds

SIQS elapsed time = 12250.5657 seconds.

There is a missing "." in the regular factorization compared with that of the SIQS, which also makes it look better.


Becomes this better one of four factors when starting up today and again the P43 and P57 was a quite difficult one.

Continuing after having a break, the C203 is having the P35 as part of a regular factorization.

Next dividing with the C99, which is the product of the P43 and P57, leaves only the P70 left alone.

Also the C169, where the P35 is subtracted, brrr, by means of division, is having a P134 in the flip-around, with only a couple of small ones in between.

Need going for the weekend shopping first and also the cup of coffee and the rest will have to wait, including perhaps a little more upload of numbers.

Anyway, thank you for being so friendly with me.

Should tell that with a slight problem of my left arm and also an not too clean room, I am doing quite a bit when it comes to the business of numbers.

The number of Mersenne primes now stands at 49 and including both 3, 7, 31, 127, 8191, 131071, 524287 and 2147483647 as the starting points, or sequence.

But in the end, my guess is that the total number of both prime numbers and factors could be into the millions known.

The square root function built into Yafu could be helpful at times, but for the larger RSA numbers still composite, that of the Golden Ratio is not of any help.

In the world of numbers, it could at times be that of "summa summarum", or at least a brief summary when it comes to the numbers.

My experience with that of factoring is showing me that there could be a possible "proportionality" principle around.

Everyone knows that finding a large prime number may be quite difficult, but quite often the smaller factors are more often than wished for.

Here it could become a lull as well, because at times not very much might be found, while at other times the opposite.

Such a thing as factorizing a couple of numbers for that of RSA could make me dig into the cake at times and not only at the edges.

The possible P112 may not divide from a C309, but when next flipping around, using a fixed composite number as a slingshot and next the square root,
it could end back at yet another factor at the other end.

To me or myself, when looking at this, it becomes kind of "twisted" when being so, or such a thing happens.

Despite our computational resources, or at least capabilities, the fact is that there apparently is still no answer to this question.

Continuing in the buffer right now.



Here it became a quite large one, but I have not added it yet.

Except for that, a pair of P40 and P135 factors here and took a long time for the whole thing.

Total factoring time = 54229.5868 seconds

I will have it a little later on, but probably makes for a good continuation of the process.



Apparently becomes a P120 the other way, or perhaps continuing, when trial-dividing the C160 with the same P40, but the question becomes whether it is worth repeating it.



Another quite good example above.

Struggling a bit with the P23 in a second window, the remaining C183 could be very difficult, or perhaps impossible.

When saying so, I check in with the running task and here is a P31 or P32.

Probably ends here, but could give it an hour more as stated by the ETA in the task.

If possibly ending up with a C152, it once again becomes back at the Magic number for the rest of it.

Checking in, it also became the P32 as well, but I had the edited text lying in the buffer.

From my factorization windows only and not keyed in as a composite number, although the separate factors should be.

C87 = 261208748569169232147807101784997894312094169389780155790648085158086857935801673033619

P40 = 3804903139725301145123939483508603713159

P47 = 68650564541842046369160975803860635081764289941

Try it out yourself if you wish, but for now I will not do this one.

In my fridge now for the remaining three beers, one at a time.

The sad fact is that numbers alone may not be science to all people.

If you happen to join BOINC as a distributed project, it should be well known that computing should both be and mean computing for science.

Without necessary critisizing in any way, the possible subject of UFO's, or that of possible aliens or extraterrestrials could be possible science, at least at Seti@home.

Some people could perhaps make it "Little Green Men" of the whole thing if not that of such UFO's, but for the sake of possible music and entertainment, we could at times be speaking about the
"Children of Earth".

Not wanting to stray to far away from the subject here, but that of analog versus digital should be an important subject.

Both the scratching sound from the playback of the old turntable before the days of the CD-ROM for such playback, or even computerized in any way, where also that of synthesizers, both hardware and also possible software,
using a staple or pin, or perhaps stick, gave sound by means of analog playback and also quite often a similar recording as well.

Sound is supposed to be waves and therefore that of frequency for possible radio waves, if not that of decibel when perhaps turning up the volume.

The classic reference handbook for that of BASIC as a programming language, is standing in my shelf and here a chapter about sound is included.


Keying it wrong when halfway in the first bottle, it should still be a difference between the WOW! signal and the Arecibo message.

For now the binary output of 23 * 73 lines / columns, making it 1679, lies on my disc and the meaning of it could actually be visible from the output alone.

Next I made the perhaps stupid confusion or mixing in believing that a possible "semiprime" also lying around could be possibly related with that above, which it is not.

Also the fact that some people think that silly and stupid is not the same and the latter could be a perhaps bad word, but still apparently being used.

For now this semiprime number is having no listed factors, but the factors are probably known here.


Only the fact that for now, apparently all the Mersenne prime numbers including M23 ended up in full on my disc and also Mersenne 48, but for now, not the most recent find.

The C94 once stumbled across did not make it anywhere when trying and later became lost.

Should that of factoring, or factorization of numbers be perhaps "processor independent", or should it still be about the numbers themselves?

Apparently an unanswered question here.

Also another disappointment visible right now.

Just for fun I picked up some larger factorial numbers using Yafu.

Keying in XXXX# where the "#" stands for factorial, either "+1", or more preferably, "-1" should next be added.

For many of these numbers, P1 = 3, could be a factor, but using DOS in a window, the factor becomes listed at the top and next the whole remaining number, without anything else.

Not only does it cover the whole screen at times, but also the visible buffer when scrolling upward, without reaching the initial start or beginning of the number, including the possible factor.

The only possible solution is noticing any difference in the output, at least when it comes to the ending part, but with a couple of bad eyes, including that of being nearsighted and also a couple of beers,
it becomes a bit difficult.

Here a fix could perhaps be needed in order for the possible factors being visible at the end, or bottom part of the output, as well.

Anyway, 09:45 AM in the morning right now and it could still be one more beer left in the fridge.


Getting a bit tired now, but using the usual or standard method, or perhaps chosen way of doing this, the C174 is at least one level too high up.

Doing the square root and next flipping it around, it becomes a P137.

Still thinking about a bit of factor upload here, at least when it comes to possible numbers, but next the fact that I am not here for only that of posting Mersenne 49 in full.


Back here right now and perhaps feeling a bit ashamed.

First of all, by first look, the C203 as a whole does not relate to any possible higher, at least the one possibly in my thoughts.

Therefore, this rather becomes more or less "loose factors" in one way or another.

Next, the fact that Yafu was able to come up with at least the P35 and also the C99 making up the P43 and P57 made for a quite good on its own.

What is missing here? Is it perhaps still trial-dividing or division for the rest, or remaining part, or could it perhaps be something else?

Getting back at this later, when the beer has been consumed.

I canceled the edit and rather saved it, because it could have left the tracks.

The C82 mentioned above did not make it with ecm using 2^21 curves, but still apparently is a valid pair.

Also should make it a bit further as well, but needs checking.

Here the whole problem becomes quite evident, because supposedly there should always be a prime number in between a composite number and next guess what that might be.

The flip-around of the large factorization became the same P40, together with the P120 and initially a PRP120 for the latter.


Total factoring time = 83001.4024 seconds

My guess is that there still remains much to be discovered or found, but also that a P100 may take a second or two, while still a PRP10000 could take several minutes or more only for its factorization.

Except when perhaps running blind and think that you could do it by means of LLR instead.

The coffee is not helping right now, so I better have a short break, but with a C170 in a window and in the process of 4480 curves, the question is whether that of direct factor reporting should perhaps be better.

A P105 versus a P140 is not supposed to factorize, at least when being a composite number, but rather could become a more likely fact.

But next perhaps you should still be with your software for such a thing and not your way of thinking.

Still the middle of the day here, so anyway...


Here is a nice one that I have the factors for.

Therefore no need to try it out, but rather the flip-around here is having a P14 for now and I will let it continue.

This number I could well key in before the rest of it.

storflyt32 2017-05-07 17:02

Making a new one here because here perhaps something of importance.

But here it apparently "divided" straight on by means of that of the "non-divisable" built into Yafu and for the Magic number it became the other immediately or straight on.

Actually did not test it further because of the daylight, but my guess is that it also will do so the other way around and not the flip-around here, but rather the factor itself.

Almost going to say that I did not do so, because it became a little up my list, but rather doing so anyway, one factor ends with "7" and the other with "3".

Therefore not the correct one this time either, but if next continuing, it becomes that of a rewind to something much farther back and I do not think this is the correct answer or thing to say.

The smaller factor is a P133, while the larger one is a P176.

Multiplying the factors next should get it pretty close, I think.

I will have the cup of coffee first.


Starting up a new day, I still feel a little bad about this one.

In fact, the whole number is a "multiply".

The P35 may be factorized from the C203 and I probably did so and choose to go for a repeat today.

Also the C99 making up the P43 and P57 pair became factorized and here it was a bit of work for this.

What is perhaps remaining for the ...


Here it should be the C203 except for the P70, but again, this could take the whole day.

Going for the weekend shopping right now, I do have a couple of these in running, but it could take some time.

I will have the rest of it when back from the shop.


Sorry about the dashes.

The C84 at the end needed 349008/2097152 curves by means of ecm and took much of the day.

This is a better one and should be put in your pocket in order to unlock the safe.

Back later.


At 06:15 AM in the morning.

Ring a bell, or what?

Needs possible trial dividing here, because this one may never show up.


Here it should be the P43 for this, but apparently still in the blue, or at least running.

Always the left-over, or perhaps flip-around and during the week I had P2 = 19 in between, among a couple of others.

Also the fact that the current way of doing things could be something else than perhpas pretending that a * b = c, rather than perhaps the opposite way.

At least most of the time.

One of the things which separates, or makes a possible difference between such numbers as these and that of a megaprime, is that of computation time.

Most likely the same principle or method could be used for very large numbers, but here it becomes both cumbersome and time consuming.

Prime numbers, or at least composite numbers are not . . . (thinking)

A good example is 17 * 19, which is 323.

Always a composite number for this if it should be a larger number for possible reference.

Just for fun, 617 alone is a factor.

617 / 323 is roughly or ~ 1.910 for that of an approximation of the answer (or when it comes to such a thing).

Multiplying by 10 using Windows Calculator returns 955108359133126934984520123839, which makes for factors
13, 181 and P27 = 405910904858957473431585263 when the decimal point vanishes out of sight.

My guess is that the P27 needs to be added and next being so.

Next makes for a never ending story when it comes to the whole thing.

Back later.

Adding a PRP3605 to my list while still in the chair.

Oops, sorry about that but actually hurting a bit while sitting in the chair most of the day.

Found several good factors today, among them a P149 and at least two or three, or perhaps more P150 + factors.

Testing out, none of these divides however, but in fact quite close at least at one occasion, or perhaps rather time.

If not wrong, we could be speaking about possible bit length at times, despite the size of the complete or overall number.

If it rather could be that of bit depth instead, it could perhaps add a bit more to the subject.

If some of, or at least a couple of these numbers remain to be factorized, it is not necessarily because they are "tail numbers" or factors and in this case composite,
but rather the fact that we think of both the "Magic number" as well as its larger cousin as being composite numbers made up from, or representing individual prime numbers,
which then or next are factors.

Therefore that of possible bit length above, because for at least one such number, we think it could be a 1024-bit number.

Next make it 2^1024 for such a thing and following that, add or subtract 1 to the number.

Easy as cake perhaps, but next perhaps not.

Compare with that of PrimeGrid, where not unexpectedly it is now the preferred method, or chosen way of increasing the value of b, or p, rather than that of n.

Probably we should know the reason for this happening as well.

If I for some reason could find a prime number rather than only just a factor, I could end up perhaps relating such a number with something else even larger.

Next which possible number, except for either 2^1024, or even 45786^4194384+1 .

Becomes only a random example here, because at least 45786^32+1 makes it an odd number and next composite.

Increasing the value of n by possbly doubling or squaring, most likely do make any such number still composite even in the long run.

So what next about possible factors in between, both when it comes to their sizes, as well as individual number of separate factors?

If I happen to run the Factor Database, or perhaps being in charge of it, which I am not, I could be making possible Statistics on it, or the whole thing.

If rather choosing to be doing so, it could become sieving at best and possibly nothing more.

Make p * 2^n +1 a composite number, next legally divide by means of sieving and (p * 2^n +1) / (2^n-1 +/- 1) becomes a possible prime number.

And not necessarily any composite number either, despite such a thing happening most of the time and next the rest of it should not be in the cards either.

If so, except for that of sieving, of course, where should such a thing be the perhaps more important?

Should it perhaps be the Riesel problem, because it is about a "conjecture", or should it rather be the 321 Prime Search, because here that of n could be both +1 and -1 ?

Now I am off and enjoying the rest of the beer.

Oh, even the PRP22084 at the bottom of my list probably does not make it any news.

So why the point here, except for perhaps that of Cryptography or secret codes?

You should know that possible science, except for that of numbers, also could be making the difference between the idiot and the single or regular user.

Perhaps the reason for this could be that of thinking about a possible "result" versus an "achivevment", or perhaps "goal".

I happended to be mentioning that of the Apollo program somewhere else during the week and also the fact that such a program, or perhaps mission, could be stated, or otherwise given using a couple of other words.

Before checking, it probably became that of a "venture" for such a thing and next a "joint venture", at least when it comes to that of space.

As "per se", or at least by definition, there is no secret in the fact that possible numbers could be there for a given purpose, whether or not it is supposed to be your wallet or maybe kind of a science
which may not be comprehended by anyone.

A factor P31 is supposed to be so or such when it comes to a composite number n, or maybe even n+1.

Presumably at least that of n alone makes it odd, rather than even, but next when adding (or subtracting the 1), should the answer still be the same?

I guess that the answer eventually makes possible fools of ourselves and not necessarily about the numbers themselves.

Numbers alone in my opinion are not about any moderation issue at all.

Look at such a project like Seti@home and next you could believe that it may be about possible numbers alone, but the fact is that this in fact may not be true.

If you assume a possible Method, or at least a way of progress, you next probably, or most likely would blame the end user if such a thing does not happen, or is otherwise unsuccessful.

If such a thing as the Apollo program could perhaps "I wish to go to the Moon, not because it is easy, but because it is hard", the answer may be far from the actual Truth.

Are you supposed to be in the "high seat", because at times you could be a scientist?

Or rather the fact that astronauts visiting the surface of the Moon was of the opinion that they were not alone when doing so.

At PrimeGrid, we choose to make it "Astrophotography for rats" for the lack of any better.

At BOINC you could also end up being a possible stupid idiot.

For this to ever happen, guess we had that of the possible user versus the possible scientist and next that of a given "Idiosyncracy" as well.

Becomes a "Copy and Paste" for that above, because I think it is slightly better when it comes to contents.

storflyt32 2017-05-14 09:36

Should I perhaps make it a new one here?


In fact there should be even one more here, because it is part of a C203.


This one is perhaps a bit tricky, or at least difficult as you probably know.

Rather it becomes the flip-flop side which becomes the question here.


The C157 here is not going to make it, as far as I can tell, like my own keyboard and also near-sighted eyes.

Ran it most of yesterday and when returning back after sleeping off the last three beers, it was still running.

Here, in fact, you do have some three or four quite nice factors and therefore one could assume that both the number as a whole and also its part or parts should be "weighted" of sorts.

The C157 is a semiprime number of sorts,meaning two factors.

Is it possible to trick or perhaps fool a bit around and next make me think that I could have the factors in some way?

I went a little down my PList for the factors and came across two such below the lines for the factors of RSA-155 (the "slingshot" number),

Therefore it became two P78 factors for this.

Next "dividing" (supposedly means trial-dividing, but may not always work either),

first gave me a couple of small ones, next a P13 and a P62, which for both I kept.

The larger of the two next did the same, but except for the small ones, once again, here it became a P14 and next a C60 which needed a little more.

With 2^21 curves using ecm it became a pair of P23 and P37 factors.

Next, that none of this has been reported yet, only lies around here.

The point is that multiplying the P37 with the P62, for example, it becomes not that easy.

C99 = 107697754157460129081548455186886430139227760179467616771326956041448673303218637276768466821961457

P62 = 64673383884991095148967654883745938257171644262615403280008869

P37 = 1665256210328802682226191058712930653

I could perhaps switch the order of the factors for readability, but except for that I have not tried out the C99.

storflyt32 2017-05-16 03:51

02:37 AM local time right now.


Dang, this one did not make it with 2^22 curves using ecm (and not 2^21 curves).

Apparently stuck on this one for now.

Two others apparently came loose and one of them needed quite a bit.

At least only composite in the FDB when I last checked, perhaps earlier today.

Possibly adding the factors before going to bed, but the funeral today took a toll and needs continuation, or perhaps restart tomorrow.

This processor probably is a bit better on the somewhat larger factors and except for the stuck fingers and hands, I got most of it back in return.

The only thing possible for now is perhaps relate a couple of hundreds of these against each other by just multiplying.

If so, it perhaps could become a "stacked" nature where almost everything could be possible.

If I am not wrong, the Mandelbrot set is not necessarily a wild guess, or even speculative theory either, although or even not being about perhaps prime numbers or factors either.

Meeting up with a couple of relatives today for the funeral, including an aunt I had not seen in a while, makes a reminder of both ageing and also the battle of the sexes.

The aunt who chose to give me some help with both the flies, as well as that of too much food being stored, making it a surplus, is having her own habits, as well as personality.

Next the fact that you next could ask yourself where it all came from, because it is supposed to be a shared thing, including responsibility.

The likelihood that a carpenter becomes the father of a genius, only because the mother was in the kitchen, is when it comes to me not too much likely.

Oh, me getting drunk, perhaps.

Where are the factors?

Do not take me literally, by the way.

Became a new post, but meant to continue.

storflyt32 2017-05-16 22:35

Perhaps a line a bit too long above, but I ended up with a couple a beers last evening and also quite tired after the funeral.

Noticing that someone did the mentioned C98.

Quite a feat, or perhaps accomplishment there and I could have a look at the flip-around for this in order to see where it gets.


Here is another one for you, if you happen to be interested.

Also this one did not make it with 2^22 curves using ecm.

Giving it yet another try with SIQS, it says 107696 relations is being needed.


Also noticing this C80, which by means of ecm using 2^22 curves is some halfway right now.

I think a glass of milk, or perhaps mineral water is needed, because I ended up putting the soup in the bottle for cooking and next it does not become any coffee at all.


Becomes yet another day and next continuing the session.

Apparently someone did me a favor, because I did not do this one.

But what about the individual factors here?

In fact I think this is a quite nice one when it comes to such.

Giving a try on a C103 right now and this could probably take a day or two.

The number of relations needed for the SIQS is here some 141440, so therefore not a quick one.

Becomes at least the dinner first, before anything else, but supposedly there should be more P70 factors or the like than similar P130 or P140 factors.

Still, the fact that we are supposed to do our factorizations on the smaller numbers rather than the larger ones.



The P38 in the second link is more or less like climbing Matterhorn rather than Mount Everest.

This one took a little while at getting at and is quite similar to that of possible RSA-128 number in size, at least when it comes to a single, or individual factor.

Now I will finish off the second beer before next going to bed.


Also here is a P38 which could next be added to the rest of it.

The remaining, composite number here becomes a C639.

07:20 AM in the morning and I need the cup of coffee first.

This one is slightly larger than the previous one of same size, but except for that, not related.

Becomes the 1016... number at the other end and the second P38 definitely does not "divide" in that direction.


First idea of thought is multiplying the C456 with the C639, next take the square root and after that, or subsequently, next use ecm on the answer.

Yes, it apparently works and becomes a PRP522, but directly from the plate or oven and needs storing locally first.

Next it becomes at least a P16 and P17 from the C1133 of (2^4096+1), but next "trial-dividing" illegally once again, or perhaps in error,
it becomes the small ones as usual, next a P19 and P394 pair of factors.

Also the top part of it, meaning the output, vanishes from the buffer and needs a redo in order to make it complete, or perhaps get it all.

I better start working on the rest of it.

storflyt32 2017-05-28 22:37

Anyway, starting up another session here by keying it in the wrong way when it comes to direction.

My apologies, but here it became a better set and also the C72, which I was able to do, became part of the factorization.

Meaning that when trying to do the factorization of the "multiplication" and here the C150, this time it was able to do that above.

Needed a little help with the C78, because still running by means of ecm here.

Also a pair of P32 and P123 factors at the other end here as well, but needs finishing up locally first, before adding the links.

Perhaps not too bad idea after all, because the P123 gives me just 2^2 * 5 * 11 * 13 * P183 the flip-around way.

Quite good factors here and I have the links later on.

Sorry, almost forgot this, but at least I was working on it.

I will have the weekend beer in less than 90 minutes, but before that, here was a somewhat better one for the Magic number during the day.

Factors 2, 5, 7, 17, 2351 and 2383.

The two larger factors are a P115 and a P184, respectively.

Sorry, but right now it became the Friday beer.

Bite my own tongue perhaps, but at least I should know where it is supposed to go.

That of factorizing of numbers, including a factorization process (oh me) for such a thing also got better.

What if such a thing as numbers could be that of any science, but next perhaps not so.

P71 = 11595361855419450045829934323497035471131423617894659246753149374071801

Perhaps worth a closer look, because I think this is a better one.

Now it becomes the quite big system hang.

Got a pretty large one for you right now which took quite a long time.

A bit up my list, so please have me excused.

Should add that it became perhaps too many beers yesterday evening and now I should go for the cup of hot chocolate, because the links below became wrong.

I will get it sorted out, but next was thinking that a possible look-ahead around the corner could perhaps give me something else in return, meaning either a new factor, or perhaps make up
the factor still not reported.


Needs checking, but can you deduce the P48 from the link above?

Needs a fix below.



Switching order of the links above, but still working on this and not finished yet.

Here it became a pair of P48 and P142 factors, but only after running at least one whole day and also the following night.

But only for the first link above.

Total factoring time = 143493.0370 seconds

Doing the same in the second link by means of trial-dividing the C148 with the P48 above, it becomes a known P100, but next a little larger for the rest.

I will have it later on, but for now it becomes at least a logoff, or perhaps restart in order to continue.

Possibly only the P100 here, but next should be the flip-around for the C148, which I think at least trial-divides with the same P48 into the P100.


Also that here in fact is the secret answer and also the question perhaps mentioned if the P48 could be deduced from here?

This one perhaps I will not do for now.

Also I was thinking of multiplying a P67 with the mentioned P71 in order to see what I get.

Also becomes the next thing to do, because here it should be something like a C171 or so at the other end.

Multiplying the C172 with the well-known slingshot number and next the square root, it became a P138 added to my list, which could become part of a later upload session.

Also the post is getting a bit long right now as well.

Became a restart of the computer because of a blue screen, but this is supposed to be Windows updates.

Having a cup of hot chocolate, it should be fixed quite soon, but there should be the links for two composite numbers here and not only one.

Needs checking, but at least I will add the P48 within an hour or two.

Next trying out, it becomes the larger factor here, so here you have the answer to this question.

It follows that the smaller factor, the P48 should come from the answer above as well, making it even more fun.

Or rather it should be the C189 for this.

Assuming the number to be still composite only, also a pair of P15 and P124 factors when again multiplying with the slingshot number, but then only from the flip-around side.

First ends up with a C162, which could perhaps be a difficult one, but next doing it the other way around, it becomes that above.

The C162 is having a P35 or P36 and still running. I will give it a little more before breaking off.

Another C156 is not going any similar way or place for now and could take a while.

If it says almost 500 hours of ETA (estimated time), meaning for that of completion, it really makes no sense in my opinion, but at least being noticed for that of a C161.

Of course you never know, but at least it becomes the initial result and also a similar way of thinking.

So what about the P48 versus the mentioned the P71 and next it becomes a C118.

The flip-around is having a P22, which will be added in a short while.

The flip-around should be more easy, like that of the C156 above, but if not so, rather make it a product of these two and next take the square root.

This was found to be working quite well yesterday and it became a P138, if not wrong.

Still not there of course when it comes to the main number in question, but at least working on it.



Becomes a P124 at the other end here perhaps mentioned earlier and could also add the link which it became.

But perhaps even better is that the C156 together with the slingshot number has a P149 when multiplied and next taking the square root.

Also a small P6 before that.

Possibly two more beers in the fridge and next I am off to bed, but adding the P149 to my list for a later upload session of factors.


Continuing here after both the coffee and cake did not help too much yesterday.

Therefore this one ended up in my window as well and is a quite nice one.

Makes me think of the P71 above and after keying in, becomes a C106.

Next, both a P22 and a P21, following a P10 and also hanging, or thinking a little.

Links coming up in a short while, but I need the cofffee first.

That makes it a C200 + at the other end and I will have the cup of coffee first.

The remaining C129 makes for a C124 when used together with the slingshot number, but needs checking for its possible location.

It could be somewhere up or down the list.

The next or remaining part has yet to be carried out, so now I am off to it.

Also once again it should be remembered the main point here that even a P90 + P90 pair of factors may not perhaps help.
so therefore the old question about that of (weighted) distribution among such numbers, or factors.


Perhaps worth its own post, but here a PRP916 from the C1133 of (2^4096+1) with only small factors 2, 13, 2269, 17627 and 78583 in between.

Definitely one of the better ones here.


Became this P239 yesterday, or perhaps earlier on, but testing, or checking today, here is P1 = 2 both ways from a number of interest.

Could also add that one of my recent factorizations became not too pretty when it comes to appearance. Sorry about that.

The factor list becomes quite large here now and while struggling with both bad fingers and also the sausage and peas for the dinner, most of it end up in the logs.

Choosing to make an edit above, it is not supposed to be premature in any way either.

Not everyone around are supposed to be doing this either, so whether or not any conjecture for this, it may perhaps not be readily visible.

But rather the fun of it when making perhaps a C200 a pair of P100 factors and next be able to see the individual factors and also relate the whole number to someting else.

For the sake of a good example, there should be no point at doing this with a PRP22084 or so, which is the largest prime in my factor list.

Rather a P67 and P71 should be a better example here and testing, it only becomes a composite number at the other end here in the first run.


Perhaps this one instead, but using Yafu I key in rsa(512) on the command line, both because it is half the size of a rsa(1024) number and theoretically square root (twice) in that of complexity.

Here it becomes the flip-around size of such a number and next could be added that only the P3 = 911 initially showed up.

>> help rsa

searching for help on 'rsa'
usage: rsa(expression)

form a difficult to factor number of a specified bit size. NOT FOR CRYPTOGRAPHIC USE.

With the above in mind and also that I am not into this business at all, but only numbers, should I perhaps continue on this?

Then or if so, how much is perhaps needed?

Multiplying the P26 with the P94 and next the flip-around once again does not return back at the C512, but rather becomes a quite easy factorization with a P158 at the end.

Anyway, something else right now.



Anyone willing to give a hand on the C90 here and it will be appreciated.



Here is a slightly better one which is not easy at all and took a while.

It became a pair of P38 and P97 factors here.

Total factoring time = 38908.7405 seconds

I will add the factors in a short while before I end the current session.


Here as well, only because I am having a bit of fun.

Anyway, I finally logged off the session, because I left the computer running for a couple of days.

It became at least two more P39 factors or so, where it supposedly are a bit difficult and I will have the links later on.

Anyway, with a bit of fiddle during the week, it became a better one only a couple of minutes ago and needs checking.


Above an example of such a thing and here I do not think it is possible, or at least easy.

P56 = 24563543054842900957346493006143166848706836255373386869

P66 = 940247923605107153636108709031616399006367848476115246900184862877


Both factors are already known individually.

Becomes the flip-around side here, which is not necessarily that easy either, but at least a number which could be factorized, rather than being only loose factors.

Still perhaps a couple more to be added, but apparently not successful on quite much during the week as well.

The factorization just in my door is apparently a better one and I will have the link for this next, but perhaps not the factors at first.

More to come.


In the small hours of the morning.

Not an easy one here and took quite a while.

Becomes a P37 and PRP107 here, which makes for a P107.

Total factoring time = 28789.4697 seconds

Check in for the factors, because I have not added it yet.

So, in the middle of the night, except for perhaps the safety net, because I do not want to stray too much off.

Really, except for perhaps RSA being an abbreviation, or perhaps acronym for some three persons bearing the signature of this or such a name,
I perhaps should not bother or be too much concerned about this here.

But rather the fact that perhaps doing such a thing, or rather working with that of a 1024 bit number makes it perhaps "coming all through" in a way.

Make it simple and 2^1024 is a number that is both composite and also even.

Therefore not any fun or exciting at all.

The perhaps more interesting thing is that as soon as you either add or subtract 1 to the number, the whole thing, or issue becomes a different one.

Therefore the whole issue of perhaps 2^n+1 and its respective factors.

If you do not mind, such a thing is perhaps not about a factorization at all, but perhaps rather that of trial division, in hope of catching possible factors.

Brrr, I guess sometimes it may work, perhaps other times not, but presumably a P90 versus P90 (meaning P90 * P90) next could perhaps lead nowhere, because the flip around side could return 3
as the first factor.

So here, or perhaps right now, I get or catch the words "I feel good" and next the musical melody for this.


If I am not wrong, RSA-768 became factorized, either because of decent work being work, or perhaps something else.

Next you probably know that this number, or numbers, do not necessarily fit my computer at all.

The problem is that I always or sometimes need to choose the largest number at hand in order for possible factors to be obtained.

Such a thing is not always possible, or successful and therefore we should know about these composite numbers as well.

The perhaps "fake" story could be, or perhaps being told, about a C180 being factorized into a pair of P90 factors, but next the story may be far from true as well.

In fact I added a P17 here during the day and next losing where it came from.

Also a P26 ended up in my list as well and here I probably have the rest of the numbers.

The fact is that a P564 making up the largest known Fermat factor (and not prime number) should be a large or substantial contribution to a possible structure of numbers.

But next the fact that even the P564 does not divide from such a number like the C1133 of (2^4096+1).

Oh, by the way, where is perhaps the discussion for this?

It should be known and also quite obvious, that the factorization of this number still remains in the blue.

Next, perhaps,how much?

A given factorization of a number is supposed to give, yield, or perhaps return a couple of factors back in return.

My guess is that the Factor Database should not be that much concerned with perhaps 2 * 2 * C400 or the like, because it could lead nowhere.

So what next about perhaps C1133 / C400?

Always the same old question, I guess, or surmise, because in between there should be at least a couple or more factors.

Buh! What if I perhaps made a "best guess" here and next the fact that I lost it, or the complete meaning, because of removing an asterisk (*) for that of importance, or significance?

If so, perhaps needs a redo, but next such a factorization (if any) is not supposed to be a valid one either.

At least I do have the factors here.


Adding a P34 which should be shortly visible, it became 1685/2350 curves using Yafu, meaning that the remaining part should be quite obvious (or perhaps not).

At least it took most of the day, or perhaps even more here.

Better make a new one here, I think,

Really, because there could perhaps be some people around, or maybe someone here, thinking that perhaps a semiprime could be a prime number against another,

If I happened to be stupid or naive, it rather could become that of 31 * 127 for such a thing and next, or perhaps not anymore,

You probably know that the business of factoring such, or possible numbers mean not so, or such a thing at all.

At the bottom of my PList, I am having a PRP22084.

Perhaps not the largest one, but next perhaps who should such a number be credited?

Really, or honestly, the smartest thing for me to do is perhaps looking up a 2^n (where n is a power of 2) and next deduce the possible "difference" between such a number and next the number being being obtained.

Next, being said so, should perhaps such a number be a "difference" by means of that of subtraction, or should it perhaps be a division in the ordinary way?

Fiddle, fiddle, first of all, a PRP22084 needs it first number above when it comes to that of 2^n.

Then, which next?

Perhaps you should be looking for a prime number starting with 363481163587852082267000322216366657889100350280669235752528839341758 and so on.

Next the remaining part, of course and it should not be a RSA number either.

Such a process is only for that of file management or handling and here on the spot I do not have this one.

If perhaps the PRP22084 should be questioned alone, perhaps the answer might be given.

Next returning back at the computer at 6:15 PM after having the Thursday evening beverage.



Here it becomes a P41 as a factor, which is a pretty good one.

The second link is from the resulting, or remaining C134 and here it becomes the same P41 by means of trial division, next a P122 already known.

The C134 could be a different thing, however and here it perhaps may not be readily done.

I could give a try for the second link as well, using Yafu, but it could be more difficult here.

It may have been the weekend beer above, because perhaps shouting, but could tell that apparently it broke, or perhaps rather fell apart a little with at least three such which
probably are a bit better than usual.

The slightly hurting arms makes it difficult right now, because of using the mouse, but at least quite pleased with the results.


I could perhaps start above, because here it became a pair of P46 and P48 factors, being a very nice pair.

Also the C94 does it the other way around as well, with a pretty large one and also there became another such as well, with the second, or end factor being somewhat smaller, but still taking more time.

Yes, not for starters here, but rather a P40 and a P155, respectively for the shorter one and a P41 and P122 for the longer one.

These are pretty good factors, in my opinion and I will have the factors and also links later on.

Clicking on the link above for the C162, I think the factors for this number came in here as well, among those two and here it should be the latter.

Getting tired right now and I will better continue tomorrow.

storflyt32 2017-06-22 04:56

P17 = 94294949437693673

Here a small, but sharp factor I came across.

Next it "divides" from the C1133 of (2^4096+1) with only small factors 2^4 and 7 in between, returning a PRP1114 back as result.

This because I chose to look at the number 7000000140000002800000056000001 by next adding it up with itself, making it a copy or double of its listing, meaning replication.

Also notice what you get if taking the inverse of the number above, meaning 1/x .

Factors 173, 107999 and P24 = 374655585282394383120763 for that above.

Doing it so in pairs, meaning multiples of each other, I get at least a P250 when "dividing" against the "Magic number" at the proper place.

Some of these numbers could perhaps be extended to large numbers and eventually could be returning quite large prime numbers in this way, but for now I have not yet tried.

Here I perhaps could ask for some help.




Again my bad for keying it in wrong order, but should note that here it became only a multiply of numbers for now.

The C133 is having a P45 as one of its factors.

If someone could give a try on the C89, I could do most of the rest of it, but would need a restart, or logoff in order for this to be done.

Next the C133 gives directly the C89 when giving it a try and the P45 becomes the factor in between.

Need checking for the links above and next adding the P45, the middle link is perhaps not needed anymore.

Also it apparently becomes success at the other end as well and also not too difficult here.


Also could add the two remaining factors here, but need the dinner first, but here it also became the "failure to equate relation" listed some 39 times in a row.

Factors are a P36 and P41 here and someone else apparently did the job.




Try Eulers constant here and next make it a P40 factor.

P40 = 5772156649015328606065120900824024310421

The second factor should be easy to get at, but perhaps not so when it comes to a given factorization.




Adding for the first link above in the middle of the night, before having the dinner, because here it did not became that difficult.

The flip-around becomes the second link and next I am having a bit of a problem getting back at the third link, which is having a P36 factor.

Also the third link should be a separate one and next the fact that I am looking around for the flip-around here.

Except for that, no secret code for the locker or safe here, in my opinion, but except for that quite good factors here.

Total factoring time = 7408.3902 seconds


Adding a P30 here while finishing off the rest of the beer.

Notice the flip-around here if you have the time.



Apprently one more less to go before getting to the finish.

The first one becomes only loose factors and could be almost impossible to do.

The second ended up in a P42 and a PRP100, respectively, which next became a P100.

Total factoring time = 37719.4810 seconds

But perhaps a couple of hours of rest before adding the factors, because here it became a bit of a strain.



Also here it could be added as well, including the P16 and P17 for this in the second link.

Same as before with again loose factors in the first link, but here the second one became a quite big one when it comes to pairs.

Here a P46 and PRP97, next P97 and also a whopping factoring time.

Total factoring time = 234773.8876 seconds

Next of course I keyed in two numbers in the wrong order, because I did not get to the coffee first.

The loose factors here should be the end factors for their other respective factorizations, but here I have not looked at it yet.

For now the only hope is that it gets stored and not vanishes away.

Next making a check on this and the loose factors for both of the pairs above for now made it to the records.

Becomes a P55 and P90 pair for the first such one and next a P61 and P63 pair for the second one above.

Next I will need to look for the factorizations themselves.

P61 = 1446403891874653874622255715541971931090691429384249195337019

P63 = 542491783147206011677983642245579602238171266154650110648391211

Becomes loose factors here, but already in the FDB.



Here above for the first and also it became added here as well.



Here for the second, which I think was already there.

Back again at just past 1 AM local time, noticing that I do not have the C123 in the list and working on it right now.

Perhaps some 5 hours 15 minutes to go, so in the meantime I will do the weekend shopping and perhaps have the rest before sigining off for the day.



Here perhaps something a bit nice.

The two large ones here, or the pair, is having factors 2^8, a P26 and a P218 on the flip-around side of that number in question.

Not added yet, but this was possible, although barely so, using ecm with 30 curves and giving it two consecutive tries.

If I am not wrong, there could be quite much else or different which does not make it in such a way.

I could perhaps run it once more using the factor command while I get the clothes on for my shopping, which I almost forgot.

For some reason it takes much longer when using the factor command.

Guess what, but this number, 3424931, or 337 * 10163, is having a P1113 at the other end from the C1133 of (2^4096+1) .

Factors in between are 3, 13, 29 and P11 = 33009737377 .

Adding the prime to my list.

Edit: Suffice to say when checking that the C123 is the product of the P61 and P63.

So, where did I get those two factors from?

Checking, they should both be known and there ... (I will have more here, but the mouse on battery said goodbye right now).

Anyway, I perhaps mentioned that of privacy on the net or web in the past and in fact should tell that it bothers me.

Taking it into consideration here.



The C266 I could perhaps give the factors for, but next you already should perhaps know.

Canceling the edit above because despite perhaps shouting, actually makes for better language.

Next the PRP339 becomes the next working factor, because this should once again be having composite or intermediary numbers in between.

Perhaps should start a new one here.

storflyt32 2017-07-01 04:45

Making a new one here.



The C77, because it is still two factors, but next fully factored, I think was done on the server.

The C195 at the other end next is having a quite good factor as well, namely a P49, which could be added.

Still a C146 to go here though, so not yet finished here.

A couple of other factors as well in my list, which could be added first.

This when keying in n!-1 and n!+1 in the FDB, which is relating to that of Factorial numbers.

Here a little bit in the dark on the subject, but both Factorial numbers and Primorial numbers are part of the Project Staging Area at PrimeGrid.

The pocket calculator could be able to come up with 69! before unable to do any more, but next it becomes even at the end, before either subtracting or adding.

As usual not all the odd numbers being returned are prime either, but for each of these types we apparently are having record primes.

Perhaps a little more could be done with those numbers which are only composite or factors here, because finding anything larger could be a difficult thing.

Another thing, I happened to be something funny before signing off yesterday.

For that of Astronomy as a subject, we could be having the Arecibo message in our lists, or perhaps memory.

And here about a message being broadcast from Earth towards a globular cluster and not something that was picked up.

Making it a binary output or representation, it becomes some 23 lines and 79 columns of the whole message.

I chose to remove or omit the starting 0's and next used copy and paste in order to copy part of the output to Notepad.

Ending on a single line, with a couple of 1's in consecutive order at the end, the number, when being thought of as decimal such, is having factor P1 = 3 and the remaining number a
rep-digit factor or prime, some 300 - 400 digits or so.

Only to have it mentioned, because I am finishing off the rest of the beer right now, but could have it tomorrow.

So, while still having fun, of course keying it wrong and it becomes a P59 at the end.



P49 = 6384627520682549821072782803042294957487643979279

P59 = 24805184834556493674296971841383950146529962250161488466941

Both factors are known, but except for keying it wrong, also luck perhaps were striking back here as well.


Also mentioning a possible overcommitment at other places, but here not difficult at all, when next excluding the P14.

Total factoring time = 2938.1431 seconds

Having the coffee and cake shortly before 11:30 AM in the morning, because I sat the night over, I keyed in both n!-1 and n!+1 in the FDB for their respective outputs.

But if next doing the same related to the possible factorizations of RSA numbers, particularly those already known, my guess is that there is no similar syntax here.


Continuing here right now, because it could be an adjacent run, or factorization corresponding to this number.

Next needs checking, but as previously mentioned, got slightly overcommitted right now and experiencing a bit of difficulty.



Making it a new session here as well, here became a triple pair or set of factors which were not that difficult.

Total factoring time = 647.1420 seconds

The first one becomes a loose pair of P40 and P54 factors from my list and if you wish, you may give it a try.

Except for that, I could put these factors up here a bit later on.

Also that when looking at the results, the P38 and P50 pair of factors is definitely a quite nice pair from its appearance.

Also checking in with that funny looking C174, it now is at 600/7553 curves after finishing off both 2350 and 4480 curves first.

Either it becomes a restart first, but for now ETA is listed as 375.71 hours here and perhaps or probably will not succeed.

Now at 703/7553 curves and still running, ETA is now being given as 369.01 hours.

Also giving a try on the C145 in the middle, but here it could take some 6 more hours.

storflyt32 2017-07-07 00:37


I could end up repeating myself because of having an Edit box open and next adding contents where it already may have been posted.

I will try to avoid it, but if so, I could edit it away later on if it happens.

But here an example of something neither easy or directly hard, but rather something in between, at least when it comes to my own computer.

I needed a break a short while ago and for now have not continued with the session, except for adding three more P100+ factors, without continuing from there.

And also it mostly blew right now, because it became a restart of the computer which I tried to abort, but next it turned or shut off without warning.

Back again after shuffling my equipment in the living room, because here it becomes a purchase of a second computer and also a quite powerful one.

So rather I gave the following a thought.

RSA-768 as you may know, is a 232 digit composite number having two P116 factors.

If I was unable to use the hard switch or button on this number, we probably could be having the discussion about cracking of numbers, or the similar, where

For now lacking the proper word or syntax which should be used here, but a similar discussion could be that of RSA numbers versus possible encryption, meaning cryptography.

Again, I am not into that subject, but still give a thought of the way a given number is supposed to be "cracked".

I prefer to make it that of numbers only, but still was able to come up with a name for such a number.

Are we still assumed to believe that being able to factorize a RSA number means a possible method of elimination, in that between for example 0 or 1 as a starting point and the number itself,
there could be numbers still left to factorize?



Above is one such example currently being worked on.

This pair becomes one of probably many such left before the factors are known for each and all.

Therefore the assumption is that those still remaining makes for the number in question still not factored at all.

Again that of the elimination method as mentioned above and next that of perhaps making a given or better guess, or perhaps assumption,
before trying out anything else.

Yafu, as you may know, includes the sqrt() function in order to make the square root of an integer number.

Do it the opposite way and the result becomes undesired or not being wished for, in that two or more factors are being returned, rather than a single one.

So, perhaps no point in that of addition or subtraction either, except for a couple of times.

I mentioned at BOINC a while ago that the factorization of the number in question perhaps may not be possible and still this question could be an open one.

Again, a couple of reasons for this being are being mentioned above.

The fact is that with the computer at my disposal, I did not find any relationship between the mentioned RSA-768 and other numbers which could be present.

Next I am not assuming or thinking that this in fact became loose numbers for which a documented method was being produced and distributed.



Apparently closing in a bit here now and could take the product here for the contining process.

storflyt32 2017-07-21 22:02

Again, I think.


Here is a pretty good one when it comes to that of factors and also that the two at the end were not for the secret key this time, but rather an easy one.



Here a quite decent pair at the end which I got the factors for.

You are of course free of choice here, but also I could have some fun with this during the regular Friday evening show.

I have not made the weekend shopping yet, but chose to continue on this right now, because it became a P151 at the other end when also adding two other factors.

Next both keying it wrong first and also once again using the slingshot number on part of these gives me both a P112 and a P119 which I could add later.

Also the links for this could be added as well, because the C85 made for a quite good pair of factors.



Anyway, having the evening shift right now and possibly running into the night as well.

Here a pretty good pair, or perhaps rather set of factors for a number in question.


Continuing from the P86, it once again loops back at itself giving nothing new or more back in return.


I could next also test against the magic number here, but again could be a bit off (from the P86).

I will have the link shortly.

Next, stumbling here as well, because here there are a total of three factors, all which should be known.

Making a product of some three factors, among a total of four, also perhaps means which one to choose from such a selection.

Working on it, but the other, or remaining part, which has yet to be added, or posted, could be just as difficult.


Here it becomes a pair of P32 and P155 factors and could add to it here before getting to bed.


I will put it in the "to do" list for now, but the rear fan of the computer is not working and also the diods for the motherboard came off as well.

The power RESET button at the front does not work right now and I have to use the finger below the two graphics cards in order to turn on the computer.

I bought a new one, as you probably know and both this and also the other maintenance work, becomes the big task ahead when summer comes to an end and we could next sit together,
in order to carry out the work.


Also here meeting a dead end for now, but will let it run by means of ecm.


Adding here in the middle of the night, because if you happen to be a "numbermaniac", or at least one dealing with that of numbers, you in fact,
or actually could get the sense that it is not always about that of prime numbers versus composite numbers.

At least that is what I happened to notice and also that I am not a novice here either.

Yes, speaking of bit length, if you will and you could be having that of the RSA numbers for such a thing.

Next the sad fact that even the Mersenne prime number list, or list of factors, does not necessarily yield, or give for such a thing either.

As an example, I had a C52 during the day, which by recall had a P21 and a P32, or so.

Not that bad, but next that these are intermediate factors and far from what should be expected.

Next, if rather looking for that or such a thing which could be far fetched, it could end up far from sight, or perhaps estimated target or goal,
because this might not be what you are wishing for.

Factoring, as of today, or as it stands, is supposedly that of algorithms for such a purpose.

Still not perfect, it comes with a couple of flaws.

Except for that, I personally do not think or believe that a C200 should be factorized into a pair of P100 factors or so either.

Could it perhaps benefit science - yes, but if next that of possible validity - no.

Perhaps the reason for this is that we could still take that of Logic for granted and next expand it into that of numbers, in order to perhaps think that a couple of things might still not be feasible.

Again, if I did not mention it, stumbling here, because it ends up being some three and not four factors.


At least a quite good factorization here.

A P215, or perhaps P216, probably means nothing, by means of being of no significance at all, but what next about a given understanding?

Take it or leave it perhaps, but if I am not wrong, such a thing as, or rather the way we are supposed to be finding new prime numbers,
at least could be based on an algorithm for such a thing and next perhaps also a given way of thinking.

If Charles Darwin was ever able to think about that of evolution as a subject, he probably also knew about both stepwise refinement and also stepwise thinking.

Yes, loopback, if you will and you could be having perhaps "tit-tat" a couple of times. while perhaps not so other times.

storflyt32 2017-08-09 05:49


Here a nice one and this time by the server, because it is a difficult one.

Adding a bit more later on.

Like the following, which could be about the time it takes for a given factorization.


Total factoring time = 17887.5671 seconds


Total factoring time = 3656.9122 seconds

The first one should be the longest here and should be added first above, but the similar factors makes for a bit of confusion.

Working on it and when doing so and using cut and paste in order to get it fixed, the copied text being inserted makes the lines above (and not below this time) vanish, or disappear.

Next entering a carriage return and it again vanishes at the top, which makes me think that the line width of the buffer (top to bottom) could perhaps benefit from having one more line being added.

The second, or latter came in after the first one above and I did not think of any trial division before after a while, because it was in the middle of the day.

Except for that, I let it run to finish and also took a while for the second one as well.

Next it becomes a P131 twice, or in both results, adding to the confusion.

One thing to notice is that the first one came from the P131 (1161777693...<131>) which was already known, but then only with small factors being added.

So therefore the loopback at the P131 (1161...<131>) from the P131 of the first factorization (4772124691..<131>).

Always the comment at the end.

storflyt32 2017-08-11 02:49

Needs a separate or new one right now, I think.

I was into a C83 earlier on, which because of a subsequent reboot and next restart of the computer, I lost the whole number.

Also making a note besides of that of a C84, which next became a pair of P42 factors.

Anyway, suggestions welcome here, because I am thinking of this one, because for now it is unfinished work.

Guess I am a supposed to be still polite.


Here it is a quite large factor when next doing it from a number meant for security purposes.

Only a P13 in between, but next takes a little while to factorize.


What is a perfect number?

Should tell that the number 28 always came to mind when asking this question.

So perhaps 10 instead, because 10 = 2 * 5 ?

Or rather 10^33, because this number also goes by means of a name I came across today.

Perhaps mentioned here, but rather somewhere else, but I was also giving a thought about numbers as possible sets.


Here for that of a start.

Regardless of it being 10, or 10^33, the first factor is always 2 and the next is supposed to be 5.

We make of both these numbers as being both prime numbers and also factors.

So I perhaps happened to call or nickname it the "Magic number" in the past, because it is supposedly "indivisible".

The general rule of thumb is that we choose to divide, or split such numbers up, in order to next make them rather divisable (or at least possibly so).

A composite number could be having a prime number or factor at "the other end", but here what next means such a thing as "the other end"?

Doing such a thing as factoring of numbers, it should be no secret that those numbers which could be so-called "RSA numbers", sometimes catches ones interest.

For now apparently no such thing as an official RSA-4096 number, but RSA-2048 is being left more or less guarded because of both a privacy and security issue, which in fact I
have come to respect.

The sad thing is that if such a thing as "make and break" could perhaps be true, we should know about both.

By means of making it, or such a thing rather that of sets instead, the whole thing could possibly be having another meaning.

From both a practical, as well as technological point of view, a PXXX could next multiply PYYY in order to make it CZZZ.

We probably are concerned with the fact that such a factorization is not possible from a just such a practical point of view, but what next about possible theory?

For now a little uncertain about the possible name here, but using such a factorization software like Yafu, a composite number with no direct factors could be having quite good factors in
between which still does not divide the number in question.


Example here, which should be a P54 which is already known.

Not necessarily about the software either, because I think it became quite good.

But rather a reporting issue, because I could perhaps be silly and next report "from my head".

Also that even such a thing might not be possible at times as well.

I have always thought of that of ecm as a means of doing a valid factorization of a number.

Question such a thing as LLR and I perhaps am not questioning any science, but perhaps that of numbers.

The fact is that I am not in the mood of posting such a thing as Mersenne semiprimes or the like here, because I lost the word for it.

But only that it actually, or in fact exist.

The main difference between the Mersenne primes and the Fermat factors, if you will, are both a possible difference in size and also their possible relationship.

Question such a thing as a Mersenne semiprime and you perhaps also could question the given method being used for such a thing.

Perhaps give a laugh about the whole thing, but I am still being reminded of the bus stop here.

I currently have a gigantic prime myself as my personal record.

One problem being noticed, or perhaps experienced, is that for now I find it hard at relating this number to something else which should be even larger,
because if so, this number should be a composite number.

Again back to that of sets as that of perhaps being of a programming issue.

A programming language like Pascal could at least be having the operators "+" "-" and "*", where each of these are not or NOT (forget the Logic here) arithmetic operators, or functions.

Again, that 10 and also 10^33 being mentioned at the top.

What if I tried factorizing 10^33?

Or am I perhaps getting it wrong here, because suddenly it was not that large anyway.

Therefore really not the point here, except for perhaps adding or subtracting 1 to the number.

P34 = 2237668761437315147090852353346777

P58 = 7627066397230573425374848252899760874164061612285621316223

P54 = 187204770770100083297887953100131286846649321750586503

For now, the P54 is only a loose factor here, but next also known.

If you do not mind, I would first try multiplying the P34 with the P54, before next doing anything more.

But if so, what happens next if you multilply all three factors with each other?

The result, at least should be a composite number.

So, which order of process, or in fact a given factorization next?

Am I perhaps supposed to be looking at a composite number at the other end, possibly even larger and next think that it perhaps or possibly could "divide"?

If perhaps doing so, it still could be possible factors in between, but if I forgot to mention it, it could also be that of "make and break" for such a thing as well.

I rather should finish it off before going to bed.


Anyway, the P54 should perhaps go here, but for now not successful.

Remainder is P39 = 850993544794824435316036738582698969211 and also already known.

The P54 versus the P58 should be left as an excersise for the possible user.



Becomes a nice finish of yet another quite good day.


Dangit, at least for now, because possible reporting could next make me a possible liar.

Give it a try, if you will.



The product of the two larger factors in each makes for a C141 and next quite heavy at the front.

Doing the flip-around from the larger number in question, it quickly becomes a P121 here, but I have not keyed in this yet.



I have the two remaining factors in the second link and will be adding shortly.

P67 = 3978642138166200436041214075494167204812101948690317652247717758073

P69 = 111111178760511010702681443211111111111112344186207010115067871111111

Adding the P67, but not for home use this time, because here it probably may not be done.

Adding both a P156 and a P167 to the Factor Database, but here the first of these became lost in the crowd and probably does not loop back at the P135.

I will have the dinner first and also the computer is experiencing a system hang right now.



Multiplying these two makes for both factors because here the factorization software allowed for this.

But next once again noticing the fact that while the C107 could need 179696 relations for its complete factorization, the C197 on the flip-around side will not do anymore either.

The explanation for this is not known, or unclear and at least the Magic number or the like is not based on the principle of square root of any numbers, or the Golden Ratio method.


First of all, how do you compute the bit length of a given number?

For a couple of these numbers, I choose to make them "dead angle" numbers, in that they will not meet or approach each other in a given way.

Make it perhaps easy one way and difficult the other way, or vice versa, but next that of P1 = 3 versus the Magic Number is not a good example either.

Better make a new one here.

storflyt32 2017-08-19 12:10



Here a bit interesting, because I noted down the loose factors for the C116.

The C189 on the other hand, has a P21, P34 and P135 as its three factors and next continuing on the C116, in order to get it right.

Factors coming up shortly but also it should be a flip-around for the P135 as well, which should be different than the one previously mentioned.



And next perhaps bit of a strange or goofy thing, because I went for the first of the last beers remaining in the fridge and will soon be off.

Adding the P30 in the second link for possible completeness.

Am I not wrong, but is not there such a thing as factor dependency, or perhaps interdependency when it comes to these numbers?

Depending on both size of factors and also their relative difference within a factorization and also that there are many of them as well, how far are we still off when it comes to this?

Is it possible to give an answer here?

Suggestions welcome.

The C189 is having a P42 and as thought, a bit more easy than the C107 which still has one hour or two left.

This should be because of both the preceding factors, as well as the initial starting point, or reference on each side, which should differ for each such number.

My guess is that it could be getting more difficult, because you are progressing in towards the center, but next a valid factorizaton of a C180 into two P90 factors could be yet another issue.

storflyt32 2017-08-31 09:13


Adding here when on 32 bits, but perhaps not in correct order, because I had a break right now.

Also a P147 in my list as well.


Total factoring time = 4452.6960 seconds

Initially a PRP99 before the final output, so no big secret here, because currently running on a 32 bits partition because of a software installation failure.

A new computer being turned on today for the first time and doing quite well on the motherboard and graphics card, but for now unable to connect with a monitor because of a connector mismatch.

Also two more disks lying on the shelf for possible use, so it bit of excitement around right now.

I will be checking the two factors later on, but my guess is that we are closing in a little here.



Here a quite good factor in the first link, considering the size of the whole number.

Continuing, it becomes the same P17 in both, but need to do the shopping first and also that I am on a 32 bits partition for now.

At least I know the name for this, namely semiprime and also its intended function or purpose.

Again the cup of coffee for this as well, because I am not supposed to be cheating either, because in fact I have a couple such being stored away.

Right now experiencing a problem with that of editing, because having two or more different e-mail accounts, each lies in separate tabs and when next using Notepad as well, I am losing track of it
despite a possible draft for some of these things, at least when it comes to that of e-mail.

If this is because of a recent Windows update, it is not working very well with me and perhaps needs a closer look.

The problem is that it is not worth wasting 300 KB of space here only for a given example, so here it becomes only a similar comparison for that of shorter, or "feasible" numbers.

Two recent factorizations gave me a composite number when multiplying the two larger factors in each and next flipping around, it becomes a P149 factor.

Not reported yet at all, but will be doing so coming up.

Only goes or comes to show that perhaps cheating in such a way as mentioned above could also return possible results.

The computer being turned on for the first time earlier today could perhaps be able to factorize one number which I think could be a RSA-512 number.

Starting with the four digits 9712... from my recall, it could be more difficult than RSA-155, so here a quite good example.

But first I will need a Windows installation or setup and for this I will probably go for Windows 10.

Now I suddenly found the other tab for this and next it becomes something else.

Doing a cut and paste below and will edit it later.

storflyt32 2017-09-01 18:11

Next at least I know the name for this, namely semiprime and also its intended function or purpose.

Again the cup of coffee for this as well, because I am not supposed to be cheating either, because in fact I have a couple such being stored away and again you need to
know the intended purpose or meaning, because "*" or "x" (small or large caps) is the multiplication symbol and "/" is the division symbol.

Next perhaps needs the correct translation, because in my native language, it translates into divisor and dividend, respectively.




Notice the ambiguation here for the first term, but if I make it 1/7, here 1 should be the possible dividend by means of Mathematics and not any Finance, in the same way as 7 should be the divisor.

Suggestions welcome, but will make a fix here.

Becomes like that of div and mod for that of integer numbers ("%" when using Yafu) and now my edit disappeared, or vanished.

And no need for any draft here since I am lucky to edit my own stuff.

The reason for this is the mentioned semiprime or semiprimes and the possible need, or even lack of it becomes to that of possible cheating.

If any such, I have never seen a discussion of this and next it should not be about the Scientific Method, or the Method of Proof here either for this.

I will do the weekend shopping first, but it could next be split in two parts or halves here as well.

I will keep the line above for now, but next did the shopping and are looking for the rest of it.

More technically speaking, a RSA number is probably not having any syntax at all.

Therefore one set for that of Mersenne prime numbers and also possible factors (2^61-1) and (2^89-1).

Is it possible to value a prime number or factor against another when it comes to type, except for being perhaps Mersenne, Fermat, or possibly rep-digit?

If I multiply all the Mersenne factors up to a reasonable size (Mersenne23 or less), I could get a decent composite number, but next I do not think that
C46 = 1427247692705959880439315947500961989719490561 is such a RSA number either.


This because if so, it has to be specifically designated as such and one reason is the possible bit length of the composite number.

Press the More information button here and for the 4246 digit number in the middle, we have a quite good 4182 digit prime.

The only reason you sometimes know for that or such for even larger numbers is because you choose to multiply those numbers.




Here now three good examples for this, because I added one in the middle and next that these are not easy ones, at least not with 32 bits, running overnight using ecm and still not finished.

You are welcome at giving a try, because here no problem with me.

Next that this could become a double semiprime of sorts by means of multiplying, or product and could relate to an even bigger number with their respective factors the usual way.

Because this is supposed to be about factoring, you also should know in which way it is supposed to be working.

A good example is 2 versus 3, or 3 versus 5, because here it becomes either 0.66666...., or 1.66667 if I am not missing something.

Next make it an integer number for at least the latter and add a million "6" digits before the final "7".

Unable to do it right now, I sometimes am having fun when on a 64 bit partition and next I may possibly get access to another second one in spare.

I will be counting my disks later on and will give you a rough number, but for now it became mostly Windows XP here, making for a big problem.

Again no point of listing a million digits here, so rather about a given Methodology and this time for that of numbers and not necessarily any science.


You perhaps know that I perhaps gave mentioning of that of numbers being "poor man's science".

In order not to insult anyone, I will perhaps refrain from that, but rather there could still be a possible difference.

Getting back at it when I have read the article.

Because of the possible limits of factorization, I checked with the msieve application, which for now is a .zip file, but also 64 bits only.

I will return back to this when the other computer is up and working.

Only that a given C313 or C314 (needs checking) could be having a P156 and a P157 as its possible factors and here we are back to that above.

But for now only being aware of the possible limits of factoring and not necessarily "as is" in one given way or another.

Checking with the edit for this later on.

storflyt32 2017-09-01 18:55

One thing of possible concern, or at least thinking about, is the possible "superhighway" of prime numbers which possibly could be there.

Many numbers still remain to be factorized, like that of RSA-1024 and RSA-2048.

Either they are at least semiprimes, or possibly RSA numbers, but if together with family of friends, it could end up being 2, 3, 5, 7 and so on and next not much more.

The reason why at least RSA-256 is no problem today and RSA-512 could be factored at times, is no excuse for the fact that the number of possible factors in total could be very large.

RSA-1024 is not possible to factor directly, so here another example.

First of all, this has not been keyed in yet, so please if you could skip this for now, I would be very glad or happy, because this became a sequence and having it keyed in in a proper order, could make for both me and others feeling better.

P40 = 1206141817390868369904697458937941898139

P89 = 15316861479442889529311995789441719383377177013171568971730011284995339928476982696581569

Becomes a C128 as the product here and probably possible to factor using msieve.

Next try the C128 from RSA-1024 (the Magic Number) and you get the P149 with a little in between.


My favorite above, except for perhaps the syntax, but should read (2^48853-1).

Here the P1764 became my first better find or discovery and working hard here, it mostly sorted out.

The remaining C12593 is a "beast" of a number and perhaps not doable at all, even with a new computer soon ready.

My current record is not the P1764, however, but rather a PRP12576, which is a gigantic prime and also that there is a 17 digit difference from the C12593 above.

I happen to know that the P1764 and PRP12576 are related with each other in one way or another, but which one, or how, I really do not know.

Next that I also know that it does not divide the other way either, even when making the C48853 twice, or four times as large in size.

You always make it 210 for that of 2 * 3 * 5 * 7, but next "what next" in such a sequence when a possible relationship between numbers is not directly available or present?

I definitely know that regular sieving is one possible option or alternative for finding prime numbers, but perhaps not the perfect solution either,
because a 321 number or Cullen/Woodall number always needs to be processed by means of LLR.

My guess is that the P1764 and next the PRP12576 could theoretically be making the next number in the sequence a possible megaprime, but here I would like to ask for a
possible way of getting at such a number.

Because the PRP12576 is not readily available or in front of me (I could be checking in with BOINC for this), I do not have it right now.

But only that I mentioned the fact earlier on my possible guess or suspicion that it could go straight up for some of the factors in a sequence and next I did not know the way in which to proceed.

storflyt32 2017-10-15 05:53

Continuing on a Windows, 32 bit partition right now, because of a bit of problems being experienced.

Also need ticking the stay logged in box here in order to keep the current session, so now this was done as well.



P64 = 6521004766994961131998652758478623734567850934300959187999440927

P72 = 132630796754188196686159842513385353980595967923227514053572714567610003

Here both are end factors from two different factorizations, multiplied with each other.

Not that unusual perhaps, but here both slightly easier and also slightly better as well.



The second link above has a pair of P40 and P96 factors and next took some four hours on Windows, 32 bits.

Initially a PRP96 here, except for perhaps the dinner in the meantime.

The second was started only a couple of minutes before, so here no factors yet.

Returning back to the desktop, apparently more easier here, because the word or phrase "either / or", could sometimes be part of Logic,
but next also which one should come first, or be better.

Also when editing that above, for some reason I had become logged out and therefore made it impossible to post.

A little bit of unusual perhaps, but at least now I know when it happens.

Here a pair of P26 and P129 factors, respectively and perhaps could be added first when having the early dinner put away.

Also that here it took 3 minutes and 30 seconds only.

But except for that, the first pair is a pretty good one here and I will have it in a short time.

But rather becoming a bit confused that only a C99 makes for a bit of a show, or at least juggling, by walking through the complex process of echoing lines like

"Bpoly 3484 of 4096: buffered 538 rels, checked 105253 (8.95 rels/sec)" to the screen in successive or repeating order.

Taking a long time as well, here perhaps yet another example of factors which could be sometimes individually known, but when next multiplied, it makes for such complexity.

Perhaps not directly stated, but we may eventually find ourselves in a situation where we need to know each small part or step of the whole road, leaving nothing in between, or left.

If I ever asked myself what is on the "other side" of that of the Magic number (RSA-1024) and the larger cousin RSA-2048 and next the fact that it does not divide here, but only becomes smaller factors.

So here not a good example at all, but also that a P153 was being found earlier today from doing it the opposite way, namely by means of multiplication and next the regular thing.


Here a quite good example of such factorization which is next some 5 years old, but is perhaps known.

Except for that, possibly will need to break off a little in order to not disappoint those in charge of running the projects under BOINC and their respective deadlines.

Perhaps needs a bit more editing above, because it became a little bit of butter on bread here.

storflyt32 2017-10-15 14:49

Here a bit of surprise right now and also a good reason to quit for the day.

Ending up with a P260 in my factorizations, checking with RSA-2048 first, which is not making for any good.

Next the C1133 of (2^4096+1) which of course is Fermat, but here apparently a PRP871 the other way, with only factors 2^3 and 7 in between.

Anyone better here, because I do not recall such a thing myself either.

Just in the door, I could perhaps have it later on at a better time and also could be of interest for the larger Fermat numbers as well.

Continuing here, but some good news right now.

Finding or getting across a P60 today, where the other factor is a P13, the first is a pretty nice one and next trying out with the well-known C147 Aliquot sequence number.


Here getting P1 = 5, both ways in between, for some two factors, the other a P87, but next that I have not reported it yet.

Apparently closing in here right now, because the other way around could be even more difficult.


Edit: Together with the Friday beer, giving it a try here as well.

Apparently a P25 or so at first and next I will let it go, or continue.

Because here or next some other stuff as well, taking up a bit, or if not considerable amount of time and next also I am also proud as well.

I will have this one also shortly, except for perhaps not being a better one.

Edit: Could add that I lost a P166 right now, because the computer went into a freeze and became unresponsible, needing a restart.

Here also a pretty nice looking number as well, so a bit of shame when it happens.

It should be the mentioned undervolt problem here and right now my CUDA tasks for the two projects are not running.

Next the P50 from the C147 Aliquot sequence number and at first an even number here before next continuing.


Eventually getting it sorted and next having the P50 here.


Also that this could also be work in progress as well, so next also that above for both the P22 and the P68.

If next continuing, perhaps something else or different, because this time again flipping around and next for something a bit larger.


Here adding both the P13 and also the P21 when first starting up with C11 = 14807725969 (or 121687 * 121687) .

But again that both prime numbers and also factors for such could be telling about a possible weighted distribution of such numbers when looked at or viewed in a larger context,
except for sometimes making them more or less equal in size, if not even comparing their individual sizes against each other and also their possible relationship.

Giving the above a thought, perhaps.


Here adding a P22 as well and it becomes a loop or cycle of sorts, because I could be back at a previous found factor once again.

But next that even a piece of cake does not help right now and therefore needs a bit more of thinking.

Next doing so and the P22 apparently is a common divisor among two different numbers, leaving only the P50 and P68 here.



Therefore the flip around is needed here for possibly anything more and will have it in a short while.



Again it apparently works out quite well, except for perhaps making a guess for the C117 in the first link above.


Here making perhaps an unneeded entry because I could be still sleeping, so my apologies for that.

But rather that the C117 could be multiplied with such a number as RSA-155 and next taking the square root.

Here a P20 for this which will be added in a moment, but next should be the same flip around in order for possibly even more.

Perhaps time for making a new one here, but before I go for tonight, again being a bit more brave and next adding a P141 to my list.

The PXXX of numbers, where at least the first X should start or begin with that of 1 as a digit, is perhaps kind of a motorway, if perhaps not any superhighway either.

I mentioned the falling leaf a couple of other places and also the context in which such a thing should belong.

The YouTube video being around and next about such a thing as numbers, could be telling about both such a tree for such numbers and also their weighted distribution, if not any
relationship as well, as mentioned above.

The larger you get for that of the size of such numbers, that of Probability and here Number probability, should perhaps be telling about such a possible distribution.


Should there be more large prime numbers than those factors which could be small, only because of their size, or is it perhaps vice versa, or the opposite way around?


Next reading the footnotes, some four in all, after the List of known Mersenne primes a little down the page.

The links above should be in the opposite order, but getting back at this tomorrow.

But only that a bit of a gap could be visible between at least M48 and M49 here, except for making no guess or even notice that such a number like P1 = 127 is supposed to be a Genefer factor.

Or perhaps I am wrong here?

Checking with this tomorrow, because for now it became late night here, but for now at least not in the list of large prime numbers for the latter.

storflyt32 2017-11-08 03:52

Does anyone know, or notice, but also checking out (2^1619-1) by reading around.

From the C1133 of (2^4096+1) there is a PRP642 in between, when next multiplying somewhere and next using the sqrt() function.

Becomes the system hang again and therefore only in one list and not in the other one such,
because here it should be continued on and if not wrong, perhaps it again could break up a little here, for more to be visible.


Making this small one right now, because I am wondering if perhaps the rest could be prime here.

Feel free to give it a try if you will.

And next two quite good ones as well during the week, which apparently did not get down the drain.

Edit: Not prime, but it took a day here.

Edit1 (or two) - Always the composite number in between here and not any prime at all.

Yes, I was looking at the Method itself here, because I am perhaps not stupid.


Adding from the P12 here.

Right now wondering how many such there are still remaining left.

The fact is that perhaps you could not be left to say that X is a factor of Y and so it goes.


P73 = 3256518082311195522905172911158711029259362377407136236870417147103185139

Should I perhaps multiply it with 2, or rather think it could be a factor of something?

P49 = 4294300189186204540683188159167873246431699868607

and next I have not tried it for myself.

So funny, but could have it when perhaps come back, or at least later in the morning, at least for this number.


Should next be a P104 the opposite way around. but when next making it the Monday beer, it becomes the "6" rather than the "9" in the display.

C113 = 79870341490808848773655734814116666912144138077860232969932808238961207074481200971147623060628043234818744625797


Anyone doing the business of factoring here are welcome at giving this a try, because here it became only Windows 32 bit for now.

Adding a little more right now, but still different from that above, because I once again choose to leave it off after another restart and that this factor also should go somewhere else as well.

The problem is that sometimes it could be difficult and sometimes easy, but next it also goes with the number itself and therefore both a Titanic prime added to my list at times, while still struggling with a number
that could be some 150 - 200 digits in size.

Two other numbers that were left alone across two nights of leaving the computer, did not make it during the session and perhaps the above could be described in a better way.

P40 = 4673178337968663531984341036786491968089

P50 = 89177647581795613534693522182368574645586736858827

P61 = 2572766907345268642064354495748751028268296022504726087549989

P73 = 2200432937034353686192348730242230333237896095518015432947312158161184369

If you try multiplying these factors with another, next perhaps with reference to yet another number, like that of RSA-1024, next a couple of different options and here I have not tried it out yet.

A quick test by multiplying the three first above, next makes for a P115 at the other end and still fresh in the buffer and needs to be written down.



But again you will probably choose to continue from the P115 and so on and next perhaps a hint of some three factors in between if it perhaps should be looping back at itself.

Also the first above multiplied with the fourth, gives a result back and here a quite good P188 factor which needs to be written down as well.

Next it becomes the second through fourth here as well for this, but now I lost my fingers for the day and both these will have to wait for at least tomorrow, including the links.

Again also the sense here that while perhaps only a small part of the whole thing, a bit of factoring using Windows, 64 bits, could be telling me about perhaps a bit more of the puzzle.

Except for only losing the good word for this here, only by that of editing.

Perhaps getting a couple of ideas before signing off, but could be adding where it should be.



Should perhaps make a new one here, but with my Thursday beer, I chose to add two loose factors first above.

Next could give it a try, of course.

Returning back to the session, it next becomes the P50 in the second link, so here it becomes that of filling in the gaps.

Next, the C100 as the product becomes a hard one to factorize and should be eating a bit of the whole cake, and could give this one a try as well,
at least for the remaining part, of flip-around, which should be a C209, or so.

I had a P9 slipping away earlier today, because it became both that of being quite near-sighted and also a couple of technical problems.

This because rather than making it P3 = 127 and next assuming a couple of primes, if not any factors, always that of 2^n-1 for this project, and why not this P9 for this as well.



Here the C97 is perhaps one of those difficult ones which I make that of angle numbers at times, because like RSA-1024 itself, it could be such a dead angle.

P42 = 266068276472462678805351153254851642665973

P55 = 8615131641044193804275380855557366159850734323349695999

Here again loose factors for this, because as mentioned, this could be a difficult one to factorize.



Here the interesting fact that the C126 in the second link versus the slingshot number of RSA-155 when multiplied and next the square root, makes for a P127 after a little.

Doing this repeatedly, or perhaps almost all the time, also that of the way things work together, because always the same principle.

You only need some seven of these P42 factors in order to make it RSA-1024 combined, but rather the fact that there are literally hundreds, if not thousands of such factors in total,
and again the story of Achilles never able to catch the turtle on the running field comes to mind.

Some Proth prime numbers are also divisors of Genefer numbers, and the quite simple task of sieving is being replaced with the tedious task of determining possible primality for the part
of the number still left or remaining.

Making a composite number at least a factor, and quite often the remaining part is still also composite.

When making it that of RSA-1024 for such a composite numbers, it also could be that such a number could be "spawning" anything in between which next could be prime.

The P127 above at least divides correctly, making it "1" in the last digit of the factor and next "3" when "dividing", but again the remaining part is still only composite.

As usual, multiplying two numbers always gives a composite number, but also when knowing the fact that there could be many factors, always the given method of making each of these separate parts.



Here the same as above, but even worse so, because here it perhaps is not possible.

P61 = 1113767094422199900605896348724787045161997478687751948513969

P65 = 33402254105198185285433691630917874922211165613246971339531439917



Again, always dinner before the cup of coffee and the cake, but except for that, always the answer as well.

Finding a quite good pair of factors when dividing a bit wrong today.

P66 = 220613731076473158273445123041821814890923488029571976241503174571

P71 = 22043490285279735212421812752979266074264479199416160591154315317677431

Here perhaps the product could be added, because for the flip-around, it becomes a quite good pair of P34 and P138 factors as a result.

Adding this a little later on, but I am not doing the large pair here, of course.

If next making it that above, together with the slingshot number of RSA-155, it becomes a P26 next added to my list from that of RSA-2048.

A closer look tells that it could rather be the previous pair above, but needs cheching for both.

Also the product for the four above needs checking as well, but I liked the two last ones here.

Not working initially, because I think that the closer you are to the desired numbers, also that of a higher bit length, or depth as well,
so, if perhaps a ladder for a fireman, always the difficulty climbing the last step when you are on the second last, and it next titls much the same on each side.

Here a P19 being added to my list of factors, but also that I was looking for a rep-digit prime only having those 0's and 1's recently being found.

Better make a new one here.

storflyt32 2017-12-14 20:50



Here in fact no need, because leaving the computer for a break and returning back, here a pair of P41 and P78 factors which I could add.

Total factoring time = 12205.8954 seconds

Here perhaps exclude a couple of seconds for the P12 and P17, which also had to be added.

But also that it becomes another P121 when using the product of the two large factors and next the slingshot number of RSA-155 with a P15 preceding it.


Not tested yet, but only shows that while making pieces out of a single cake, it does not always divide either when doing so.

Doing so and I also know that it should be worth it, because such quite large ones next opens up the rest of it a little, like that of a Pandora's box.

Here it becomes a P161 with a P14 preceding it, and again an easy one and again we are on the road for a couple of things.

Better could be added here, except for taking a couple of hours in the first case or instance.



Again looping back at itself here because of its relative simplicity or ease.


Next again forgetting a couple of things, and should have finished up here first, but here the FDB apparently knew the answer.





Here for yet another answer to the problem, in that order, except for perhaps the factorization itself.

But still need to continue from the P171 here.



The product here, because in that order of being found, but next I typically use smaller first, next the larger, for that of multiplication,
but here the product makes for a P8 and a P10, before a P328, for that of a secret number, except for P1 = 2 first, only because I guess something broke a little earlier on.

Not adding the rest of it here for the moment, but here a quite easy one.

Next it also loops back to itself for that above, also for the P328 here, meaning that you could perhaps multiply the product with RSA-1024, and next taking the square root,
but in this case, not getting anything particular this time.



Here are two pretty heavy ones, I think, but next the same P23 for both.

Trying the first one now, using two different task windows, the second will have to wait a little.

Doing the usual multiplication, here is a P95 in between when taking the square root, and also a little more at first.

I better should go early at the shop and also getting a big cake this time, and could have the factor a little later on.

Before that, a P43 when factoring from the C147, and the product next should be yet another slightly larger piece of the magic number.

The product becomes a C138 (and not a C139 by just adding) and next it becomes a C143 the other way, which I will leave running.

But also perhaps the question which one could be the more difficult one, except for having the factors for the first one, but still not the second.

I will have it later on.

The fingers are not my friend again, and also looking up Rheumatism in the Wikipedia for this, and this article could have been better, because here a new decease perhaps becoming more common.

Or perhaps more of an illness, rather than a decease here.




Still on 32 bit Windows, here the simple part at the end, and also the rest became noted down as well.

But if next factorizing the numbers, for that of making it valid, it will not easily do or make it here, and also that the C168 will not jump down to the C99 in a simple fashion either.

This perhaps would be so if still on 64 bits Windows, but not for now, or this time.

I will add for the C99 when the factors become available, but next that it apparently runs out here, needing the SIQS, and next some 109264 relations for that of the same.

It could take the rest of the day here and I could have it in the evening, local time.



P48 = 271211449847284420209163583006358364210615255801

P70 = 1837123990256157335518261117523493592106505945818396822772121077408847

Again, the same as before, namely loose factors, because I am not able to do it here.

For this evening, or perhaps tonight, two more factors and this time P1 = 7 and P4 = 1837 in between, both ways.

The two large factors are a P136 and P169, respectively and probably none of these are already known.

But also that it becomes part of a sequence, or a way of running, so also a couple of other things in the meantime as well.

The product could become a semiprime, and always tempting to give a try against the larger cousin as well.

It should not divide directly between each other for that of a composite number only, but here it becomes a P271 when doing the flip-flop and also waiting a little.

Next also a P35 or so in my factorizations, from a C228, but losing it because Windows chooses to be doing a couple of things.

Getting back at it, but for now, not in my logs either.





Here in fact only adding the P17 in the flip-flop, because right now past 9 PM and I will not do the first two ones here on just a short notice.

Perhaps checking in, because at least the smaller factors should be in my list.

The two first initially composite numbers only, and the third becomes the product of the first two, in the usual way.

Here one of those factors being found only by just picking it up and next only guessing.

Also because it became 9:40 PM on a Friday evening, I perhaps could be having a cup of coffee before finishing off the rest.

I could be looking around for the PRP12576 being my current record prime, but perhaps still at BOINC for that of the link, since my main partition became lost or unable.

This because while listing such a number should not be practical, at least that of number theory and next for numbers a bit larger, should still be more so.

I do not know if you could make it a single sequence of all numbers if all factors became available, but here at least making it at least both 2 and 3, should be telling about the possible difference.

While I am perhaps not that familiar with Wieferich numbers, including possible primes, at least it could become that of an ordered list if next making it so.

I could perhaps finish up the day by adding a couple of larger factors, but also that I will be with my mother and younger brother on Christmas evening, which here is on December 24.

If perhaps still a difference between countries here, still that I either perhaps do not know, or at least will have to ask in order to find out.

The fact that it could be going on almost forever for that of numbers, rather than being just a shot in the dark for that of possible success, is yet another reminder of the complexity being involved.

The factor database was able to factor the two small being found, and next adding the factors for the product as well, making for a full factorization both ways.

To my surprise, always that of a composite number still left the opposite way, like that of a C229 being tried out just now.

Here it could take some time however, and it could be left running overnight.

As far as I am able to tell, neither that of number theory itself or alone should be able to tell about possible primality for a given number.

Almost always that of a reference with something already known, before next also adding those parts which are still not known.

I mentioned that of a number sometimes being weighted, because it perhaps is not only about size alone.

If a cat could eat a mouse, always that of a color for that of a mouse, except for perhaps only slim, rather than just simply fat.

It next becomes that of a cake as well, and also that such a cake could also make you fat as well, except for perhaps leaving a piece for yourself, and next the remaining part of the cake for
the rest of the family, if not any other members of your household.

It always becomes that of multiplying two numbers where still a couple of things are remaining, but you rather should be wanting just one or two factors for that of the answer.

Again it becomes the P17 as being one such example, mentioned above.

Here both this factor, and also the P24, P31, P35 and P41 becomes that of excluding factors for that of what we are seeking to find out, or perhaps accomplish, and next on each side.

Next also that of larger factors as well, but also that the principle should still be the same.

If perhaps still a weighted factors, also that of a weighted prime which could be found as well, and still it also could be that of sieving as well.

If perhaps so, at least that sieving could be making for such composite numbers which are that of RSA numbers we still do not have the factors for.

Always that of an enemy which could be coming from above, like that of a movie like Star Wars, but if next asking where the RSA numbers came from, at least they could be coming from above
in a similar way, leaving the thought perhaps open that there could be a prime number or factor around when doing it the opposite way.

But next that it perhaps does not divide either, even when attempting to doing so.

I am mentioning at another place that a word could perhaps be a word, like that of a possible meaning itself.

For that of numbers only, it perhaps should be only two things, namely that of a composite versus prime number.

If perhaps even more, either at least that of still prime numbers, or perhaps that of intermediate numbers which next could be part of the result.

If perhaps RSA-768 could be still only thought of, rather than a true or genuine factorization of its own, also that a possible flip-around next should not be returning anything of importance.

For now, also this mostly not available, because it ended up on the main disk being in use, but for now lying on the shelf.

This makes me think that the C229 could still be a number on its own, because like other factors, also that of no direct reference between any such factors either.

So here perhaps still an open question, because I was also making it the possible opposite way around earlier on.

storflyt32 2017-12-25 13:45



Guess it is Christmas, and here adding the P13 in the second link.

Here I had expected a little more beforehand or in advance.

Next continuing from here as usual, since it became another factor.

I decided to go to the shop again today, because I did not keep with the regular for that of Christmas this year.

Next, that I appreciate your generosity when it comes to me, so next thanks.

Except for only being left with 32 bit Windows right now, because of both technical and health problems, perhaps still such a thing as a couple of Numbermaniacs around,
but for this, also that of Pragmatism as well, which I could next check up, because here it just popped up.

I tried to give a mention about that of sieving at PrimeGrid, and do not know if I was heard, or listened to.

Like that of something popping up at times, also those that goes down the drain as well, or just get vanished in the air, because here thinking about "catch it, if not do so later".

Make it four P150 - P160 factors for that of prime numbers, next multiply, and you get a composite factor.

Next assume a composite number for that of the product, and you always should sieve, if not doing anything else, from an even larger number, still also composite.

The point here is that for that of large numbers, you may not be able to catch the factor, or factors in the middle, because it is beyond range of that of sieving.

Is next that of LLR testing such that all, or each or everyone number known only to be composite, and next no known factors for, are being tested,
or could there perhaps be gaps?

You should know that I perhaps should know, because a couple of PSP tasks (Prime Sierpinski), went past some 400,000 seconds of running time, and next I was also late.

For that of a given project, we could sometimes be having that of validity for that of a given task, and next it becomes another line of knowledge in a quite large table.

At Seti@home, a religous discussion at least is being allowed, or permitted, except for perhaps not any breakthrough either.

Except for that of possible Numbermaniacs, we also could be that of "nerds" for that of numbers, because this is what we are supposed to do.

Finding a prime number, or even factor, always adds to current knowledge, but that for a given understanding of nature, perhaps a different approach is needed.

Making a project a distributed one, always makes for a couple of possibilities, but also a couple of disadvantages, or even setbacks as well when it comes to personal performance.

For that of science, if perhaps not any numbers, always that the Earth is perhaps not flat, but next not any hollow either.

Such a thing as one distributed project next grabbing another, or even the hands of such, also should be known, with also a couple of strange or unexpected things as a result.

If still with another or different project here, I next would perhaps say that it better should be that of "Stay on target", and next also be steadfast for what you wish to accomplish.

Next perhaps no big difference in factors, but rather a difference in possible result, because of the operator itself, which here should be "-" rather than "+", just for "simplicity".

Because of such simplicity, also the next "break ground" for that of using a shovel, and next you could be digging further in a similar way, in order to make steady progress.

Regardless of method, or perhaps which way, factor finding should always be such a thing "per se", in comparison, or except for that of finding a large prime number.

Except for that of distribution itself, which sometimes could be a random one, also a different word as well, which next I could hope could be coming back, or perhaps returning on me.

Perhaps my preference is still different, but also that sometimes a couple of things could be popping up here as well, so next I also could give it a thought as well.

Also that I was giving a thought about possible "move along" here, in that recently a prime was being found for that of Genefer20, but next also with a high value of b.

But next that both factors and prime numbers could be present, but also distributed in a somewhat random order, which next could still follow a possible scheme, or pattern.

Assuming huge or large amounts for that of composite numbers, next that prime numbers could be in between as well.

This makes it also logical to believe, if perhaps not think, that increasing the value of n, also makes it necessary to increase the size of p, k, b, or whatever,
already from the start, because there should be more composite numbers around when next the size of n also increases.

Except for still not checking, n could be 131072 for that of Genefer, and next we also make it Genefer Mega as well, for that of a large b.

Similarly, just that of a P9 here as well, for that of such a candidate for a possible Mega Prime, and you still could be having that of simplicity as well.

Therefore, always the exponent, of course, but next there are also people around asking for that of p, k, or b as well, which next should also be that of the base for such a number.

If not wrong, this should not be about any sieving either, so what is perhaps wrong here?

Should the answer here be that factoring itself perhaps could "bite the dust" for what it perhaps could do, or should I rather still be a possible "Numbermaniac", or nerd,
for that of a result I possibly could not deliver or return?

But next the answer could perhaps be that you "never" could be able to tell such a thing either, because a prime number always is supposed to be on its own,
and next not perhaps you in charge for such a thing either.

For this it therefore becomes that of being a "newbie" at times and next think that perhaps you found something, but next that only sieving was being used, and next that nothing was being found.

Next presumably still that of numbers here, since I did not find anything myself.

storflyt32 2018-01-03 01:14

But next that always that of simplicity, except for perhaps not making anything worth either, because I also mentioned that of "weighted" numbers as well.

A proth prime could well be decent number on its own, but next multiply it with yet another similar, and you are back at a composite number.

But next always that of both factor finding and also that of prime numbers as well, except for not making it any sieving either, or at least question other methods for which such a number could be found.

In my ten years at PrimeGrid, and also a bit shorter time here as well, always that of sieving versus LLR for that of prime number finding, except for not any factors, or prime numbers themselves.

Here is perhaps the culprit, because we could be doing so for both that of RSA-1024 as that of the "Magic Number", except for perhaps not the product of two large prime numbers as well.

Always that of one method for that of sieving, and next that of using LLR itself for that of a possible candidate, which next also could be a prime number, but except for perhaps still composite, not any prime number at all, because of also the limits of sieving.

Therefore, the big question, namely how, or in which way, a composite number relates to that of the product of two other composite numbers, next slightly smaller in size.

Should this be still possible factor finding, or could it rather be cheating, only because of the limits of both sieving, and also the factorization method itself?

Again, that except for possible downtime, we could be making it that of priests versus that of a given heaven for a couple of things at Seti@home, but also that I could sometimes be a "nerd" for that of numbers, except for that of a couple of things left out.

In fact, for a couple of things, we could make it both "brute force" and next also that of a brute force algorithm as well, only because it is supposed to make it, or perhaps fit a given purpose.

Numbers could still also be that for a cryptological purpose as well, except for not too much mentioned, or even stated, but nevertheless, or except for that, also for an important purpose as well, which sometimes is not that easy to catch.

Are numbers still just easy, because it next also should be easy to catch, if perhaps not pretend, or should such a thing as going to the Moon, still be a hard thing to do?

"Best guess" could still also be that of a Method as well, but still not any such thing as listening and next waiting either, for something perhaps never coming our way.

A couple of thoughtful things could perhaps be on our mind, but next that the smile could also be visible in a face as well.

Our mission here definitely "first one thing", or perhaps that one, and next another, or such, because it next could fit our purpose as well, except for perhaps not that of another.

But next also no such thing as being brave either, because it could still be that of crawling, except for any crawling itself, except for perhaps not any Method either.

Happy New Year!

storflyt32 2018-01-03 01:55

But still that of distributed for a couple of things, we could still make it both Numbermaniacs and also a couple of nerds for a couple of things.

But next that also a recent Pope, is perhaps not having such a smile either.

Make it next also that of numbers as well, and also that of a dry sense of humor, if perhaps none or nothing at all.

There was a recent interview, or perhaps post of today at Yahoo! where some woman was telling that she could be slapping someone, rather than perhaps just telling.

As a young child, I remember my self using a tongue on a piece of metal when outside during the winter, and next also the possible result as well.

The recent Rose Parade on display, also could be such a thing for that of a lethal weapon as well, and next in the sky, for that of a possible wishful dreams, if not any happiness.

But make it perhaps still a competition of sorts, and next not any Consensus either, at least for a couple of things.

Next, perhaps hope for the best, if not the worst either, but at least for that of numbers, always that of such itself, and also that of both results, and also a given way of finding such numbers.

What if I rather could believe in a peaceful world, except for one such for that of war, because there always could be a disagreement around, including that of our business as well?

We could perhaps make it both a leap second, if not a leap year, for that of possible time, but perhaps not so for any accomplishments either, because it always, or as usual, should be that of a Method for such.

Could you still have a large dish for that of your meal, and next also have it all put together in one piece or sequence as well?

Or is rather so because except for perhaps a single chew using your mouth, the food could still be eaten, and next also finished off?

If not wrong, two geniuses perhaps are not always shaking hands either, but except for possible brainstorming, that of "tink-tank" next comes to mind.


Here before checking on the word itself, and also it becomes a short sentence.

If not wrong, perhaps still a mission to the Moon for at least that of Apollo, but next also that of "For all of Mankind" as well.

Numbers in fact, could be for a common cause, and next also a common inventory as well, except for perhaps a special word here as well.

Martin Luther King perhaps was having a dream, but next not for that of any numbers either, because it still could only be sieving.

But next that you are not supposed to tell me that I am perhaps not wrong either, when next perhaps hitting it on the spot, and next for at least that of a prime number.

We still could be doing our homework, if not already doing so, in that sieving for that of Mersenne primes at least should be underway, or in progress, but next for that of Genefer, apparently no such thing.

But also that such a thing as "embezzlement" or "misappropriation" should not be any such thing for that of any numbers either, because you perhaps still sold and next bought.

Believe it or not, but at least for that of PrimeGrid, perhaps simple and next also true, but next perhaps not any "simplistic" either.

Is this because of perhaps a simplification or possible facts, except for that it perhaps could be true?

Next, always that of some four P150 factors, of course, and next it should be that of "next prime", but except for the possible algorithm, of course, I next could also be left to wonder as well.

Both that of getting a bit older, and next also making it both priests, if not any beings, next took a bit of toll on me, but except for that, always the answer as well, and next also the way it could be sought.

Are numbers supposed to be about possible disagreements, or should it rather be about possible results and achivevements?

I still could be doing a couple of other things, but except for perhaps minor or mediocre for a couple of things, I still could be here for what I am supposed to do, and next we always could discuss that of an algorithm for that of a possible subject,
because next here I still am.

Also that such a thing could be about a possible conjecture, of course, but needs checking.

storflyt32 2018-01-19 22:29


Here I was nice and leaving it to the server, but also that it ended up in my records as well.

There could be other numbers as well, but struggling today with a couple of restarts, and also doing the weekend shopping.

Now, past 11 PM on a Friday evening, things are getting a little back in shape and could next continue the session.

Looking right now for a C124 which vanished in the crowd, but right now not getting back at this number, and guess is is a bit heavy to say.

But rather two other tasks running, one for a C144, and the other for a C130, because a little curious here, because thinking that the PXXX for that of a factor, could be the superhighway of sorts, or at least four lanes,
and next we already know the P57, or the like.

I guess this is a thing which sometimes could be done, but when keying in "NSA supercomputer" using Google, the answer back is that it could take millions of years to factorize even a 200 digit number.

Except for perhaps disagreeing slightly with such a statement as well.

By means of factoring, this could still be a difficult process, but next perhaps not so when being spoken or spelt, or perhaps written.

The two numbers in question are good examples, because here not known for the factors which should be the result.

There is always going to be a couple of such numbers, or perhaps factors in between, which we next could miss, so therefore an ordered factor list should always be welcome for what we have, or perhaps already know.

Really, I should take the time congratulating for the recent Mersenne 50 prime number, which together with the previous Mersenne 49 perhaps did not receive a proper mentioning,
except for being great discoveries on a sheet of paper only, in that there is not that much of complexity here, except for the size of the number itself.

Presumably a sieving algorithm will never be able to tell about the tail number which could be in question, and for this only the LLR method needed, or perhaps necessary.

My factor list starts with P10 = 1165502893 at the top.

Next we choose to sieve it off, and it soon becomes forgotten.

But still those P9 and P10 factors, which together with the little -1 at the end could sometimes be making it the desired number, or perhaps the one we could wish for,
in that sieving not only could be a method for excluding one number for another, but also that of a "determinant" for such a thing as well.



Now I will have the weekend beer.

Here got to think about those small numbers which could be the reason for that of sieving at times.

Quite good example at the top here where three small factors precede four larger ones.

Should numbers still be poor man's science, or should we rather still think of science as cheap in a similar way?

Do not forget that only a couple of years ago we were left with eight digits for that of a handheld computer, so never tell me which thing to perhaps say.

I think that size has become the burden right now, and not the numbers themselves, because from my own experience, you never know when it perhaps could show up.

It really could be nice looking back at history here, and only making it P3 = 127, which next was found to be a prime number, I guess by the Greek.

But next that we also could make it "divisors" for even larger numbers, except for not any RSA number for that of cryptography, or cryptoanalysis either, and here the way for this,
or perhaps the way it could be explained, is perhaps not being readily told either.

So easy for almost everything, except for perhaps RSA-768, and also two or three other numbers, but for the rest still remaining, apparently a bit of a challenge.

Getting a handle on PRP1600 - 1700, and next becoming P for this, also that it became M48*** something here (composite), and also that the disk for this also broke.

Perhaps not the most important here, except for not having the numbers in front of me, but rather thinking about "nextprime" here, in that a titanic prime could be followed by a gigantic prime,
and next also a megaprime as well, but for now lacking the last element here.

But except for that, some 15.20 hours to go for the C144, and almost 12 hours for the C130, so always a reminder of what could next happen if you are in a bit of a hurry.

Continuing right now with an upload for what I have.

But again also making it "literal" here, except for not any "quantisizing", or even that of "Determinism" either, which should be either BOINC, or perhaps Seti@home.

If not wrong, you still could be counting your fingers and toes, and also your arms and legs, and also make it a difference.

Some 50 Mersenne primes, or factors, and next also millions of factors as well, and next ask me about a couple of properties for both that of the possible known, if not unknown, for that of the Universe,
if perhaps not including, or excluding either, and there always could be both questions and answers.

Make it a pencil being held between your fingers, and it next also could break.

Wear a leatherjacket, and next also that of stiff for such a thing as well, for both attitude, if not the jacket itself.

Next recall Harrison Schmitt on the Moon as the only scientist of the Apollo program, and next that it was supposed to be fun, because it next also should be so.

Here the rule of thumb for that of science as well, in that it always should be fun, regardless of subject.

We quite often could be finding a bit of dedication around, but next that both practical, and also technical issues could be hampering the whole subject.

Should it still be the thing to say, namely forget about the P10, because it could be sieved away?

Or should it still be only that of luck for such a thing, in that only a P9 could next make it for the biggest prime number being discovered?

But still also the mentioned superhighway as well, and that for a given purpose it could be way off, or perhaps short.

Really the point is that we should not rely on any algorithm here, but only making it a best guess, because when next doing so, it also could be working, or perhaps even success.




Here another good example, because again it becomes a couple of minutes between each keystroke, for that of Windows as an operating system.

Except for that of a loose pair of P67 and P69 factors in the first link, and here it became a prime factor the opposite way around.

Continuing with this in the third link, and here down to a C135 right now, but the question is still how much we are wasting on a couple of unneeded things.

I could add the factors here as well, if time could tell, or perhaps give me a moment.

But also noticing that while choosing to edit my contents, I am ending up a bit way past, or perhaps down in the buffer, or perhaps page, and need to scroll up.

storflyt32 2018-01-28 22:36

The computer booting up in the second attempt today, because of the problems being experienced.

Therefore not my intent at being here for the current moment, because I am unable to do something.

But take this into consideration as well.

At the primeform group, which should be with Yahoo!, I wrote something like
"Mind your wording perhaps a little for this prime, Mr. Underwood".

Here meaning Paul Underwood for this.

Why so?

Am I supposed to be perhaps mean, or even a bit naive, when making such a comment, which next was not approved there?

Or should it rather be the way the original post for this was being formulated?

Not in front of me right now, but I read or perhaps misinterpret it as "just another prime", or even number for this, when it rather should be thought of as a great discovery of such a prime number.

Next still which method which could be used for this, and supposedly I also could be naive for such a thing as well, except for perhaps not making it P3 = 127 either, or rather 2^496942763-1 either.

So, what is the secret here, except that from only the look of it on the spot, you perhaps could tell that this number could be composite only.

Should it next be that of LLR testing on such a composite number which could perhaps be on the fly, or should I rather let it run, and make it a day or two for it in order to happen?

Sieve a couple of things, and next you also sieve away as well, in that at least I made it PPS Sieve Jade, and also the downgraded Ruby for that of CW sieve as well, or down from 4 million to 2 million for such a thing,
only because it became the few winners here.

Therefore, make it either Congratulations as usual, and next also the fine words as well, except for perhaps something else, which also could be interpreted in a similar way.

Again, make it on the spot for such a thing, but if not wrong, there should not always be such a thing either.

Here you could make it a list of both small factors (less than 10 digits), and also the list of larger factors as well.

Make it still a 309 or 617 digit composite number, and also such a thing on the fly as well, because at least the algorithm could be telling so.

If this was the intended meaning already from the start, namely subtracting not only 1 from a given number, but also that the number itself should be for a given meaning, perhaps I did not catch the point from the start or perhaps beginning.

Make it slightly larger, and for this something like 2^1165502893-1 and still perhaps the same, except for not any big discovery either.

But again that the answer once again could be simple and straightforward as well.

If perhaps not that simple, there perhaps could be an algorithm which could be telling whether or not a given prime could be "weighted", for what it perhaps could mean.

The problem here is that for now it probably ends with RSA-512 for this, and not always so either, except for also RSA-768 for much the same thing.



Here a quite good example, because for the first one, it could be almost RSA-768 all over again, and for the second one, at least it became the most basic sieving here, and you are still left with the total factorization.

Here it runs out, or perhaps in the blind, because this is what numbers are supposed to be all about.

P125 = 86737086240212626511899122127211566597927434517362636731073773877597018636167892779006796362683240741596592268257795886935031

P128 = 46023623556505344551566133963564068980872493455649757291948097960040888366597607417766953501553810921470553998454526488438192209

Next finish off the second or remaining part of it, and we could be one step closer to knowing the whole story.

Also adding the P21 for that of the second link above, where at first it only became the P18.



Sorry for that above, but here adding two more factors to the list, and I have not looked at the product yet, for that of doing it the opposite way.

storflyt32 2018-01-31 19:57

I need you here for that of a temporary storage buffer.

C106 = 2741272335905625596671993119681976731684287791393316807290426806335925066302027372822579448466165128450089

Finally got a Windows 64 bit installation up and running, but it is blank from the shelf, and had nothing else or more, so I will be switching back to it, for that of also having Yafu installed as well.

Took an hour here to get it working, because the computer is still borking with the undervolt problem, and the only option is using the fingers on the cables with the mains shut down.

Here it needs some 12 minutes getting ready for the SIQS.

And guess what, here it blew as well, still on 32 bit Windows, meaning that I got the factors for it here as well.

P41 = 12728735481560502479273543677853904817069

P66 = 215360931954063541307798159063863249442628246774227279079847257581

But only for reference here, because I will be switching back to the 64 bit installation I got set up or installed as well, and here apparently unable to read back to the 32 bit partition which finally got in order.

Therefore I will need to update with the factors in the FDB before that, so I will rather do it right now.

Except for that, really a beast here of a number, and here for once, not any loose factors for that of such, because here it took a loong time.

C189 = 480721557758169428234543171978867957975972532363105544995615132470792266432268324883983523733262648495533287564414411773614277688991292375769540432049045527978520198570967112480658250120159

Same thing as above, but switching to 64 bits right now for that, but also I know that numbers are wasting space.

Getting back at it later, but again that it is not always lunchtime here.

I forgot copying over the vcomp100.dll file (perhaps large caps) for that of 32 bits factoring, so for now making no shortcut icons here, and rather run it from the shelf,
and here only 64 bits right now, but if still at 32 bits Windows, it could perhaps remember the four factors above, and before trying out, not sure if it will split into two here.

It became a restart of the computer here, but actually correct here when saying so, in that it gets right to the C106 which became factorized a short while ago.


Again being interrupted by both a freeze, and also some three or four restarts, but it may seem that problems are getting sorted out right now.

Except for my file system which is still in a bit of shambles.

The problem here is that here it ends up with a couple of composite numbers, so if I could make it here for now, for a couple of items at a time, it would be fine.

I make it an asterisk here for meaning "my use only", because I rather would like to switch back to 64 bits, and in the meantime I am unable to make a copy of things.

My personal notes below right now for own use, and I will clean up afterwards.


C84 = 175364392461705175920213651332954424278435279712185874872709548008813071230702226631

P34 = 1964800810875324866228664053364937

P50 = 89253013074429562246736548825149514541405933678863

Or perhaps I should rather skip the header for the two above?





Before doing the restart, perhaps this question as well.

Namely 1, 2, 3, and so on, and why do we not just count the numbers in sequence and next always could know what they should be all about?

Example number here.

C128 = 78244149094010011551712629650065462531430530363409268109697925804587903980663243494550096311778575867291556500689086243166037593

This number is known to be composite only, so why no factors here, when we are supposed to be counting, and also should know to do it?

Could you perhaps make one number a sieving factor of yet another number, only because the first could be composite, and the second either just the same, or even perhaps a prime number or factor?

Should perhaps be only prime number above, but next also the difference between the sizes, because if not wrong, sieving should not be about any prime number finding either, but just about factors.

Here perhaps also the possible leftover as well, in that it could be an "exclusion" of factors by means of the method of elimination, in order to find the big such one.

Before I do the switch, also that Yafu once again divides it wrong, and here adding a P75 to my list, only for that of above in full.

Checking with the well known C147 for that of splitting apart of sorts, next that of a P16 and P49 at the end, where the larger is a pretty nice one.

But also that the product here once again becomes one such sieving pair.

C123 = 448641120391000388518138744921139298119655689250036864409006004981275111305274318763288127336248681409945610389320411411923

You are of course welcome to try, but I could have the factors for you when returning back to this partition.

Either it is the computer back on its heels, or it could be the night shift for that of network maintenance, but here again so for each keystroke.



Take this for a grain of salt, or at least unofficial in the second link, because here I could key it in all, but rather I choose a redo here, and could have it in after the Thursday shopping.

The first becomes a product of already known factors, but next the question of whether it could be possible.

Here for now, a smooth pair, with a P35, P46 and P47 pair, which like the first part also came with the little bit of failure at equating the relation.

Either the computer is hanging, or maybe the page, so I will need to fix this later.

I made an entry for the C123 in the FDB, and it became a new such one here.

Flipping around as usual, adding a P24 here, but the remaining C111 could take a while, and here I do not have the factors.



Perhaps not any big here, but also that I still have the end result in mind, for what we could be wishing for, and sometimes not that easy at getting at.

Testing out a little more, and the product of both the P35, P46 and P47, together with the P31 and P66, gives a P110, the other way around, with only a couple of small factors in between.

Again both the borking computer, if not hanging network, at around 08:20 in the morning, but here the P110 should only be part of the result as a whole.


Here, dang it as a whole, and I soon noticed that it became quite difficult here, for that of a possible factorization.

Here sqrt(C111 = 3228... * RSA155) for that of a P119 a little down.

Adding perhaps during the night shift for this one.

Also at least 64 bits for that of booting up here, but also that I lost both the P35, and also the C93.

So, perhaps Genefer here, because a long time since last time, and also that I also lost this factor as well.

In fact, except for not any divide and conquer, I have not had the time or opportunity at looking at this little thing for now.

You next know where it stands, for that of making it at least a P9 for a couple of things, if perhaps not any sequence of numbers either, which could lead to a possible "Proof".

For this Genefer as well, and next mamma mia, because at least I should be able to "divide".

Here perhaps both "divide and conquer" as well, if you do not mind, because as usual. we could always question a possible method, if perhaps not, for that of bringing possible result.

For this, always the biggest and best, if not perhaps any "hidden primes" either.

Make a fool of myself, and next not yours either, but it also could be a C93 not being factorized.

Sorry about that wording above.

If I rather choose to make it anywhere else, you next probably would say stop, but is this perhaps still about a Method?

Needs a fix or update for that above, and working on it.

Back later on.

storflyt32 2018-02-09 03:09

I need to get back at the correct disk, if not partition, because checking, it is not here.

You are so friendly with me, so here the P119 for you.

P119 = 56796619258313522879161668314803581099957816362058970670160675791399037357595524929310995369016327572505230812150824563

I please ask for respect, because not here reported yet.

Here we still could make it "Deep in the underground" for that of a pop, or musical band.

Or perhaps still the C123 above, sigh.

Should I perhaps make it the factors here, if you do or did not know?

Not even the correct disk for this right now, so it presumably becomes a guess in the blind.

P87 = 138204427620602625156084149042090671268825372481271571092581359674372795393229733257107

P97 = 1799701431392965366078171712083348490129299477445003529164136672462974288408908579134208224387133

Both factors are known individually this time.


Here the factors of the flip-around in this case, and one possible solution is perhaps pretending a couple of these numbers to be semiprimes, but next that it could be rather done the opposite way.

Also no reason to add the product here to the FDB, because it only becomes a waste of space.

But it only goes to show the complexity involved here.

Just in from the shop and forgot the needed coffee the second time, so here in the meantime.


P62 = 18622932908849933529872834723913414110721287772872992013238359

P74 = 12415765527282907142645442571333163956992118765826496440008640434915391689

Here two separate or different factorizations, and the P62 is coming with a P24, while the P74 is with a P22.

Again, need the cup of coffe here, but here you could be lost in the dark for the C135 and could make it a multiply with RSA-155, and next the square root as usual, for that of the flip around.

Here not done so yet, but could add both factors before it gets to late in the evening.

If sieving is still only the possible method for that of leaving a couple of numbers out for another, also that we probably would like the individual factors when at least making it such factors for those numbers
which could be large.

Really the fact is that such numbers as at least RSA-1024 could also be nicknamed "spawning" factors, in that it could be kind of balanced around, by means of being weighted, in that a P154 could always be there,
but next not divide this time either.

Should it next be the small or large factor left to decide when it comes to factorizing a number?

Meaning that the mentioned P154 may not divide, and similarly not 2, 3 or 5 either.

Is it possible to show which approach or alternative is the better one, for that of coming up with an answer?

Checking out, at least the C135 above, with the mentioned factors, is having a P16 and a P154 using the flip around, so this also becomes as almost expected as well, in that it also was being sensed.

Or perhaps rather in the cards for this.



Still the bit of a borking computer, so I better could have it here and make an edit on it later.

Apparently both factors in here, so I could add the flip around as well.


Continuing as we speak and also have the coffee, here adding the P16 for that of the P154, which is not the same as that above, at least not at first.


Also adding the P16 here as well, but except for the term "Jack in the Box", which needs checking, also that of having fun if you absolutely want to do the C135 manually,
or perhaps the ordinary way.

Or rather say it in this way, namely for that of losing out on a couple of disks and partitions, here it became one good up and running, and also four disks inserted as well.

Therefore quite a bit available in front of me, and possibly even more as well, and if you check in with PrimeGrid, one of their goals is teaching us the subject of Mathematics,
if not making it any Cryptography or Cryptoanalysis either, and for this also the relationship between Fermat numbers and those which happens to be Mersenne prime numbers.

Here the steadily increasing number of Fermat primes, including a recent Genefer 262144 prime.

I will try fixing the syntax later on, because here it became a bit of stuck arms, but also a genuine interest in the subject, because I left both binoculars and also the telescope on the shelf.

Think of it as an "Amicable" prime, if not anything else, including possible factors, and you probably see what I mean, in that factors should always be in between, and therefore also intermediate as well.

Here a bit of long line, so I could get back here as well, but if you compare with a C209 also running, here perhaps not any loose factors either, so where next to look?

If I was able to get to my factor list, or perhaps table, it could be shown that most numbers should be composite only, because you are not supposed to make it a P62 and P74 from only a C135.

Same should go for even larger numbers, because it also should be about the limits of sieving as well.


For this a P55 just in the door, which also became added, and next together with the mentioned P62.

P55 = 1318728975142328469587516039442265901282109426046157327

For the record only, and next it should be having a more proper place.

The flip around is having a P28 from a C153 which could be next up.


The bad thing is that you could end up doing your things on a couple of factors which could be kind of semiprimes, but next also in a hidden way, because it might not be a readily fix, or solution.

If still "make or break" for a couple of things, also we should know that it might not always work here either, for at least this kind of work.

The practical, if not ideal solution, would always be having both the P55, P62 and P74, and next think that it could be doing at least part of the trick,
but the world of reality, or perhaps facts. should also tell that this might not always be possible.

For this you could be left to decide here.

But still "Nobody's fool" as usual, thinking it could be Slade for that of music, when it rather could be the almost endless list of multiplications, this time that of factors,
in the hope that it could be making up part of something even larger or else.

I have not tried this yet, but if I multiply these three above, something like a C191 as the product.

The flip around here should be something like a C118, but sadly also a quite big chance that no such thing as "break even" is possible, and you could end up twisting your hair for perhaps both.

Adding the P28 and I still have to add the product here to my list as well, in order not to forgetting it altogether.

Remember that if it became that of "make and break" in a similar fashion for that of breaking a couple of numbers, perhaps not my genre or fashion either, but at least I heard about the subject.

Here PrimeGrid still chooses to make it rather "cracking", but except for that of Cryptology again, apparently no practical applicability either, except for that of a possible hidden meaning.

If you read around, perhaps you know that the Pentagon, or U.S military could be sitting around with a couple of numbers which could be for a given purpose, because the general public is not supposed to know.

For this also the story about Alice and Bob, or vice versa, as well as the possible "handshaking" which could be needed for that of a protocol for the use of information interchange.

Here a long time since last visit with the subject, but from recall, it should be about one protocol more safe than another, and next also more trusted as well.

If Bob chooses to send Alice a message for noone else to read, a hashtable could be needed in order for a translation of one set of contents into a cryptic or garbled message, which next needs to be translated back.

Previously my pants came with a zipper, but is now only knobs only, but also the fact that numbers could be zipped in a similar way, in that it always could be a new day, and also new or more recent numbers as well.

Perhaps leaving the tracks a little, but the fact that we could be left stuck on a C125, while also knowing about a 20 million digit prime number, should be telling about a bit of facts.

Doing only the local factorization right now, the product of the P55 and P74 makes for a C168 in the flip around, after a bit of basic factorization.

Translates into "one thing for another", except for perhaps not knowing any of the details either, before giving it a try.

If I mentioned "Balanced budget" before, also that of weighted distribution of numbers as well, and next one piece of cake for you, and the rest left for me, as usual, in that we could still make it the similar thing.

If numbers still could be "poor mans science", next also perhaps RSA-1024 in a similar way, in that it could be dinner served, but next not so either, and why?

For at least the purpose of safe communications, we are supposed to "know" that the developers, or at least those in charge, could know these factors individually, but perhaps this is not the case.



Here one more P18, and for now I let this one go, or still running, and also checking where it all came from.

Possibly some bad wording above, and I could make a fix on it before going to bed.


Here being distracted by something crashing out, and here the P33 before the P19 in the result output of the factorization.

The remaining C79 could be a bit difficult and perhaps needing ecm here.

Here that of three more restarts of the computer and it flips around into a P63 here, while losing the ecm for the C79.


Should be this from another tab, but also struggling a bit with my hands.

I will have a couple of beers in a short while and make it perhaps a little better when times comes, before next past.

It got to my list here and when adding to the other things, my guess is that we still could be better off when next cutting it a bit short, at least when it comes to size,
rather than perhaps making it if itself, for the given purpose of finding the largest prime number.

Again, as previously mentioned, I could still make it X * Y for that of product Z, if not something else, but is next 2^n-1 supposed to be a prime number?

Here again only the cup of coffee, but next slap my tongue, because is not this supposed to be what we should be doing, when I rather could make it only "+" instead?

For this, something like p*2^n-1, or p*2^n+1 and we could be back at the old syntax being used for such a thing, including also factors.

Here you could make it sometimes Turqouise (needs checking) and also Jade for that of CPU sieving when it comes to PrimeGrid, and here PSP sieve and TRP sieve.

But next that apparently the server for this broke, and you could end up with a similar Genefer sieving, which next could be a manual sieving issue, if not any process.

I could be having a couple of 100 thousand factors right now, and the Factor Database similarly a couple of million factors.

Next still that of multiplication and division, rather than possible addition or subtraction, and you could end up thinking that a factor could sometimes be the "difference" between two numbers.

I still have to launch a couple of these things manually, and while not having the vcomp100.dll file in front of me, for now leaving the icons for Yafu out from the taskbar, and rather launching the file directly from My Documents.

Here the syntax or parse error being experienced each time when launching Yafu, and this is perhaps not because of the missing file.

Needs getting back at, but for now it is a rather unpleasant thing to deal with and makes things a bit harder.

For this thinking about the product of the P54 and the P63, and how it relates to the rest or remainder of the number.

Again I have to launch it manually before trying out, but I could have the factorization later on.

Before a short break, here that launching Yafu-x64 from My Documents, and it becomes an error message about the publisher or issuer unable to verify the origin of the software.

Either the compressed file became borked of sorts, or I would need to get back at the download for the whole software application (.zip file).


Here it should be for this, of course.

Read what it says in the comments there and absolutely true, in that it could be only numbers at times, and next also missing its specification, or parameter, meaning C, P, or PRP.

Sometimes it could be missing files, while other times it could be a complete mess.

Make it a bit too much to handle, and it also could become that of "fragmentation", which also could be similarly difficult to handle, or be dealing with.

The C79 passes me right now and I am happy to see the numbers, except not me this time either.

I rather could continue on the C209 because here a tough number for a good computer.

Really not any point of adding the C189 to the FDB either, for that of the P55, P62 and P74, but here only a C119 when doing the basic flip around.


I could give this number a try, however.

Remember what I said about having a total of four disks installed?

For this at least two Temp directories where I had my numbers placed or inserted, and thanks to some nice people who probably gave me some help, at least I was able to partly recover.

I still could make it My Documents for the most recent files, but having it all in this directory makes it much more easy for that of access.

You are not supposed to be three people for that of a single dance, but rather it should be only two.

Next deep below the surface as well, and not scratching at the surface, because while we still could be having both RSA-1024 and RSA-2048, if not any smaller, for now looking in vain for that of RSA-4096.

If still perhaps the biggest and also best for that of numbers, always that of a Genefer prime versus a Mersenne prime and next you made it a happy event, except for still only scratching the surface.

For this again that of "weighted" numbers sometimes, in that one single number or two could eat much or most of the cake, despite being sometimes only a small part, or fraction.

Here I think I could know, but need scrolling up the list a bit for this.

For that of a C1133 for that of Genefer, a P20 or less was found to "almost" divide this number, leaving only a small composite as the remainder.

Here something is wrong, and I really do not know what.

If you do not mind, I could always at least "deduce" a composite number, except for not knowing all the details either.


Here a quite good example for this, including the P1764, which I think should be mine, but here thinking more about the C12593, which is a classic example of a semiprime still left unsolved.

But not when in the door from that of the shopping for this, as you probably know, but should tell that at least I gave it a try.

Here needs a fix for that of a typo, but also that the C119 became much as difficult as well, leaving us still with the unanswered question left to solve.

Except for that, if I made it 2^n-1 in the previous, I meant to say n=2^n.

BTW: Pressing the Edit button, I end up at the bottom of the screen each time and have to scroll up each time for that of the editing buffer.

Here it needs a fix.

Also that the C119 ran out at 11:28 PM local time and needs the SIQS.

Here 365648 relations needed, and I could have it for you tomorrow.

I still could continue a bit more, since not past midnight yet.


Here a P157 using the flip around method, or for this and for now perhaps not added,

But next same thing all over, if not wrong, namely that of the ostrich with its head in the sand.

Beware the wolf, at least for that of RSA-768, if not the opposite, but here I did not get it working.

But perhaps rather Bingo! for such a thing, and you could be sitting around with a couple of "loose factors" and next it could be supposed to be working.

Pardon me, but at least this becomes my notion, or perhaps thought about this whole thing, or perhaps idea.

Split it up, by continously dividing (or factorizing) and the true or real factors are not supposed to be showing up either.

The simple answer is as following.

RSA-155 could be still a mighty example of a facorization, but I could be left with the thought, or assumption, that even this could only be a piece of cake, compared with the rest, or whole of it.

I mentioned the C189 above, which for now I chose not to add, but also that the C119 in the flip around, also chose to flip over as well.

If I could make it PXX * PYY where both XX and YY > 50 (or perhaps even 80), where next the break even point, where the rest or remainder could be readily found?

Is the C119 perhaps more easy than the C189 here, or in which case is it supposed to be any "break even" for such a thing?

Before it broke, the Genefer factorizations ended up on one of my disks, and I have not seen it since, or afterwards.

Here perhaps still a bit clumsy of sorts, and I could be making PrimeGrid still a template, in next thinking that 2 * 3 * 5 ... should be able to offer me a quite high, or significant number (Genefer).

Here I chose to launch BOINC Manager again for that of checking, and here I rather should be checking in with my lists for that of any result output, including possible factors.

If not wrong, it ended up with Genefer 23 (the 23'th prime number in the list, or sequence) being fully written to the disk, before no more, except for at least Mersenne 48.

Guess what, but perhaps like many others, I could be concerned with that of syntax here, namely the way we are supposed to be finding such prime numbers, among many composite factors.

Here perhaps both that of syntax and syntax error, if not any Methodology either, in that at least sqrt(2), like also pi, should be that of a fractional number.

Here, also that of transcendental numbers for this as well.

Beware the wolf, I still happen to know about P2 = 61.

So what is next for that of such a story, except for not any divisibility here either for any such number.

Again that my facor list ended up on the broken disk, but here still also far off from that of any major factors.

You perhaps know about the P252 and P564 for that of Genefer, and also that it does not divide with any C1133 either.

Make it still 2/3 and also sqrt(2), if not any pi, for both fractional and transcedental numbers, and my catch, or perhaps observation, is that we should be looking at the individual factors themselves.


Here a quite good explanation for this.

Is 6 supposed to be a factor of 17, only because it could also be 2*3?

Or is it only because 6 is composite, while 17 is a factor?

Next divide it if you will, and it could end up still being only composite.

Still perhaps a piece of cake, if you will, but next "I do not know" either, for such a thing, and here the C12593 as an example,

If not enough, or the most simple or basic answer, take 2 and next add a million 0's to this number.

Next subtract 1 and on the spot I would say composite only here.

Should I next try 11, or perhaps 19 instead, if not rather P3 = 127?

If the C119 should still be only composite, because it could be the "inverse" of some three good factors the opposite way, next that of possible comparedness,
or rather perhaps "comparatibility", in that one number could be the possible leftover from yet another, and still only perhaps composite.

Should I make it the C189 to the Factor Database, and next also the three factors for this as well?

I perhaps could, but would you next question the factors themselves, or rather perhaps the basic factorization method, or principle?

Same goes if I had a P9 or P10 for you and next it goes down (the drain), only because you perhaps already know, or it could go down the drain for that of a couple of small factors.

Or perhaps rather "open minded" for such a thing, because "heck", you did not tell me, but here at least a small factor in a given fashion, for at least making it a big prime.

Umm, so P3 = 127 could still be a factor, and next 2^127-1 also that as well?

What is supposedly nextprime() here for this number?

P39 = 170141183460469231731687303715884105727

Next perhaps (2^170141183460469231731687303715884105727-1)

Come on, but for one thing still that of possible syntax, if not algorithm which could be possibly used as well, for that of finding possible factors.

Before testing, or at least checking, I know that this should not be working out.

Keying in 2^127 only and it makes for that of "E" when using Windows Calculator, so for this rather Yafu.

Is the P39 next supposed to divide let's say (2*10^500), or should I rather add or subtract 1 for this?


Again, check in with the FDB, if not, and next a bit of "cuckoo" as well, in that there always could be one factor for or versus another, but also a bit of leftover,
if not any loose threeads, on each side.

When I get to the mentioned P157, it also has a P13 before or above, and presumably this should be about sieving, if not any factorization either.

But next a possible leftover, if not any slap of my hands, or perhaps fingers, because I was lazy and forgot to note it down.

Here be proud if you will, if perhaps not stuck in any mud either, because you already know that I came in here using the other door.

Here the same thing, because opening up the "Small factors" file located on my disk, here some nine factors available.



Perhaps does not even need checking here, but at least should be composite only.

But next also a sign of relief, in that a P9 for some reason could be showing up for that of a thing, and next also be making it a quite big prime number.

Leave the party and next still the company for that of a club, in that for one thing we could be still having a couple of factorizations, when it rather should be about prime number finding.

I could still be the Genefer talent or genius, while you could also be the similar fool for that of making it the biggest prime number known.

Should it be only about sieving here, or should it rather be about prime number finding "as is", only because I should know better?

Honestly, I have more than 19 million in credit on my main PrimeGrid account, and also more than 2 million on my secondary account.

Before it all blew, or perhaps even before, I had a Genefer factorization (once again) which I either lost, or did not make the whereabouts for.

Mind you, I can look up my list for the small number which could make it even, or at least "make or break" for even bigger ones.

So here is the question for you, namely that of whether a composite number (only) should suffice, for that of a particular purpose.

Remember that the C119 chose to blow, only because of some three factors on the other side, and what are we next supposed to be doing here?

Dangit (again).

But perhaps which numbers to choose here?

Should they, or these, be composite only, or should they rather be prime, only because it could be showing up?

Again multiply the largest Genefer prime with the largest Mersenne prime and next "divide" from some (2^10^n) (and not n-1 or n+1), and you probably know the answer.

Again, or for this, that of "given purpose" as usual, in that "expectancies" could also mean "deliveries" and next also on the door, but if for some reason you choose to multiply PX?? with factor PY??,
where each factor is different from each other, ALWAYS the composite number back in return when doing so.

For this, perhaps still a question about the number in question, if not any bit depth either, and here perhaps thinking about RSA-2048.

"Tick", and next also mean it as well, because if I happen to scroll up my list, a couple of numbers could be ticked in such a way, only to show that it could possibly break much of the rest.

For this, I already mentioned the 1133 and next the stupid idea that I could be fooled, or perhaps fooled around, by thinking that it could be even more to it.

>> ecm(ans)

ecm: 1/1 curves on C170, B1=11K, B2=gmp-ecm default

***factors found***

ans = 19020145176624619512787722721631191668531892095504567103821497113215099212

>> ecm(ans,30)

ecm: 5/30 curves on C170, B1=11K, B2=gmp-ecm default

***factors found***

P13 = 4008768699781

P157 = 4744635223694421338596262985884861170074660753500424658783154566510312770

ans = 47446352236944213385962629858848611700746607535004246587831545665103127706

Note, or again, private purposes only, because I do not know where it goes this time, or for now.

Could perhaps have it one line or two down here for that of the posting buffer. and could I perhaps have an even larger page for that of posting (not meaning any buffer)?

Here the P157 just in the door, and guess you know the outcome, or perhaps result (again that of break even for such).

If still perhaps a shortcut on my desktop, next also "no-no" for such a thing, only because it could be still composite.

You know, for one thing still that of X*Y for at least making it composite, but if next asking for a possible Method, next what the heck.

Here still a bit of proud for what I perhaps could be doing, but next also some 11 years with PrimeGrid and also 15 years with Seti@home, and next only a SGS piime as a double-checker.

Perhaps we should not forget the rest of the world either.


If that of "complexity involved" should be readily assumed already from the start, why not make it possible Axioms for such a thing?

Or should it rather be thought or deduced that Mersenne primes could be known in advance?

Forget any sieving, or even LLR, if you will, but it could be possibly shown that prime numbers could be actually found, when adhering to both a principle, and also method which could be used.

Here the bit of anger, if not any left-over either, in that it could still be the flip around, and next the prime number also showing up as well.

Make it still rather sieving, and next also much the same.



Here blame king Alcohol for such a thing (namely square root).



Which factors at the other end, I may ask.

Or perhaps leave it off for that above, only because I rather could have the beer or two.

Either it could slip, and next be forgotten, or it could rather be saved, for that of possibly being proud (or at least a sense of it).


P55 = 8615131641044193804275380855557366159850734323349695999

Again, good example here, and next also many such in the crowd, but getting tired right now.

Next as usual for that of the "remainder", or perhaps flip around here.

Here both editing myself and also try to be polite, because, here I could be still "suckers" for that of a lost fan, if not any devoted or perhaps talented either.

For this, perhaps still no, while I could rather be saying "Hay".

Again, that silly or stupid word (suckers), but here again for that of simplicity (meaning suckers).


Silly me, but could it be shown that it perhaps does not make such or any such difference all in all, or perhaps altogether, in that we could perhaps make it a big piece as well, without thinking about possible consequences.

C186 = 10674527296261914093378535741445498623666595548934350282129148875202269828

Three lines, or perhaps two only needed, for that of some two factors?

Come on, it is not supposed to work.

Ha, hah, but next forget it, at least this time.

Yes, I know, time for a new one here.

Or maybe something like this,

ans = 8615131641044193804275380855557366159850734323349695999

>> ans*12415765527282907142645442571333163956992118765826496440008640434915391689

ans = 10696345444188072199471141432485583343839042991603547929482796958775894750

Again, blame king Alcohol for that above, because here needs checking, but next also the possible excuse for at least making it a couple of composite numbers for that yet or still to come, or perhaps remaining.

And also that of the possible flip around here as well, which could possibly be needed.

Yes, funny feeling perhaps, but at least needs checking here, and I have not done this yet.

But again, still the possible remainder, which could be the leftover, or traceback.

Here it locks in my mind, but should be that of flip around yet again.

Here I was in the kitchen again, and the bottle of beer chose to fall to the ground, leaving me with a soar toe.


Dang it, but here I perhaps could not resist, but rather think it could be perhaps the more correct, or better thing to do.

Suggestions welcome.

Oops, looking for it (or perhaps the error being made, or in the past.

Again, appreciate the generosity, but so for my coffeee as well, and next you never know.

Getting back at it.

Again, nice, or so friendly, and next thanks as well.

Hardly could be made when leaving in the middle of the day for such a thing,

Because of that, always that of numbers and next also numbers as usual as well.

I guess, or presumably nuff said, if not any dang or dangit either, for that of such a thing.

So, or perhaps hmm, what is the difference between any bronze, silver and gold, for that of a competitition, including that of a possible pedestal?

You know, that of a bit of crank for that of a possible feeling, when it rather should be "nuts" and I could also or next be the "suprembe being", if not any idiot,
for such a thing either.

Yes, pretending, and next also for that of a stupid idiot as well.


Not my first day here either, and except for possible BOINC moderation, or the like (perhaps not of your like), I changed my mind and it next should go wherever you wish.

First of all, being insane is not necessarily what you coild wish for, including the Chinaman, and his possible "beliefs".

Next that of sentiment, and pardon me (again, for this word, or naming).

If you did not know, or pardon me for the same, I was just banished (for a couple of hours), for that, or perhaps which thing, I could have to say,

For this we could know about not only the salmon itself, but next also "Jack in the box", or the similar, for what we are supposed or could be saying.

Say "ah" when at the dentist, but next still "Nobody's fool" when it comes to that of Extarerrestial intelligence,

Except for that, question my mind and also personal intelligence, if not any intellect, but I also happened to mention at Seti@home, that I could be an astronomer of sorts,
and next also working from home.

So, what is supposed to be the main point of the discussion, except for perhaps the cold front?

One thing is perhaps sluggish, the next could be the cold front for that possibly beyound.

I personally made it "Nuff sad" at Seti@home and next they took my for my word.

Dingaling (a little or perhaps a bit, but what about a possible "Method of Proof" for at least that of numbers being concerned?

Get lost, and not on the agenda at all, at least this time, because numbers could still be "poor mans science".

Next you could perhaps say farrwell, or even "fuck off", but next not my style or fashion either.

Hmm. any roundabouts for that of at least guessing (if not any sieving).

Or shiould it rather be a hostile envrironment here, because I could not make any difference between that of possible results and that of similar "gains" if any.

Killing of thwe "K" in the buffer for "Reason for Editing", next it becomes that of sleeze versus possible neeze.

Again, a bad one here, in that it should rather be grebuloner, for that of a possible "squeeze", and next I got banished there as well.

So it goes and next also could pretend.

Keying in "Number analysus" using the Wikipedia, and it does not take that one, at least not directly.

If perhaps still only Number analysis, or so, for such a thing, next perhaps go as well, if not any "doh" either.

Here kick my ass, or perhaps arse, as usual, in that i could get nothing, and next nothing of there, for that ot possible results.

Say you, say me, eceprt for not any foolproof either and I also could interpret it to be so.



Trying again (for starters).

storflyt32 2018-03-18 21:19

I had the big computer crash again.

Flrst of all. perhaps "nuts", except not any spammers either.



Here the flip around for that of RSA-2048. and next also a red star as well, meaning that the factor, or perhaps number itself, became added.

Or perhaps it could rather be a hacker of sorts, or even the U.S. military sitting around with all the answers?

For now still only a C394 here, but also that I know why it does not readily become more to it than this.

Like the chicken, or perhaps siblings of the national hawk of the United States, also that they could "prick" the feather of their mothers, for that of providing food to their nest.

Next perhaps not a good idea from underside, or even the belt, so better stand at the top for this.

The buffer window for that of editing became a bit small, but rather that I should click the refresh button here, after posting.

If stiill working, I could leave the C394 running when leaving for the night, but you never know what happens when you get back at it in the morning.

Except for both simplicity and also simplicism for that of an algorithm which could make for a big find, of course.

Here I guess, if not presume, that only subtracting 1 from the given number should perhaps be enough, but except for that, you never know.

Getting back at it when things are in a more correct order.

Returning back to the session after the break, and finding that the computer once again had rebooted, and left alone.

Because of that, no factorization this time either, but using the above for that of getting at it in a simple way.

But also that here again only one possibility among many others for that of the final result.


PRP99 = 378783130819896053017473880048208838546614049125583711849211818446989611353705429822579317797421489

Total factoring time = 2936.5980 seconds

Not too difficult here, but should be a P158 at the other end.

I had the big computer crash again.

Flrst of all. perhaps "nuts", except not any spammers either.



Here the flip around for that of RSA-2048. and next also a red star as well, meaning that the factor, or perhaps number itself, became added.

Or perhaps it could rather be a hacker of sorts, or even the U.S. military sitting around with all the answers?

For now still only a C394 here, but also that I know why it does not readily become more to it than this.

Like the chicken, or perhaps siblings of the national hawk of the United States, also that they could "prick" the feather of their mothers, for that of providing food to their nest.

Next perhaps not a good idea from underside, or even the belt, so better stand at the top for this.

The buffer window for that of editing became a bit small, but rather that I should click the refresh button here, after posting.

If stiill working, I could leave the C394 running when leaving for the night, but you never know what happens when you get back at it in the morning.

Except for both simplicity and also simplicism for that of an algorithm which could make for a big find, of course.

Here I guess, if not presume, that only subtracting 1 from the given number should perhaps be enough, but except for that, you never know.

Getting back at it when things are in a more correct order.

Returning back to the session after the break, and finding that the computer once again had rebooted, and left alone.

Because of that, no factorization this time either, but using the above for that of getting at it in a simple way.

But also that here again only one possibility among many others for that of the final result.

Edit: Problems at logging in, because of Norton Identity Safe, and therefore a double post, or perhaps record.

Needs a cleanup here, and getting back at it.

I want to edit a little up and next getting at the bottom of the web page itself, when pressing the Edit button.

Needs a fix here, because as already mentioned, no need to add two P99 factors only because they either match, or rather could be different,
and next not part of the result as a whole.


PRP99 = 378783130819896053017473880048208838546614049125583711849211818446989611353705429822579317797421489

Total factoring time = 2936.5980 seconds

Not too difficult here, but should be a P158 at the other end.

Edit: Or perhaps rather two lines here in the result output, for next making it a P from that of a PRP.

Next give me a laugh, if it should be about one single P99 versus another similar one, because as probably know, it should not be working any better.

Here both factor P62 = 93461639715357977769163558199606896584051237541638188580280321
and at least P99 = 741640062627530801524787141901937474059940781097519023905821316144415759504705008092818711693940737
could be worth consideration, or perhaps interest.


Could make an entry for the flip around for the two P99 factors here, and adding the link in a short while.

Something like this.



Adding the factors for the second link, you probably know what to say, because it could be unfair.

Try it yourself, again for starters, because having a bit of fun with this.



Here another example why it is not always working, because it probably will not do anymore in the first one.


Next it becomes this, and I am wondering a bit of still making it a sequential chain of numbers, or whether it should be still thought of as a tree structure,
or perhaps hierarchical branch.

Still RSA-155 as the slingshot here, and except for going down the drain at PrimeGrid, one thing is that of an angle of approach,
except for both 0, 45 and 90 degrees, in that it could be both the Euler-Mascheroni constant, Golden angle, and perhaps one or two other similar methods as well.



Checking in with my posting there, also adding Integral calculus as well, and also that of Heuristics as well.


Only suggestions here, except for perhaps also known stuff, but for that above make it still larger numbers as well, and that a given transform should not be the same as any sieving
when it comes to breaking a number apart.

One thing could still be that of Number Theory itself, but I do not see any reason for making it any Probability either, when it rather could be about a function.

If M45x, or perhaps larger, became the hidden, or perhaps forgotten prime, because of a lack of sieving, trust the algorithm here for such, in that we know the limitations of sieving,
for what the rest is perhaps meant to be.

The P40 and P41 factors above makes for a C81 combined, and as usual it could be at least a factor when doing it "the other way".

If perhaps not any better, is it because it could be 3/2 for such a thing, or maybe even 2/3, because this also could mean a function, as well as a numerical relationship between numbers?

Or perhaps ratio instead, because it also became the Golden Ratio here as well, because here perhaps not any comparison either, for making it "comparativeness".

Needs a fix on that above, because here Internet Explorer is not with me.

Please have me excused.

storflyt32 2018-03-25 22:19



The first one above made it a short while ago, and it is a quite big one here.

Total factoring time = 125209.6818 seconds

Flipping around first, and initially not the same factors, but could be something similar or like when next continuing, and here difficult to tell, because of it still running.

But nice when it becomes prime factors for both, and next a finished job, because then it cracks it open for a bit of the rest, and next that of sense of satisfaction.

Adding the factor a bit later on, and also the flip around for that of doing it the opposite way.

Here it became a different factor in the second, and adding here in a short moment.

The funny thing is that you next will be able to get at the first factor only by this.

Also a C173 in the running as well, but could be even more difficult here.

Next giving a thought about the possible algorithm itself, if not already being a couple of written words, and next not in my postings at PrimeGrid, when it better should be here.

Except for not any "sieving factors" either, for that of possible results, also a thought why it sometimes flips around for that of a prime factor at both ends, while at other times it ends up still composite.

Perhaps not the correct word, but makes me think about "skew" here, for that of an imbalanced tree, where not all factors are readily available.

P115 = 1985528148022884181391232005013155942380305331344066616268026231489733493385698672046326629676919082224171784849747

P62 = 10863352068794832459068341042946717414553477391523920698397879

Loose factors here, out of context and not keying in the product this time.


But the question becomes whether it is possible to compute the level of "fragmentation", when possible factors are being considered, relative to their individual sizes?

Any formula for this, and suggestions are welcome.

If choosing to pick some four factors, out of random, perhaps P40 or larger in size, and next multiply each other, I could get roughly a C160 or so.

Next a some C149 or C150, when doing it the opposite way, because here it should not be a factor or prime directly on the spot.

But also that this could go on almost forever, in a similar way as also making it two P150 factors much for the same.

The only way of understanding the principle, or perhaps Method, is returning back at RSA-128 or RSA-256 for this, and notice the individual factors.

But for now it ended up on another disk which suffered a failure.

Another one thinking about, is that of privacy versus semiprime numbers.




Again it does not work here, but "dividing" with this number when flipping around, and it becomes a P143.

This because here pulling the pizza from the oven, and next a piece of cake as well, for that of both being composite numbers.

Here it works quite often, but is not a "true" or real factorization either.


Still the "+" for that that of my part, but next that of "sieving" a composite number for either odd or even for that of its ending, only making it P1=2, or P1=3, and next a M50.

Next it perhaps is not supposed to work that way either, except for not doing such prime finding myself.

Here P9 = 949758289 in a recent factorization, and for this also (2^949758289+1) for the guess only, that it could be composite.

But next perhaps making it a "shot in the dark", and not a good way of phrasing such a thing either.

If assumedly still only composite, you next could rely on the fact that it could be still such a small factor, except for not making it anything else either.

Looking for the "calculator" here, also that while making it perhaps larger factors for that of sieving itself, also that the whole or total number needs to be reduced in size.

For this, a given "b limit" at least when it comes to Genefer at PrimeGrid, but next perhaps not such a thing for that of Mersenne factors or primes.

I make of it that of High versus Low for (b^131072+1) a bit harder, or perhaps more difficult, when b is larger in size, than perhaps small, but here perhaps a bit diffuse or unclear,
when it comes to possible overlapping of the syntax.

Here it looks to me that it "smooths" out in a way, for that of making the factors more equal for their respective sizes, and it becomes that of RSA numbers again,
because assumedly Mersenne primes are not about any factorization either, but rather that of trial division.

storflyt32 2018-03-28 21:23




Starting a new one, because here cleaning most of the kitchen, and also the fridge, which ended up with a stuck door at the end, needing a kitchen chair in front.

Better get rid of it, because of the Easter, and the fact that I could spend a bit of time in here right now.

Adding the third link above a short while ago, because here a quite good example of a leftover factorization, where two big lions ate much of the beef, except for any cake either,
for that of the complexity involved here.

Have a look at this example and you possibly will agree with this assumption.



And next, "curious electric", for something I did not like that well.

P2 = 13 and P3 = 113 and next a C51, if not wrong, which needs the separate window for the rest, or three P17 factors.

But also a P11 and P17 in the first output, and here not having the specific P17.

Thinking only of the C51, and also the rest, the two factors becomes forgotten, and I have to rewind back when almost halfway finished.

When such a thing happens, not that fun, but only shows that factors sometimes does not go in the correct order.

Here from an Arithmetic Progression (AP20) being found, and for this also expecting it smooth along the whole way.

Becomes the wrong way, because a C506 will not any more at first, and next also a P286, which better should have been made first.

And here adding a bit more of contents, but the tick was not set for that of the login once again, and I lost the whole posting, which is a bit of shame.

Better do the weekend shopping anyway, and perhaps something found in a local temp directory when returning back.

Before doing so, I also watched the "Numberphile" video as well, and becomes also such a thing for that of a "shot in the dark", next for that of numbers.

Having a bit of fun a couple of days ago, next a PRP1087 being stored away, but for now apparently no "sieving factors" either, except for any reporting.

More important, making the "Set on pause when CPU use from other programs exceeds" still at 100%, but rather changing from 25% to 100% for CPU,
when still only 25% for CPU time, apparently made for more tasks running, but here still only one GPU task, while not the other (two graphics cards),

Only for that of still one thing for another here, and therefore not the time having a bit of fun, next when on BOINC Manager 7.8.3

We also could be having a discussion about sieving priorities a couple of places, except for not any broken parts or results either, but except for perhaps Yafu as a project itself,
most likely that there is no specific way of finding any Mersenne factors either, in a similar way.

This because I rather could be left reporting a couple of PRP's instead, like the mentioned PRP1087.

Now I am in a bit of hurry for that of the shop.

For now, only the bottle of milk standing on the table, but next also a couple of ideas while doing the needed things.

A couple of privacy messages for that of not beiing logged in at Google either, but clicking on the sound icon at lower right, I get the playback module for that of devices.

A double outlet on the top of the computer, a headphone set is being confused with microphones, only for that of lying around.

But next when clicking on each speaker for that of 5:1, no sound, but choosing 7:1, it becomes a little or perhaps small noise, and next pressing OK after sensing that it could be so.


Here for a bit of science, like also another one as well, but here both Internet Explorer, Google Chrome and also Mozilla Firefox, while also Microsoft Edge hiding in the shadows.

The post that vanished had a bit more to say, but for now not getting Yafu at running, using the options available.

The disk being used for this also was the one which also broke, with the end result that there could be much found, but next also in only bits and pieces.



Am I right or am I wrong, because here a red star for new factors being added, and this time composite only.

Here I was thinking of using FDB with the "*" or multiplication symbol, assuming that the factors were readily known.

Becomes like that of a homework lesson for such, except for perhaps forgetting the whole thing, except for this page when using Mozilla Firefox, and the factors when using Chrome.


Storing temporary here, because need to revert back to Windows 7 here, and next that the factors ended up in the Temp directory on the Windows 10 partition.

Possibly Yafu-x64 could break this number up in the previous two on the spot, leaving only the remaining factors.

P64 = [COLOR=#000000][FONT=&quot]4650384055791287715318612314019533732871786340821784227432051601[/FONT][/COLOR]

P64 = [COLOR=#000000][FONT=&quot]5985308577876124650278825351417108648386073995987866741912341909

P64 = [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#000000][FONT=&quot]7213820902434963364151186560559158420921586339845038328468305677

[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#000000][FONT=&quot]That above for my notes only, and the first factor above should be a common factor for both here for that of multiplication purposes only, because this could also be proprietary works of sorts, and next not mine.

But also that it could be having a practical applicability for perhaps a common sense as well, and while I do not have PSP/ESP/SoB Jade either for that of any CPU sieving, it is perhaps more of a mishap when it
next could all go down the drain because of a lost or missing server.

Here that of "trip trap" for such a thing, and next also 2 versus 3, like also 2 versus 5, or 3 versus 5, in that 5 DIV 2 should return 2, like also 5 DIV 3.

But next, the difference, by means of subtraction, should be 1 versus 2, if not any 3 either.

Or perhaps rather it should be 1.5 (or 1,5 if you will), 2.5, or 1.6666.... for next that of a division itself.

This because the new "magic number" here, perhaps could be something like 1.3063778838630806904686144926026... or so, and again the broken disk for also what Numberphile had to say.


Here first when keying in using the Wikipedia, but next not what I want.



Should be here for that of the latter, because here noticing the number 2521008887 a little down, and next what I also want.

Keying in the larger numbers manually, and storing with the constant after a bit of double checking.



It became the sound right now, but also that I want Yafu still running, because for now making it 13063778838630806904686144926026 (integer number).


Here better the P29 first, if not the bad disk, because here also being added, and next any P30^n-1, or even P30^n+1, for that of n=243, or the like, could make for quite a big task.

Trying a restart of Windows 7 in the meantime, for the rest of it, and also the weekend beer, while also noticing that 7*7 makes for 49 at the end, and therefore no point of adding or subtracting 1.

Only the rest of the sausage, before perhaps the dinner, but here P29 = 16022236204009818131831320183, and rather want to have [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#000000][FONT=&quot][COLOR=#000000][FONT=&quot]16022236204009818131831320183[/FONT][/COLOR] * 725765491035044828038119162557 here.



Did not catch the second part here at first, but the Wikipedia made it graphics only here, so also here updating with the correct numbers.

Got Windows 10 updated in the background, so trying a restart, before perhaps ending up with Windows 7 later.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[FONT=Times New Roman]And started up here, and next lost the tab, thanks to Internet Explorer.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Should better be Google Chrome here, but next the garbled tab for that of startup.[/FONT]

[COLOR=#000000][FONT=&quot][FONT=Times New Roman]
[COLOR=#000000][FONT=&quot][FONT=Times New Roman]Too small font here right now.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman]
[COLOR=#000000][FONT=&quot][FONT=Times New Roman]
[COLOR=#000000][FONT=&quot][FONT=Times New Roman]
[COLOR=#000000][FONT=&quot][FONT=Times New Roman]Too small font here right now.[/FONT]
[COLOR=#000000][FONT=&quot][FONT=Times New Roman]
[COLOR=#000000][FONT=&quot][FONT=Times New Roman]
[COLOR=#000000][FONT=&quot][FONT=Times New Roman]Too snall font here right now.[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#000000][FONT=&quot]Pressing DELETE (and not DEL) on a blank line, next nothing happens, except for (?)[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#000000][FONT=&quot]or a written line itself, next at the end.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[FONT=Times New Roman]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Here killing off a triple or so blank line, next from above, or perhaps bottom, and next nothing happens.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Blane my keyboard perhaps.[/FONT]

It really should not be about any BOLD, or text formatting either, because checking this as well, both at top, and also in the middle, and next that the text is too small.[/FONT][/COLOR]
The tab in the browser closed down on ne, so here not liking the small font in the browser.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[FONT=Times New Roman]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Keying in "font" using CTRL-F3 (search or text search) and next no result.[/FONT]

[COLOR=#000000][FONT=&quot]Mentioning this at BOINC rather, in all respect.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[FONT=Times New Roman]
[FONT=Times New Roman]And you already know that I am back at using Internet Explorer 11 here, and except for the small font, and also typo as well, apparently is working a bit better when using Google Chrome.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman]
[FONT=Times New Roman]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Keying in "end", next also "sequence", and here I will have to go for it manually, in order to get it fixed, because here it does not take carriage return either.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Pressing both the DELETE and DEL keys, for also that of two carriage returns at the start, or beginning, and definitely something is wrong here, and perhaps not my keyboard either.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Back later.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Better pick Edit, rather than Quick Reply here.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]
[FONT=Times New Roman]So, apparemtly for no reason, yet anither two week vacation from Seti@home here.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Cbeccking, one link for thaat of the Scientific Method, and next no much more.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Nezt I do not any numbers either when at 1 PM, and also a couple of beers.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]
[FONT=Times New Roman]But next perhaps not the main reason either, because a possible way of belief, could be that of Idealism.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]
[FONT=Times New Roman][URL][/URL][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]
[FONT=Times New Roman]So, why not any Celibacy either, because perhaps even better?[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Should it rather be Formalism here, and next once sciece for or versus another, next also for that of brand?[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]
[FONT=Times New Roman]I mentioned that of the spoken word in the past, and next also that of being heard.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]
[FONT=Times New Roman][URL][/URL][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]
[FONT=Times New Roman][URL][/URL])[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]
[FONT=Times New Roman][URL][/URL])[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]Getting the middle page or link being such a disambiguation, or page, but if next "speaking of", what next?[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]
[FONT=Times New Roman][URL][/URL][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]
[FONT=Times New Roman]For this, of course or eventually making it a Cause here, like Causality, except not any Santa Claus either.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]
[FONT=Times New Roman][B]Back later.[/B][/FONT]

storflyt32 2018-04-20 14:48

What ugly in the previous, but have replaced the power supply and am almost back at full when it comes to that of running the tasks.

The new power supply makes a whining sound, but next the only one I have.

Left stuck with a Windows 10 which I do not like, for now still unable to boot from the CD/DVD for Windows 7, because of a hardware failure, and doing it by means of software apparently is unsuccessful.

So here that above one of my priorities, while the other is that of factoring.

I am not able to get Yafu working under Windows 10.


Reading above, and both pages, did not gave much of an answer either, in my case.

For now in a hurry for that of the shop, but at least I still know to type.

Something else posted in between, and next it perhaps disappeared, or vanished.

Posting using my my account at Seti@home, next a single character in a word getting wrong, and they did not like that, and I am once again on a 14 day vacation.

Or perhaps tomorrow, for that matter, because here that error, of course, except for not doing such a thing as factoring, of course.

Hey, wake up, because this is really matter for that of truth here, because right now i am unable to do such a thing, for that of Windows 10.

If not here (dear or honest me, perhaps also PrimeGrid as well), where I also could be having the message through, or perhaps heard.

You versus me, and next also a bit of welcome here as well, because here appreciate the gratitude, and next also welcome, for next also a bit of message as well,
and a couple of things next being heard, or perhaps welcome.

Some good news to add here, in that it does not take the Yafu application when using the DOS prompt, but if I key in 'yafu-win32 "2*3" ' , it outputs the result in the usual fashion.

For this, take these two factors as an example:

P83 = 16559819925107279963180573885975861071762981898238616724384425798932514688349020287

P94 = 2353359030226356478476118041850820087557640143190392467802488431466759331102236967432080003389

The first one at the top of the list for the largest ecm factors, while the second from an output in my own list.

Next multiply these two factors for that of a composite number.

Next the flip-around for that of the magic number, and it also takes division ("/") from the command line as well.



Also noticing that Microsoft Edge will not do the copy and paste here for that of the FDB, so reverting back to Internet Explorer 11 for this.

If rather a little more eager, I could take one of the P154 factors from my list, and do the same flip-around, because I thought the P94 was already known.



Here perhaps both wrong order, and also the same for the factors as well, but I could also continue keying in the P154 factors I already have, for that of the different factors at the other end.

Switching back to Internet Explorer and now not the F5 refresh button for that of the page in the browser, which is not always needed, but at least when adding new factors, and next updating.

Two more multiplications this time, and I could add the links after the dinner, but here perhaps once again in the wrong order for that of adding the factors.





Still the dinner remaining, but here that the two pairs above should have been in opposite order.



And here finishing off for today, because here you may have some fun when it also becomes a factor at the other end, when multiplying together, and next "dividing" as usual.

But also that it becomes a P113 directly on the spot, so here a semi-prime candidate this time for the number in question.

Not keyed in yet for that of the latter, but will be doing so before getting too late, at 05:45 AM in the morning.

storflyt32 2018-04-24 06:23

C83 = 22534087081034095052066506243696987390513132899975285634635494732817980429568208549

Came across this number early today, and keying in as well in the correct place.

Now only the small posting window, when making a new post, so here slightly more difficult.

Flipping around for a C147 in question, and here a P38 on the other side, which became reported.

But more interesting is that it is having a better one from the magic number, by means of P1 = 3, P3 = 157, and two P11 factors, and next a P201, but also that it still took almost 90 seconds here.

I will have it later, because 08:23 AM in the morning is not the best of times.

Also that it becomes two blank lines each time as well, which I will next edit away.

Another one I have for you, and it could be a quite difficult one.

C78 = 336455089680269817916058271611206361737473363890319941104184544745832810563817

Flips around for a prime factor the opposite way quite easy, but not keyed in yet where it should be.

Guessing here that it could be close to that of a RSA-256 when it comes to syntax, or perhaps difficulty.

You are welcome to giving it a try, but again not easy here, as far as I am able to tell.



But next keying in the wrong order, only showing that it would be better to have the factors of all numbers less than 100 digits being stored.

Here a P143 in between, and I could have it after the dinner.

Not the best looking text, but also sad to say that perhaps there may not be any secret with that of numbers anymore, because here it readily breaks in successive order,
for mostly everything, except for a couple of few.

Again not working for the mouse and keyboard, so the rest will have to wait.

Ending up in a C213, for next that of a P20 and P26 being added, and I happen to know about that above.

Not pretty, but perhaps more spectacular, or important, is that we still do not know.

Here the question for you, namely do I need a larger number for that of a factorization itself, or is it "implied" in the number itseff,
by means of factors being possible?

I found not everything working here, because of also two dogs having the same meal, and next competing as well.

RSA numbers are supposed to be "remainders" of sorts, and next a P60 * P60 for such an example.



Same as usual, or at least latter, but is it not so that it could be still a couple of things remaining?

Flipping the order of the links above, and next a bit of difficulty, using the editor.

Again, well aware of that above, but also that here it became a P345 in my list.

Only small factors preceding it, so here perhaps a quite good candidate.

Also in my notes is a quite long one, where the end result is quite good for that of the "Magic number", and here almost there again.

But not reported yet, because of the bad mouse and keyboard, if not my fingers.

My apologies again for not letting it look any pretty, because of the mentioned problem, but also that it broke here, for that of RSA factoring,
and the ways and means for which it could be done.

Here a P150 added to my list only moments ago, and next for numbers less than just 300 digits or so, and I had a P213 a little back as well.

Knowing the way it could be done, also that it also might be possible as well, but it still could take some time.

So what does it mean when you could have a pair of P61 and P66 factors, for next that of a P17 and a P160 at the other end?



Here probably individual factors for the first one, while adding the second a short while ago.

Total factoring time = 72896.2110 seconds

C:\Users\>yafu-x64 "factor(23319796715986892305955165085546797547803938090128690071906519086021720031799303570230525694815223215887638494943463584295602161)"

fac: factoring 23319796715986892305955165085546797547803938090128690071906519086021720031799303570230525694815223215887638494943463584295602161
fac: using pretesting plan: normal
fac: no tune info: using qs/gnfs crossover of 95 digits
div: primes less than 10000
fmt: 1000000 iterations
rho: x^2 + 3, starting 1000 iterations on C128
rho: x^2 + 2, starting 1000 iterations on C128
rho: x^2 + 1, starting 1000 iterations on C128
pm1: starting B1 = 150K, B2 = gmp-ecm default on C128
ecm: 30/30 curves on C128, B1=2K, B2=gmp-ecm default
ecm: 74/74 curves on C128, B1=11K, B2=gmp-ecm default
ecm: 214/214 curves on C128, B1=50K, B2=gmp-ecm default, ETA: 0 sec
pm1: starting B1 = 3750K, B2 = gmp-ecm default on C128
ecm: 430/430 curves on C128, B1=250K, B2=gmp-ecm default, ETA: 1 sec
pm1: starting B1 = 15M, B2 = gmp-ecm default on C128
ecm: 904/904 curves on C128, B1=1M, B2=gmp-ecm default, ETA: 4 sec
ecm: 363/1801 curves on C128, B1=3M, B2=gmp-ecm default, ETA: 4.96 hrs
Total factoring time = 8759.5283 seconds

***factors found***

P41 = 10902355485322532205808111781749783165429
P88 = 2138968661165152424445564189842425989543672533259027975240147136122977253372529164397709

ans = 1

Here I was wrong, and not too difficult here.



While the first could be still in the blue for a question mark, you could try out with RSA-155 for the second, and only "unofficial" here, for that of a multiply this time,
in that factorizing such numbers could be very difficult indeed.

But adding a P161 a little earlier on, it could also be shown the way you could find these factors as well.

No point of wasting time on the C132 either, because this is quite a beast, and now a week into it by means of the SIQS.

Or maybe broken hearts of sorts, because here it became edited away.

Fools or horses, if perhaps not any horses either, and always a limit for that of saying, if perhaps not any free speech either.

Makes me think that "Determinism" is perhaps not any pussycat either, but rather slippery Sue, for that of a bit of stones,
next for also the edge, or maybe cliff, including that of both guesswork, and also knowledge.

Believe it or not, but if perhaps not any user perspective either, also that of certificates as well, during the week,
in the sense, or perhaps feeling that it could be broken.

Make it that of an Authority, next also an issuer as well, for that of a certificate, and next it could be RSA-2048 for such a thing,
in a sense that it perhaps may not be broken.

Make or break perhaps, and next also "crack" as well, except for perhaps not any Number crunching either.

If not wrong, Princess Leia once said "You did it", except for perhaps not me doing such a thing either.

Everyone here, or elsewhere, should be fully aware that such a number as RSA-2048 is purely a numerical issue, and therefore also subject to such a thing,
except for that of "make and break", or even crack, for such a thing.

Lile the novice for not fully understand, perhaps not always the teacher either.

Plot eh, except for not any Conspiracy either.

Make it rather fallback, and next also leads back to.

Dangit. but according to science, we could be some 0.84 on the Kardashev scale, except for someone else to compare with.

Hard to swallow, if not any bits or pieces either, next for both that of music, and also that of factors which next could also make it primes.

If I was a photographer, I could also end up in the lab, for next the details.

169!-1 or something and it has a P42 or so (needs checking).

So, why that of an almost endless loop, if you could make it almost a supercomputer on your own (read Pentium, or Pentium Pro, if not any factorization either).

Not meaning to be unfair either.

storflyt32 2018-06-08 08:21

So, if sieving perhaps means one thing, next also perhaps the leftover, or still remainder.

There could be people around saying "enough", only because 2 could be the answer, except for perhaps not the rest.

Becomes a reminder (and not remainder) of a couple of questions being asked at PrimeGrid, and perhaps also Seti@home, for "welcome home", if perhaps not alone,
but rather that of sometimes "quantisizing" some, or a couple of numbers, rather than questioning their possible "authentictity", or genuineness, meaning fastness as well.

Always the signal in the sky, for that of possible aliens or extraterrestrials as well, but next that numbers always could be having their own purpose, for next also meaning.

Funny isn't it, but except for not having the details right now, Columbus set sail with some three ships, in order to discover the Americas, including Santa Maria, if not wrong.

But rather ending up here with the old face of someone else (and not Jesus, by the way).

Not Michelangelo, and perhaps not Christopher Columbus either, even in his old days, but next who is this man being portrayed?

A man and woman could sometimes be one, but next not by means of any stretched hands either, or even light white, for that of skin color.

Perhaps rather Leonardo da Vinci here, on his old days, or old age.

But rather sometimes cheating for my part, in that a C200 could be a pair of P100 factors, with still that little thing, or part remaining.

C96 = 315472218139293356013346563701835685831891933234030539640916120515888577183410357875741303070669

Tell me it is the easiest, or perhaps most important thing, except for not any security certificates, of course, or maybe the guess that we are not alone in space, only for such a thing.

Need to edit the number abovr, before finishing.

Here very many lines at first, by means of the factor command, as usual, but ending up in error, for that of the number above.

Perhaps splitting in two if getting any unnecessary lines, but checking in with the C96 after picking the first beer from the fridge.

Even on a thursday only, because here also listening in at Carl Sagan, for that of Humility, of sorts.


Perhaps science, or rather it could be a bit of melancholy here.



Perhaps a slight difference from that of Depression (of the mind), and also such a thing for that of being sober as well, if not any drunk.

Really on my mind is the fact that factoring perhaps does not fit any purpose, except for possibly, if not sometimes, a number for that of secrecy.


A little known P49 here, and again my apologies for making it the wrong forum, because you already know that I did not make it work here, for that of the rest.

P49 = 7751061099802522589358967058392886922693580423169

P54 = 116928085873074369829035993834596371340386703423373313

P54 = 568630647535356955169033410940867804839360742060818433

The Factor Database is having the factors here, next in pairs, meaning that two of these numbers have been factored from each other,
but apparently not all three at the same time, because of the complexity involved.

For now only a composite number for the product.

Here C156 = 515359473535768426658723565099800347160894830815839647142554433992375844759582146700437536322893018937902601839896287406932526109366225811049188594382438401

for the product, and next of interest, perhaps how this C156 relates to the "Magic number" (RSA-1024) doing it the other way.

It should be easier, or at least smaller factors, and next it should be on my disk as well, because I was working on it.



Need checking if there could be more here, but the P30 in front makes it not that easy, and doing so, nothing more here.

Not readily factored here, but at least knowing it from a pure multiply point of view.


Here for that of the last beer standing on the shelf, or desk.

But that is the finishing line above, because also two separate factorizations, each tight ones, like a P47 versus a P54,
both different for each of the factors, and making for quite a good sequence.

Also composite here as well, at last time checking, and if together with the Fermat factors above, makes for a quite good number.

I need go back looking for the numbers, but here the dinner became a bit late today, and I had to relax a little first.

I think I may get the point here, or maybe heard, even better at PrimeGrid, because you know that a C200 never factorizes into a P100, P100 pair, unless you know.

If perhaps rather still the RSA "algorithm" for such, still those numbers as also end factors, except for also composite, and the way it could be found.

Perhaps from an even larger number here, except for the partition for this blew, as you perhaps know.

Here a couple of examples, and please do not add for now, because this is also on my mind.


So, no one shouting?

Adding here,, after lying dead for maybe two weeks or so.

Always that of prose, if not any prose or prosa either, but if perhaps counting a couple of sheep,
If not still "Oh, be a fine girl, kiss me now" (O B A F G K M N), next right now as well, and also that of PGP as a textual algorithm,
or perhaps representation, next for that of cryptologic purposes, and next I do not like it that much.

Mentioned before, but numbers could perhaps come clean by also being such, and next also being interpreted in that way as well.

For this, still "Wind him up, by Saga", for next that of a melody, if perhaps not any such thing as CXXX / PYYY for next an answer.

Only a C110 here, or C110 = 11736225585051074344123780071523689636028002733511392911984324592408313280663711860533667922836124171570704009

and next what is the answer?

Because here you still have the man, namely Michael Goetz, in charge of PrimeGrid, and I sent or made him congrats, for that of the SoB Jade badge.

But if still thinking that one number is perhaps larger than another, and next also more difficult, what about Prime Sierpinski versus Seventeen or Bust,
except for sometimes running blind for the whole thing?

Here running blind means that of meeting the dead end, or perhaps wall as well.

Except for being a little mean, or dishonest, also the fact that the flip-around side is not necessarily that easy either.


Again, but I will not be running blind either, and next thinking in the same fashion all the time.

In my opinion, RSA, or a RSA number, is perhaps not about any "Standards" either.

But rather about secrecy for such a thing, so why not leave it next alone?

You perhaps know about the drone coming close on a bear close to a catch on its own, and next its eyes, when being caught, or stumbled upon.

If still numbers for next that of numbers, if not any face either, or even something else, which I should not mention,
perhaps still that of nature for such a thing, and next that of a facet as well.

Using Google Translate on the word, and perhaps no such thing as a face at all.

Adding factors for that of a number, and the rest could still be open, if perhaps not a bit more or better known.

Perhaps "Never say never", could also mean forever, if not any James Bond, except for those numbers which we try to factorize and get a hand across.

So, if perhaps not any Sherlock Holmes either, or even a woman sewing her own shoes, if not curtains, also that of footsteps, for sometimes stepping back,
if not doing so for any time either.

Really, as previously mentioned, a C200 factored into two P100 prime numbers or factors, is perhaps not any "best solution", or answer either,
except for still the RSA algorithm at hand, for next such a thing.

Is a number cruncher of sorts (next a user, and not a computer as such) next also a detective, in that an answer may perhaps be found?

Again what I said previously, or above for such a thing, namely meeting, or encountering the wall, for such a thing, if not getting across it either.

Surprise, surprise, again.



If still that difficult the other way, does it perhaps tell about overall complexity of the number as a whole?

Or perhaps rather a "sneaky" preview, for almost being there?

For orders sake, only "loose factors" in the first one, but still "Never say never", because I do not think progress is getting nowhere, except for such.

If still that of blind, for next also blindness, you are welcome, except for that above.

If perhaps "Slippery Sue" is still such a thing, and next also a couple of factors the other, or yet another, you are welcome,
because at least you found those factors, except for not doing the big factorization, of course.

Ok, or anyway, so troll in a box, if not "Jake in the box" either, for next numbers also being symbolic, or perhaps representative for that of nature,
in the way, or perhaps context of making it only numbers for even such a thing.

Or perhaps a movie, for next that of crime, and here that of "Godfather", except for not such a thing as even numbers only part of a bigger whole.
and next at least the Universe for such a thing, if perhaps not any lost "Belief" you might have either.

Funny is it not, but perhaps still the ice sculpture for next that of water, in that it could also be a face as well.

Perhaps "The Abyss" here (a movie) and needs checking.

But why the heck that of the broom or brush, if you could be still riding the horse, if not such a thing as black or white, next for Blocksberg,
or any "smithereens" eitther?


Old story, and perhaps not

Should tell, being an astronomer of sorts, also that I could be adhering by the book, if not listening in either.

Oops, are next subsets that of sets as well, in the same way as also fractals?

Or could you make it one science for another, in that it also could be that of the unexplainable, and also so-called "UFO's" visible in the sky?

Yes, the nightclub could still be open, if not the soapboax either, or even the zipper for that of your pants (sometimes knobs).

Guess what, pretentious, if not any precarious either, except for not any rumors either.

Still the ladybug for that of a lovable insect, if not any fingers in the dough either, for sometimes making bread,
if not such a thing for that of science either, and next also think you could know everything.

So, still catching the footsteps of your neighbor, if perhaps not God either, for next that of infinity, and also that of numbers.

Yes, "ready, set, go", next for both that of sets and subsets, if not any cook either, next for still that of inifinity.

If you pick up the telephone for next dialing a nine or ten digit number, you still get at the whole number, of course.

But next that sieving is perhaps meant with a purpose in mind.

Pick a random number ending in 2, 4, 6, 8, or 0, and you know that it could be divisible by at least 2.

Should a prime number next be divisible by another such one?

Perhaps no here, as the answer.

Where is the analogy, or reverse opposite of (2^4096+1) when it comes to that of numbers (except for not any factors, of course)?

Should I perhaps make it -1 here, and next think that I also found a new Mersenne prime?

Perhaps no as the answer here, because of the algorithm itself, except for not you liking me either, as well.

Still on 1 1/2, or maybe 2 line separation here, and needs a fix.

storflyt32 2018-06-15 01:11

Starting a new one, because just curious here.


Flips around at first, because of a P55 at first.

But next so, because a number already known, or perhaps still work to do?

2+3=5, and 2*3 = 6, but next perhaps not so for a C86 either, in that the factors should perhaps be already known.

If I take the left corner, for next also driving left, perhaps not any shorter than turning to the right, and also ending up in the same path, if not any straight, or even dead end either.

Here a C147 Aliquot sequence number for just such a thing (the 7529... number) and also that it could be dividing almost everything, without any result.

Possibly so because here -1 and +1 chose to kiss each other goodbye, and with a bit of fanfare as well.


Oh, if you wish, but is not sentiment anything else, or other, than perhaps sentimental?

7529... / P60, of sorts, and next not any luck either.

So, if perhaps "Carpet crawler" for such a thing, also that bird Phoenix could be raisin from the ashes, except for not any such thing as a semiprime either, when it still could be a composite number.

Both a C110, and also a C121, relates to something at the other end, next for that of complexity given, which we could think, or make as an overall one.

Really, a fake number, or numbers of sorts, at the end, for that of a "summa summarum", like also RSA-768 as well.

Already my little bah, or perhaps dang here, for this number, in that my computer does not like it, or neither its factorization either.

Thinking that perhaps P3 = 229, only for that of a subset of this number, or factor, is perhaps wrong, except for not the answer at the other hand.


Here good example.

And not finding the PRP743 down my list...

Getting back to it.


And not any easy here either, except for being a hero, for that of a prime number.

Editing the wrong post, I could make it tighter for that above.

Hmm, 7529... / C89 = 10811237782460048361800082292361625292864478793719765789089398937019979423724815937287953

and so on, almost forever.


Except for not any "he-man" either, for such a thing as Fermat, could perhaps be given a closer look here, for that of a possible factorization.

Better do the shopping right now, before getting too tired, because here I also could add a P41 to the Factor Database, where it previously was only a P16.

The previously mentioned C102 did not make it with ecm, using 2^21 curves, and the SIQS not so as well, and here stuck for now, because not having time for any 2^22 curves right now.

If reporting as FF (meaning fully factored), take it rather for an offense, rather that of a real fact.

I know precisely my own writing, and also that it became wrong, except for perhaps also the wrong forum as well.

Perhaps I know even that, for such a thing, except for also sometimes a shot in the dark as well, for what we could possibly be doing.

Adding a bit more right now, and hopefully you will like it as well.

Anyway, I had some three loose factors reported, only because it flipped around for also factors at the other end.

One such was a P126, with probably a P13, or maybe P15 preceding it, for next a quite big pair the other way around.

The problem is that really this could become the end result, if resources permitted, for also such a thing for that of factorization.

Bummer me, but I happened to do such a thing with a pair of P100 factors, but next you should also know that I found the secret.

It does not always work, of course, but could end up being some PXX digits in my list for that of RSA numbers, or perhaps factors.

But rather a PXX is needed here, for a proper method, if not any factorization, and also a close approximation of numbers as well,
when possibly needed.

As an example, the FDB did an automatic update of a tight P30, versus P31 factor, next with something at the other end.

Needs checking, but in one such case it became a P187 factor.

Perhaps leaving it that what numbers could be having to tell, could be the best thing, except for sometimes ourselves faking anything either,
because not everything is readily factorized either.

If doing such a thing with a pair of P100 factors, only because I know, and not any other reason either, or whatsoever.

Funny perhaps, but even a hard working person could sometimes need rest, for that of also leisure, when doing such a thing, except for not the opposite either.

I had a computer disk failure earlier on, and also some two falling to the ground as well.

Becomes continuing on the rest, for that of also a start, if perhaps not any continuation either.

Here also a bit of excitement as well, in that not only primes for Sierpinski/Riesel is being found (SR5), but also Extended Sierpinski as well (ESP).

Except for still the P9 for such a thing, of course, which you next could be pulling the plug on, for next also details, leaving still the elusive Mersenne prime up in the sleeves, sometimes,
for that of also a guess.

Because here only one such right now, for that of myself, except for not any "Trick of the tail" either, next with a couple of big, or larger factors.

Example for that of a bit of nonsense, except for still also a separate file for that of my small factors (P9 or less).

P10 = 1020064121

Here what I said in the previous, and next that this should not be any candidate either, like also many others.

You perhaps know, or notice that I changed font slightly, in recent past.

Getting a bit of bad hands, as you perhaps know, therefore the reason.

Clicking on the P41 above, while not in Edit mode, and it apparently does not make it for the copy and paste here, but could be editing the individual post, if needed.

Got a P47 versus a P or PRP 100 here, for next a long factorization, and if together with the P41, next quite a bit of double pair, because here also a larger one as well.

Checking out, and continuing with this next, for also a possible reporting.


Edit: I can not resist here, for that of a little king, for that of a couple of factors, but now it also became too many blank lines, for only that of editing.



A bit of surprise here, except for also the flip-around as well, with a pair of P19 and P95 factors, but need the link first, and next adding.

But except for that, could you possibly explain the first one here, when it happens?

The answer is that you could be faking two different factorizations, in order to next also mix it together, for next also combining as well, for that of the result.

Possibly it became 1 1/2 for the width of a line right now, but except for the "Message" box at the bottom, together with also icons, not any much I could do here,
except for suffering from a poor keyboard right now.

storflyt32 2018-06-30 04:39

Better a new one right now, because of also a bit of anguish.

Possibly an error of sorts, because doing so twice in a row, with only a single sentence at first, but next also getting stuck.

Or rather a new posting start.



"Mea culpa", except for not having the factors already, at least for the latter one.

Read my lips for also a couple of postings at Seti@home, for also making it nonsense at times, while still also questions about the world around us as well.

The first one above is having P50+ factors, for some three in all, or total, and needs to be added manually, I think.

The second, some two P30+. factors, while also a P110, or the like, and also needs a redo as well.

Also a bit too much line spacing here as well, as previously mentioned.

If not wrong, the second part of it in right now, except for still the P50 pair in the first one.

Anyway (for that of a dark shadow in the face), did you try factoring a number like RSA-2048, only because of a C200, or maybe even P200 close, or following?

Next that it did not work out either, for such a thing, except for still a bit of shame being felt?

Give it a try, for sometimes working, if not any sense of disbelief either.

If some two P200 factors, next a C217 or so remaining, except for still not any good factors for such either.

Or rather only "To the point", for still two or more such numbers only being factors, when possibly being found, or detected.

storflyt32 2018-08-11 12:01


Guess what, but I clicked the red-x here, for that of closing the window.

A redo here takes some three minutes to complete, but anyway.

Because perhaps Hans Zimmer such a good musician here, except for all the things we already know.


Here "failure to equate relation", two times, except perhaps the other thing as well.


Edit: Need the flip-flop, for that around, as well.

MisterBitcoin 2018-08-11 12:30

Hans Zimmer, one of the best living music producers in Hollywood.

Be aware, there are much more "trailer score" producers out there; I recommend:

Audiomachine (Mark Petrie, e.g.)
Brand X Music

Epic Score
Two Steps from Hell (Thomas Bergersen, Nich Pheonix, etc)
and many more...

Also I recommend GRV´s extended remixes; found by YT Channel "Mortifer V." :smile:


Agree with you here, for also listening in.

Not getting to it all, for also catching, but at least a bit of great music here, and for this catches my senses, and also way of work.

Perhaps we should agree here, on a stumbling block of sorts, for next also the biggest factor, except for not any resolve in between our hands either.

Just only ahead here, for perhaps not making it any Riesel either, for that of any Riesel prime, but next any what bother, for also any bother,
except for not making it such a thing as factors themselves.

Endover. like a game, and next also leftover as well, for almost that of a sieving number, for next also ...80 as well.

Next, divides with at least 2, 2, 2, 2, and 5, in order to make it 2, but from there, perhaps no-one could tell, because only a waste of space here,
for that of a sieving factor.

Oh, at least I got it here, for that of starters, but perhaps does not help either.

Why not key in a C71 instead, in order to get at its factors?

Still only for that of starters, except for not any goal either, which we might seek to accomplish in one way, or another.

So it goes.

Edit: Catch you later.


Why not make it C100 here, for only that of senses, if perhaps not any belief either.

Are we stilll supposedly dumb, for also fools as well, except for not making it any human society for that of any cleverness, or even skill,
which could be possibly around.

Only asking. of course, except for not any fool-hearted either.

Edit: Should I perhaps respond here, except for not any original, or intentional "gist" either, for next I am, for next also you are?

Oh, never mind.

C87 = 119843123712066146769586974122995124696247859599318570405528299663491446893335086505717

Buh, Hmm, working on that.


What about that one?



Here it perhaps could be flipped around for order of sequence, because the end factor came up first here, for that of not being reported.

C83 = 24787913421613610885120573759275707936452851377282937435980987986309300027349495967

Same here, for not having checked today, but apparently needing the 2^22 ecm curves parameter here, and still running.

If perhaps ending up in two separate threads, I did not really notice, but also the fact that when still leaving a couple of numbers alone,
most of the other things, for also stuff, now becomes sorted out, for also its details, so perhaps not any much number theory either, as a possible result.

P29 = 94541614107843913199950635143

This factor, towards the end, with still composite numbers left, sits on each side of each other, with a slight difference.

Here the sqrt() in between this time, and adding the latter four factors.


I do not know exactly where this becomes easy, for next more hard, but often the flip-around is needed, for only getting the factors the opposite way around.



Note, loose factors again, but I find it a bit appropriate here as well.

Noticing the blank lines, for also catching it as well, sorry about that, but not any intended here.

Edit: Nice icon, for also left to stay, except for not any believe in such a thing either.


Factoring example, except for not any fasit, for that of a compulsory example only.

Oops, for that of my bad English, for also a need to sometimes only reiterate. except for only spooky words, for such a thing,


For only a couple of loose factors here, namely the C102 above.

Oh, for that of only stealing my thread.

Editt; edit,edit,always that of so, for only this stupid forum, being also the next finder,
for also the best prime number as well, for also that of its finder.

De not pretend to be any slim. for also fat, because this it could still only be for such, namely that of finding the biggest prime number.

So it goes.

storflyt32 2018-09-24 22:54

Should I make a new one here perhaps?

Keying in two numbers in the wrong order again, and only 2^5, 7, and 2633 for the last one, next also thinking, that I was some 2^2, and 19 off from the Magic number during the last week.

A C100 made of two P50's, or rather two P50's making for a C100, could be a bit hard to factorize, if not making it a P80 instead, for at least one of the factors.

On the calculator, for sometimes HP (Hewlett Packard), you get the RPN, which means the reverse, or opposite Polish notation, I think.

P / (X * Y) could sometimes factorize, if bit length is still not too large.

Then it becomes the Divide and Conquer, if not split and rule we could perhaps know about.

If we know that there could be a list of primes for that of P2XXXX and upwards, and still the small one above, something is wrong.


Here 21330.1503 seconds for the total factorization, ending up with a P41 and P93 at the end, and of course there could be even more such factors.


Anyway, I read this article as well during the week.

The stubborn composite may always be the semiprime of sorts, and at times also testing for such.

It did not work that well before, but at least one time in recent time, it became a factor the other way, when making it versus the C617, for that of web privacy.

Still it should be, except for perhaps not impossible either, but rather that "numbermaniac" could be still one thing, for rather the other one myself, or just having fun when possible.

Pierre de Fermat was definitely a good mathematician, but rather we could rely on Marin Mersenne here, who should be the favorite person here.

Before my recent problems, all these ended up on my disk, for that of the small ones, including 61, and 127, and next we know that they are only divisible from 2.

Correct myself, for that of 2^n-1, of course.

I personally ended up with a titanic prime at first, and ended up with one gigantic prime in the second attempt.

The logical question could be asking the way of which making it a megaprime as well, but here apparently left in the dark, for also stumbling as well.

Perhaps we already know that "faking" does not always work, except for knowing the precise answer.

Making it just another P18, and only one single step on a long journey, which could take for ever reaching the ultimate goal.

storflyt32 2018-10-01 05:40

Wohoo perhaps, but experiencing quite a bit of nasty problem, taking away a whole week.

Inserted, or plugged in an ASUS infrared USB stick, or connector, for that of a plug, because the previous Microsoft keyboard had liquid spilled all over.

Next picking up the pieces, for only getting back where I was, and I did not look at any numbers either.

I had one factorization, continuing on the previous, but needs getting back at that.

Adding the link when having it, and also updating the records, where they are needed.

I mentioned that of the little smile, if perhaps not at Seti@home instead, except for not a factorization rather be that of sieving instead, for only that of making, for also extracting, a couple of factors.

For one thing, a simple multiply, could also mean known factors as well, and of course the naming, for also Terminology, went out of my head.

Really, Probability "could" be just only a Probabilistic issue, or argument as well, because we just only know, except for still not making it any Proof, for just science.

So, 2 * 2 = 4 perhaps, and also the Fermat factors as well, for just the same, except for still not the prime numbers, for also factors, making up possible Mersenne primes.

Are you supposed to tell me that sieving does not work, except for still not any stupid of myself either?

The X*Y, for also X*Y*Z as well, or sometimes, could be making for the prime number, or factors, not yet detected, and we should know that.

Perhaps it could be still a fact, except for not any stupid of myself either, but if perhaps trying out PFGW64, for only that of LLR, could I still make it sieving instead, for only that of a possible answer,
except for perhaps not any better either?

Wait, wait, wait, and therefore a delay as well, except for still not any consecutive either, for only that of a possible answer.


This one I did not mention, or come across earlier, but should it be any bleeding skin, for only that of fishbone?

Shred, mangle, mutilate, or make it into pieces, for even a book of sorts, and next also perhaps also shred of Evidence as well, for that of given knowledge.

Is the pen and pencil still a replacement for that of the hand itself, except for not any grip either, for what it could next hold?

If perhaps rather a balancing acts of sorts, it could be a Thoroid of sorts (needs checking).

Read the fine print, and next "not known, for that of Mersenne 48, versus 49 of sorts (still needs checking).

Oops, I was slipping the fingers at Seti@home instead, except for not any fine tuning here instead.

Perhaps we hit a wall of sorts (LLR) if you will, for perhaps only knowing, except for not any guessing either.

Making it order out of Chaos, for just order, order, and perhaps you know what the old lady just said.

48, 49, 50, except for perhaps not any 51, or even 60 either, for only that of provable science, when perhaps only that of numbers instead.

Is it Saint, saint, for also that of "saliva", or could it just be only irresistible instead?

Sometimes we could be speaking about a reversal, for also irreversal, except for the other thing I forgot to say.

Prove, and next also proving as well, and you could next also make, for only that of science.

We know that we could be encountering a limit right now, for also a barrier as well, and next do not exclude and 64-bit science either, for that of Methodology and tools, when also that of a bit of shambles as well.

Should it be a difficult one here, for just a P42?

Took a while, but perhaps a C99 here, for that of the whole number.

Getting back at it in just a short moment.


- - -


See you in the morning here, for only catching you later.

storflyt32 2018-11-08 02:54


Here a nice ending, for that of a P101, and only syntax for such.



Perhaps the opposite way for better clarity, but except for not readily doable here, it is in fact the logical continuation of the sequence here,
for ending up with the P564 which should be well known for just a Fermat factor.


Here the F11 a little down the page, or end factor of (2^2048+1), and also just eats a bit of cake from the C1133 of (2^4096+1) when flipping around, doing it the opposite way,
because here just in the door from the shopping, and knowing that the factor here became added.

Doing a little more here after the cup of coffee.



Here is one such, for only an example.

Becomes a P45 here, for also a P119.

Total factoring time = 55848.5684 seconds

I could have it for you later here, but also that this is not the smallest one either.

The 4177..number here, if you do not mind, for perhaps not any foolish either,

What if I could perhaps add it here, for only my own sake, if not any knowledge?

OK, added it here, for perhaps not the worse either, but rather its correct place, for just only meaning.

Never mind, because we should know the flip-around here.


The silly or stupid thing could still that of making it a balancing act, for only what factoring is supposed to be meant to be,
except for only Mersenne primes being only factors of each other, for just respectively so, except for the number still in between,
which could still be a larger one.

I do not make it for the really big numbers, as you probably know, but rather that eating a cake, could be still a bit of a show,
for not taking your mouth any full either.

SGS primes should be still for an ending, and here I think it should be +1 most of the time, except for also some four Woodall tasks
running in the background, for only just BOINC, and next also quite long, for also -1 at the end.

I once heard it mentioned that 28 could be a perfect number, if perhaps not any RSA number for such a thing instead.

It became a couple of stuck hands here, for what you perhaps know, so therefore not picking up the last numbers, for writing it down,
but if possible, I could get back at this as well, for only pure interest, if not any real or genuine importance.

Lost the factorization tasks here, for only a fuse being replaced, but here in my opinion, the C813, for rather FF813 looks better,
for only niftier, or just pretty, when also knowing that it could be a factor as well, when doing it the opposite way.

But next, never say never, for only shaking hands, and perhaps we should know about that as well.


This one, quite late in the night, and perhaps standing out a little, for just edgy, because here perhaps a P97 or so which it could be multiplied with,
for only a wrong number being keyed in earlier on, for that of the composite number you could get.

Next need looking for the P97, because it should be in my list somewhere, and also trying to fix the blank lines here as well.

Anyway, could try out with those factors I have, from only the starting point, because here a bit of problems with my fingers,
and I did not pick up the last one I got, for at least being reported.

Doing so, and it became yet one more for such.

Total factoring time = 72747.9059 seconds

Here flipping one way, for only just easy, while a bit more difficult next the other way, and here it became one such.

I will have both links for you after the glass of milk just standing in the fridge.



Just hold on tight a little, but next ended up there.

So, pretend to be a hero instead, except for perhaps not, and you could make it X*Y, for also X*Y*Z as well, for only multiplication.

Perhaps only small caps here, but needs getting back, for just checking.

P35*P36, or P35*P36, and next also P35*P37, for also P35*P36*P37, except for only two factors, for only a wished, or desired number, if you will.

Next that of RSA here, for such a thing, and for that, also "Wind him up" as well, for only such a thing.



But rather Divide and conquer, for just another thing, except for not any intended meaning or purpose for such a thing here either.

The problem is that I could take each factor in my list, for only having the rest factorized, when next also that of such being just flipped around,
for only just the other way.

For that, I could rather pick up the next one in my list, hoping that it could be factorized in a similar way, and becoming only just an excluding factor,
for the thing we could wish to reach at, for next also accomplish.

Sometimes good, for also excellent, because here picking up the P97 I was able to get across, except for not knowing whether it was the right one either.

Continuing down the list, and perhaps a little sad to just notice that it could be just only the small difference, for only Differentiation, making up the whole difference here,
except for not the meaning of the other number either, for perhaps not any similar either.

Except for perhaps thinking in a similar way at another place being visited, for also frequented as well, namely [EMAIL="Seti@home"]Seti@home[/EMAIL].


Here that of "failure to equate relation", for that of the siqs, leaving me with only that of ecm instead, just for now.

Eat your cake instead, and feel a sense of comfort, except not any welcome either.

storflyt32 2018-11-20 00:39


A new one here perhaps, and here the classic example of a second last factor, where it becomes stuck, for that of running, except for having both the P24, and the following P40 here already.

This makes for a C207 at the end, when first flipping around from a P313, so not too bad here, for that of a secrecy which could end up being lost.

Needed a restart of the computer here, so perhaps it actually did happen?



So, if perhaps not any sad, for just only a snort either, what if I built on this list, only in order to see it through, except not any starting point either?

If you do not mind, we could make it a million digits here as well, for only a decent prime, except for not any worth either, for only such a point.

Yes, screw it up if you will, except for not absolutely making it any primality either, for only a wish or will, except for still the Method, for only getting at such a thing.

Adding just 1, for also subtracting as well, perhaps does not help in any way either.

So, if rather starting to build instead, we could be able to see that it just becomes 2 for just only 3, except for not thinking that it could be any primality around either,
when only just multiplying.

1238926361552897 (prime)
1256132134125569 (prime)
59649589127497217 (prime)
2663848877152141313 (prime)
3603109844542291969 (prime)
167988556341760475137 (prime)
3560841906445833920513 (prime)
5704689200685129054721 (prime)
188981757975021318420037633 (prime)
319546020820551643220672513 (prime)
4659775785220018543264560743076778192897 (prime)
7455602825647884208337395736200454918783366342657 (prime)
7751061099802522589358967058392886922693580423169 (prime)
17353230210429594579133099699123162989482444520899 (prime)
116928085873074369829035993834596371340386703423373313 (prime)
568630647535356955169033410940867804839360742060818433 (prime)
93461639715357977769163558199606896584051237541638188580280321 (prime)
741640062627530801524787141901937474059940781097519023905821316144415759504705008092818711693940737 (prime)

- - -

***factors found***
P45 = 157158242173843007143035378684833126801726167
P55 = 1841489846742664508151902004195151970273798095193729693

Hope you catch the meaning here, except for only the business of just factoring instead, when perhaps hoping for the better.

Round a table perhaps, but did it perhaps became such a question about primality, when also knowing, for perhaps not any guessing either?

Take the ratio of factors, for also prime numbers, when next also composite numbers as well, and you get that of "comparativeness", when only such numbers unable,
or impossible to factorize, but next you also could know that there could be factors in between, for only their own importance, if not any significance either.

Next, count on me, for just making it science, because here it became the C94, for perhaps the slightly more difficult, except for not the prime number we could get at either,
for just only on the spot.

Am I perhaps questioning the algorithm here for such a thing, except for "still" such a thing, when we also could be knowing the answer at times?

Perhaps it becomes only a waste of time, for also energy as well, when knowing that a factorization is perhaps not for any better, but only the thing we already could know.


So it goes, for also adding here as well, except for just the little smile, when only just adding or subtracting 1, of course.

storflyt32 2019-08-21 06:36

On the loose again, with just a mobile phone and laptop connected to each other.


Apparently just a lucky strike, but the three factors in the middle settled down in the second attempt, only making for a surprise at the end.

Here the P9 was not listed at the start, because of only being composite at first.

storflyt32 2019-09-03 22:03

I will skip the greetings and phrases, except for ticking the little square for staying logged in, and for now not getting to the large edit window either.

So while not hearing any much complaint from you over time, your friendliness and hospitality is always appreciated, so returning back to you now.



Or should I flip the two above around, for that of opposite order for just size?

If the first one took some two and a half day to get at, why not make it some five days for making the same thing for the other?

So why not just key in the C77 we already have the two factors for, and think it all should be so easy?

Size still matters of course, but next also order of factors for just the same, when also for just a comparison.



How many such do we have, if we could choose to pick numbers from a list, which subsequently also are factors?

Here I do have the individual numbers for the first one, but if you are interesting, you could give it a try.



Here someone finished it up before me, but if you could try out with
C100 = 3252066684835382078675183029465863150415513141502371759835036776973614803328141721305318548058114553

for the second one, it still could be unofficial, but at least slightly better off, and returning back to finish the editing above.


P39 = 328116832768050526084945571688513787657

P51 = 416200886399944585188673420213065490981133202897683

But really only a multiplication of numbers here, for only two factors known, because this one I can not do, and the C100 could be even harder.

Also should tell that I am used to having the factors being found listed at the end of the output, so here that of getting the message about factoring composite base,
or the similar, apparently slipped away, from only the lights during the day, and next the numbers not that much different, for only a single line or two.

It should be better having the complete summary at the end of the result output instead, or as well.

storflyt32 2019-09-08 09:12

I better make a new one, because the long lines in the previous are still not any perfect.



Like dinner being served, also in the same order as well, for only the second link with my starting cup of coffee here, except for also the way it is supposed to be running up the stairs.

A fireman, like also someone only working at a place, could be bothering about the half floor stairs in front of him, if not a whole floor either, for only two sets of ladders, but if bad luck still happened to strike,
and it was the 82nd to the 83nd floor, up to the 120th floor at the top, and not the stairways down the front hall, could you next make it to the first or second floor, and think that it all could be easily done?

Here the first pair of factors could be more downstairs, while the second could be higher up in the building, except for the factors not that unequal in size, but only the remaining part still left to traverse or climb.

Funny enough, but traverse becomes just that word, when also using here.

Almost forgetting that a minus could come with even a prime number, except not working too hard doing precisely this thing.



Here we do have one of those examples for almost a little beauty, when it comes to that of factors, because you may have noticed it yourself, for that of difficulty.

Returning back to the computer yesterday morning, I found the complete factorization waiting for me, and this time with no hassle, except for long running time.

This time a pair of P44 and P96 factors, initially a PRP96, which I think is slightly larger than a couple of other ones.

Total factoring time = 61700.7709 seconds

If finding the right moment just after the cake, I could add it before going to bed.


Also this, for only a running example, but here you may notice the hat at times, for only squaring, or perhaps potentiation.

Either I should blame the original source for such a thing, because this is not really what I want, for rather only the factor itself.

Downsizing a little, by just dividing with the unnecessary factor or factors, it only becomes a new entry for that of the rest,
and here not really understanding what is happening, except for only taking what it becomes.

My apologies here, but apparently no other way out right now for the moment.



P40 = 4659775785220018543264560743076778192897

P49 = 7751061099802522589358967058392886922693580423169

Money for nothing, at least when only time is being considered, because here only a waste of time, for only known factors.

Suddenly also the fact in front of me for just being the wrong forum here, for also wrong numbers as well,
but it could perhaps be mentioned that I also could be pushing it even harder at times, at least only for numbers.


Here you have one for that of both, for each respective factorization type, for also personal interest as well.

storflyt32 2019-09-16 14:53



Here needing to rewind a little, and hope it will get right, for that of a pair of P41 and P120 factors, initially a PRP120.

Apparently a quite big one here, for that of factorizations, and will have to edit it slightly.

Total factoring time = 115322.6045 seconds

I will add the whole thing a little later on, but it does not readily divide from here either.





Maybe the first two in the wrong order of input for only that of size, but next taking the square root of the product here, for the third one,
making for the P123 and next the P179.

Doing the same with the number being used for our privacy, also a better one here as well in the same way, but not reported yet.

storflyt32 2019-09-20 23:35

And right now I am not your friend, at least for only now.


This project has now been taken over, and also run, by neighboring PrimeGrid, for only that of project.

Next I happen to pick up only the smaller ones here, for just only factors, except for perhaps even three or so, for only the start, and next ending up in the wrong order as well, at least for only size of factors, for also reporting.

Am I having a couple of bars, for also rods, if not making it any ski poles either, but except for perhaps any similar being made or carried out here, at least we could be trying, for only making it a F(x) here,
when surprisingly, F could be just Fermat, rather than just a function.

Really so nice it could have been, by only making it just factors from the start, for also beginning, when at least knowing, except not any digging into the unknown, when rather being the slightly larger number instead.

Here a P56 ended up in the Factor Database at first, except not any P52, for just a bit smaller, when also the other mentioned factors, which next made for a complete picture.

So if only picking it up from just pieces, also from scratch as well, except not making it any better, for the thing which could perhaps be known, for also a more complete picture.

If perhaps not any project chosen, for sometimes also liked or preferred, in my opinion not any good thing either, for what we could both happen to know, for sometimes also expected as well.

Only just to tell that a couple of others just ran for 2 1/2 to 3 days, without bearing any fruit, for only unsuccessful, and therefore only wasting my time.

Therefore perhaps only trial division instead, for only a number which I happen to know, except for also having a dark side at times, for only that of its end.


Here just tipping over, for not any lorry being oversized either, except that we perhaps only noticed for only such a fact.


Looking here for my last ones for that of factorizations, and here also knowing that 2.718 needs about 2.30, in order to get at 10, by means of such a thing,
for that of potentiation.



In addition to another P154, which flips around for a pair of P42 and P43 factors, already known, here adding the P11, for making quite a good one,
between the P29 pair, for that of two such ones, and the P233 at the other end.

Really just thinking here that this should be a way of working for just much larger numbers as well, and will be getting back at that, for also the P154.

storflyt32 2019-09-27 13:08

New one perhaps here, since it became a Friday, and I will not edit the thread title.

This because I perhaps should be asking first, before continuing, and here thinking about the following.

I now have a couple of files containing factors being found, on single lines, and because of both bad hands, and also working position, did not sort it any much for order.

The P40 for the Euler–Mascheroni constant, if you make it from binary into decimal, is a quite good example, but if next multiplying with a P56, you get a C96 as a result here.

Next flipping around, from the number we are seeking an answer to, and it "divides" into roughly a C213.

P40 = 5772156649015328606065120900824024310421

P56 = 23903180476843089952579062830939453091365029983134464841

The problem here is depending on which number you choose to use, it should be at least working at little, but if still composite at the other end, what could next be the starting point
for that of reference?

Here C96 = 137972902122023234636717348712712823201523220839427136510389320583812188358910643550723894408061

for that of at least one reference, for not any guessing either, but next I will have to key it in at the proper place, if not already done so.



Here keying in the first one for not already being there, and also the fact that the second one does not appear to give in at first either.

If perhaps so, could this end up being unfinished business, for also a project of sorts, when not all details are readily available or present, because even only here, it needed a redo,
for only just checking.

Just guessing that except for not making it any P11, for only subtracting 1 instead, this could be the other alternative, for only a bit more simple.

Perhaps asking what could be the end of the road, could be a question better asked somewhere else, except for the similar also found also here, for that of numbers.

For now only guessing that it should be better working with known factors, rather than unknown ones, except for also a quite large list already, for which there seems to be no ultimate solution.


Again, perhaps my own inclination here, for only that of numbers, but if a project ended up perhaps lying dead, it could still be the Fermat prime search here.

Needs checking, but it should be the product of the two largest Fermat factors flipped around, for that of a C1133 for that of the same,
but next a bit ashamed, for only disappointed, in that I had to make it from already the P16 here, until the finish.

Could I next ask what perhaps is meant by a "conjecture", for only such numbers, if perhaps just the Riesel problem here?

Really it could go on forever, for only just filling in the gaps, except for still the lucky winner, who at times could be around.

For that, those Proth numbers, and at least the smaller ones here, for still that of +1 at the end, when also poor little Sophie Germain,
for only the endless chain of prime numbers, making at least a sequence here.

Just pick a number, for that of a P11, and simple as that, for only sieving a little, and next thinking the rest could be prime,
except for still not any assumed Method, for also a best guess, when it could even be a "Probabilistic" one for such, for next making it such a prime.

I better continue with the trial and error experiment instead, for still only a bit of division for just the same.

storflyt32 2019-09-27 18:56


And here another thing as well, except perhaps not the precise link for just the original one, but perhaps the C76 a little hard or difficult here, for also the three largest ones in total, when also here flipping around, and ending up with much the same.

This one did not became one of myself this time, but for one thing, if I actually happened to know, I could be making it gcd() here, for just that of two numbers, except for still only just filling in, and rather wasting space, but next only forgetting that, of course.

So either just write, for that of grammar and syntax, when also correct language, when it also becomes that of polynomials for that of such numbers, which could involve possible complexity.

At least becoming two instances of much the same numbers here, for also the fact that both 2, 3, 5 and 7, could be "hidden" inside a number like a C309, except not any visible at all.

How many times could you "divide" that C309 with both 2, 3, 5, and 7, except for still the remainder which could be present or left?

I guess 2^20 could still be 1048576, because here not any Fermat numbers either,
but the same should also go for 3^20 as well, for only 3486784401

Here thinking wrong, but should be the one closest to the C309, from just behind, when only doing the multiplication above, or 2^n.

Adding to it 11, 13, 17, 19, and so on, for just excluding, and you do have the rest, except for still the possible remainder.

Therefore, 2^n, for just less than the C309, written in full, for having it explained.

So, if still a bit of mess, also the fact that my disk now became quite filled, for almost "choked" for much the same, except for perhaps still not any difference between prime numbers and factors, from what I am able to see.

Really, some four P40 through P60 factors, next multiplied, could be making for a quite decent number, except only a possible use for just flipping around, as usual, for either ending up nowhere, for sometimes getting a result.

We do get new numbers almost each day now, for only filling in the gaps, except still not any conjectures, for only being solved, like also the new record prime.

Again, unfinished business only means reporting out of fashion, for not being in any order or sequence, for also the other thing as well, but at least we are not supposed to make it any nextprime() for such a thing.

Here that of 321 LLR for just a good example, because it should be both + and - here, except only some nine known primes here.

As an example, 17*19 = 323, but also that both 321 and 325 are not any primes either.

P40 = 5772156649015328606065120900824024310421

P56 = 23903180476843089952579062830939453091365029983134464841



Here noticed that the second one appeared quite difficult, for not giving in any much, but here could add a P39, for a bit of success.

Of course could also end up with the same factors if not any careful, but in case it could be quite similar here as well.

For one thing it could still slip and fall, for only one handle for that of grip, except also not knowing which side of the tree any such factor should favor,
for only Fermat versus Mersenne, if possibly not any else.

Could have it later here, but need the cup of coffee first, but apparently a better one here.

storflyt32 2019-09-29 04:59

Oki doki, not be just any unfair right now, because you told me so, and next you could be my friend.

Bump, but really, during the week, I just slipped on the mouse, for making it one 7, for that of a digit, when it perhaps should be two, for that of '77 at the end instead, and here a factor as well, for that of a P23.

Still the other factor could be just 7, but next laughter in the audience.

Mistress, for perhaps rather masters instead, but at least only a failure here, for that of being self-inflicted.

Just pick it up, for perhaps not any Dogma either, but perhaps I still could swear.

But honestly, just in the middle of the night, I could be able to pick up the slight, but also subtle difference, if perhaps not you any so either, for just a meaning.

If perhaps still only confusing, it could still go for that of project itself here, for only making it clear.

So, what is the rule, namely that I hereby ask, for also what you could be able to offer.

Read my lips, for not any straightforward myself, namely that of project management, and its own way of handling, for only dealing with a couple of things.

Yes, any idiots, for also Pragmatism, and perhaps not the same either.

Here just my thoughts, for that of the night, and actually had something else on my mind.

Hmm, really, or should it be the broken glass here, for next only my eyes?

Just hang on a little (P23).

So, what did I do, for only multiplying a P40 with a P100 here, and next thinking it could be a P23, for just in reverse?

Is it just, or OR, or could it rather be only just fact?

Does it perhaps count, for also "is", or is it just still only silly me?


Here for that of a start, except not making it any relational table here either.

(Just) silly - enough, does it perhaps translate, for also enough?

Part versus whole, and next also "transcendental", and here the best I could get at, for just the moment, except not any music either.

Carry flag - warning flag, what the heck else?

Sorry about wording here, but perhaps could be discussed.

Yes, that P92 of recent, had the little warning, should tell (failure to equate relation), just on the spot here, for not any easy.


A previous C92, having P37 and P56 factors, got the failure to equate relation error, for only a possible difficulty.



Either just alone, or perhaps the second one here, for only smaller ones in the first, but like a hurricane also brewing in the Atlantic,
perhaps no-one really guessed that most of these factors could end up being broken.

storflyt32 2019-10-03 23:03

Perhaps I was a little impolite just a moment ago, but would have to go back for such a thing.

Even more of it, or perhaps to it, namely that I chose to pay Photobucket some 53,90 in US dollars, for letting them keep my uploaded photos for only that of storage, except for them also noticing it being used for
3rd party hosting as well.

Always the login, for also logout, except for also that of Terms as well, for just Terms of service, and I should next also read that, of course.

So just walking to the shop today, for both the milk and dinner, for also the beer as usual, it became that of a small gift for my mother, only because she is 82 years old tomorrow.

Late as usual, because of only a couple of habits, the two women behind the desk took my suggestion for that of a small gift, and it became a box of soap at the cost of 50 in my national current.
Maybe just a plastic box here, but at least nice colors, with a couple of drawings on it, so at least looking quite nice.

But next that this only amounts to roughly 1/6 of what I paid Photobucket, and if perhaps not forgetting my mother having surgery for cancer, should it perhaps be any better, or is it only just me to blame?

I do the shopping where some two stores almost the same size, are covering up for some 30,000 inhabitants of a whole city.

So therefore maybe sometimes the pawnbroker in a shop for such a thing, for also a bargain being made at times, but returning back home, at least being a little ashamed of myself, for only letting such a thing happen.

Really, my mother could have deserved a little better, in my opinion.

LaurV 2019-10-04 05:51

[QUOTE=storflyt32;527255]Really, my mother could have deserved a little better, in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
I didn't read the rest, but at least with this, we all agree…

Thanks for that, appreciated, but I guess someone could be making it "enough said", for only just science, except not making it any nonsense either.

I sometimes make a visit at Seti@home, for perhaps not the word being used for such, except not any "vacant" either,
but rather just contribute, and for that, also a friend of sorts, with the name of OzzFan, where we just agreed to perhaps more could also mean better,
for only just meaning so.

Therefore, just quantize, for only sticking to the point, except not any fantasy either, for just a delirium, when only a sense of disappointment instead.

For you, when next only keen of sorts, except not any asserting either.


Wipe a couple of tears instead, for only the thing being postulated, except not making it any thing such a science either, when only just formulated.


storflyt32 2019-10-04 07:55

Is science next any with, for also hereby, except not any withstanding either?

Really, Seti@home is just tired of me, for just only explaining, except not making it any Theory for just only theorising either, when it perhaps could be only speculating.

Just think of it, for only just sense, and next also encompass as well, for only a nature still present, for only our eyes, for what we could grasp, and also sense, except still not completely understand either.

Only bitterness, and next think of what it could be worth, for only rather making it instead.

But maybe rather "peruse" instead (needs checking), and you could be back at the debate about whether any God could be responsible for any Events, when also such a thing happening.

We do have the word gratify, for also gratification, if not wrong, except for sometimes also making it that of "betterment" for only just science.

Okay, so stupidity could kill the cat (maybe, or occasionally), except not making it any Truth for such a thing, but only a Postulate.

Is, or are the Laws of nature, only a Concept for such a thing, because they sometimes could be proven?

Or maybe only just a "de facto" standard, for such a thing, because of only just the same?

Bend, bent, bent, for only just Conceptually being just inappropriate, except not any proven either, for just unproven, but if perhaps so, what is the game?

Really, they could sometimes spell it just "irrevocable", for only just a fact, except not making it any inappropriate either.

Some people could end up thinking that nature is just a concoction, for also an ideas or innovations, or or for perhaps not any idea either, for perhaps rather contrivance instead, for just better.

So, betterment is perhaps something we could measure, for only making it the better of things, except not any grand scale, for only that of measurability.

Oh, just thought of process here, if perhaps only a journalist doing the same either, for only just pretending.


Just big eh, for maybe rather Probability instead, for also Logic as well, but what next, for only that of our ability to just only conclude, for that of a couple of things?


Maybe just Conscience instead, for next also that of Mind, and you also should know that, except for perhaps not such a thing proving anything either, for only just Proof.

Really. I could be wearing an umbrella for only just raining, except not singing any song either, for just "postulating" the fact that we perhaps may not be alone, for only that of citizens of Earth.

Is it just hastily, or could it be rather slow, except for still perhaps a Proof for that of science, when it perhaps could be the thing it next could go?

Blame nature instead, for not any blissful, or mercy, because it soon could be that of religion for such a thing.

The sad thing is that Religion still needs its own Proof, except not making it just a revelation for such a thing either.

Just twist and shout instead, and for that also spin a little, except not any roundabout either, for only just a discussion, because here at least a web of sorts.

Okay, so we are having that of Number theory, for only a thought, except not making it a model for just Proof either.

Is the other thing just sinister, for also being absurd, when next also being Religion, for just only the same?


Really, 1+3=3 (is still 3), for only such, when only just proving, but if rather proving Religion instead, who is next the fool, for also idiot, except perhaps not any Saint either?


Is this the thing I could be making Religion, except not following up on the story, for just to the point either?

Nature perhaps "is", for only what it could be meant to be, except for also the agreement, that at least much, could also mean more, for only that of significance.

But rather that just meaning, could be replaced, or substituted with that of imply, for only just Implication, when next also signify, except not getting any further here.

I guess that it could be still only nature rolling here, only for its Cause, or perhaps meaning.

By the way, needs edit buttons at the top here as well, for only that of text, and hopefully you agree, except for also the gentlemen you could pretend to be.

storflyt32 2019-10-04 07:58

Needs edit buttons at the top here as well, for only that of text, and hopefully you agree.

storflyt32 2019-10-04 08:28

Maybe just stick to the point, except not redact a little, for only just a concoction for such a thing.

Just an idea instead, and maybe just proven, for only just science.

merrymaking - antics (still) - for only a couple of jerks, and next also what you could make it.

Any perfect, for still also science, next "gimme", except not any Fact for just Truth either.

Just living in the shadows, and it could be that of a prospect for such, except not making it any infinity either.


Here a concept, for only just known, except not making it any theoretical Physics, for only that of a structure, in order to perhaps explain our world.

Is kind of proudness, only for such a thing, except for the "context" we still could be making infinity?

Yes, we two, for next all of us, except not any infinity either, for only making it understandable.

Really, just a black sheep, for not any box either, and still only non-comprehensible,for just incomprehensible, and for such a thing, also a liar as well.

Hmm, but really not seeing it that way either.

Is a lie for only just not a Fact, or could it rather be just a Truth instèad?

Really, proving the opposite, for also converse, should be that of Logic here, meaning NOT.

Or maybe just spell, or could be spelling it incorrectly, for not any right either, when just making it "salient night".

Only my words for this here, except not making it any science either.

storflyt32 2019-10-04 10:04

Ploop, but your generosity will always be mentioned somewhere else, for also a thanks as well.

Gimme, for perhaps not any extraction method, that nature is still there, for only just existing.

So, maybe just an assumption for the same, ending up with a postulate as well, if not any Proof either, and perhaps just fine, for only that of nature.

Just "ding-ding", for what we perhaps could think, except not making it any such, for only a couple of eyes either, namely that of provability.

Oh, maybe just Santa Claus, for only a story being told, and perhaps only Astronomy, for that, or when just together.

"Failure to equate expression" - is that and Equation of sorts, except perhaps only Mathematics?

Maybe I could end up being just Portuguese here, for only just "inappropriate".

Maybe just an umbrella instead, for only a couple of raindrops instead, except for still only adhering to the Scientific Method, for only being "trusted".

The thing perhaps being given, should also be that of made, except not just "give and take" for such a thing either.

The "Probabilistic Method" for only just detecting intelligent life past or beyond our solar system, should also be for such a thing, except not any "Soul solemn" either,

Is ant numbers for only just a curse, or could it rather be satisfaction instead, for only that of privilege?

Yes, lost that one, for only the other, but could be getting back at it.

Reimburse, just payment back, oh dear.


Need to edit that, except not any sweetheart either, except not any science for only such a kill, when it rather could be a blue whale instead.


Maybe an orchestra instead, for sometimes also a flute as well, but could it perhaps be singing a song, for only just ringing a bell?

Except for always that of provable science, and also dangit, for only my own here.


Is nature, for just only proving it, perhaps simplistic, or could it rather be more complex, only because it could be that a "Cause"?

Just struggling here, and is it perhaps only just an idea, rather than what you could be making it, for still only just "is", except perhaps not any Proof either?

Pertinent, for also absolutes, and both needs checking, for only just fine words.

Glory, glory, and for that, only just hallelujah, except for perhaps not any Saint at my side, for only just preaching either.

Is the model of science just meant to be, or could it also be coming along, for only just a thought, making it perhaps Philosophy?


Next, only just a bit of Philosophy once again, except not any strip tease you could be making it either.

Is it just part versus whole here, or could it be just a dream?

Already mentioned, for only just a dream, if perhaps not you feeling it, when only that of encompass, for only just feel, except not you feeling ashamed either, only because of a dream.

Supposedly science could be just a dream, except not any postulate we could be making it either.

Therefore, that is, for also a fact, when not any evidently, for also not any
unsubscruptionally either (needs checking), except the idiot I still am, for also could be.

Is it that, namely substantial versus unsubstantial, when perhaps not any Evidence at all, or what?

Just word instead, for that of the opposite, namely unfounded, and it could be just God for that of writing, except only insanity instead, for only just a shame.

How goes, or should I rather blame nature instead, for only such a thing as prove?

Gimme, for also enough said, if not any prove either, for just only concur, for that of an agreement, perhaps only factors of nature for such a thing, except not any "twist and shout, for only just proven either.

So, what is not forgotten, except only the motion of the Earth, for also its trajectory around the sun, except not forgetting the implicit "Causes" either, for only just being around, except not any spoken nature either?

Maybe just explicit, for rather implicit instead, except for still not knowing to the point,
for exactly science, when it also could be the thing I am doing.

And yes, knowing about the error of sorts being made here, for only just being tired.

Getting back at it.

Need to pick up another beer, except not making it any depletion either.

How comes, but is it only just that of science, or could it rather be a notion instead, for only just belief?

You said, and for only just Truth, still that of science, except not any "matter of the fact" either, when perhaps still the same.

Is it order for just that of Rationality, or could we perhaps think it could be just only a sample?

Maybe just waving a flag, for only an excuse, and perhaps the wind.


Only loose factors here, for only just multiplication, but either I gave only an answer, for also flipping around, for just losing that of content.

Never mind, for at least showing up, for only just standing, except for only just preliminary, for only just not dividing.

storflyt32 2019-10-08 20:21

If it became that of a P41 for also a P106, a laptop computer here, and I forgot the whole thing.


Here PRP106 at first, and need to go back for the correct link as well.

Total factoring time = 156057.3099 seconds



Here again my bad for reporting in the wrong order, because the second one took a bit longer, and should also be visible for the numbers.


But flipping back here, for only that of the large one above, should I have my coffee first, or should I just trial divide instead, for only the same factor?

On my job now, for only working a little, but back soon for cleaning up a little, because apparently does not so, for only a P119.

Perhaps a little more room here in this window, for only the laptop being attached again, for being used.


Adding here for that of getting to it, for still visible on the desktop, but need the coffee first.

But also noticing that it became a different one here, for next also not writing any good.

But for only the quite similar factors, except nothing else either, it perhaps should be possible to notice the imbalanced tree here,
for what we could be seeking for, because here a complete factorization on just one side, for only partially so at the other,
meaning that making it from the start here, but just going opposite ways, is not the alternative solution either.

But in fact, this should be known already, from only the end

Oh, my fingers, for only just having dinner, but if I multiply two composites, for only just C,
and next take the square root, it should be more difficult to fully factor, except for the other number you get,
by just dividing it from the starting number.

Getting back to it before bedtime, because turning on the heater here.

So if perhaps keying in wrong order first, sensing next that the C160 still in running, in fact is the more difficult here,
because the other one do I have, but not reported yet.

Apparently so, for only reporting in the wrong order again, but only just 6 minutes apart, and link coming up.

Finishing up the day for perhaps not the right stuff either, but at least this one for now.


So if not any happy to say, for maybe not, should it perhaps suffice, for only the P147 not any dividing?

As I mentioned over at PrimeGrid, no point of wasting space for only a million digit prime either.

Dangit, the last one perhaps was a pretty good one as well, but except for that, never mind.

Maybe just spoof instead, because out of there for only Seti@home, except for still your generosity, for just trying.

Quote: We tend to prove nature for what it is, not what it is supposedly is meant to be, only because it being so.

I think it is just a nice thing to say, except not any liking at Seti@home either, for just only a quote, because I already said thanks at you, for only being just polite.

Call it just only by name, or perhaps a competition instead, and it perhaps it could be science versus numbers here, for only such a thing.

By the way, I could still be picking up an avator for only just a user at PrimeGrid, for only that of stupid, except not any name calling either, for such a thing.

I probably will be better at explaining, when back at 6 hours of ban, for just only Seti@home, except only they slipping, for not you any falling either,
because once again thanks to you, for your hospitality.

storflyt32 2019-10-19 11:17



Here, noticing this for only my laptop, and here not taking part for only just contributing, when only just my recall.

But in fact, some quite nice numbers here, for only that of factors, and if perhaps setting sail for only just the wind, it could also be blowing away.

Anyway, nice here, for only just a job, except perhaps not any completed either, when rather that of a task, which could be in front of you, for also not any resolved.


The old James Bond movie, could be making it that of "Oddjob", for just only a peculiar figure, except also Algorithms & Structures, for a particular job we wish to be having an answer to.

Here just on the job myself, it becomes thinking of that of subsets, for also supersets, when next that of nature, but need getting back at it, for only just a passing thought.


Am I right, or am I wrong, or could I perhaps still make it that of subsets, for also supersets, when next in relation to that of a given nature, which could also be that of Mathematics?

If still in one door, also out the other, and here at least Hypnosis for such, except for the man in the street, for also sinister figure, which most people are not supposed to believe in.

Sorry, my bad here, for only making it Cosmology of the whole thing, and rather should redact myself a little.

But if you happen to read around, still that a knight could be swinging a sword, except not making it any "Broadsword" either.


It is supposed to be a novel here, for also an adventure, but also that I forgot the third name here, if not any fourth either, and had to get back at it, for only a closer look.

Spell it rather fiction instead, for just only making it so, and perhaps not any Proof needed either, for only just a bedtime story when getting to sleep.

Rather past versus present instead, for that of a nature which "is", or could be, for next also in fact just being, for only being present, because if not wrong, we still have to make it Proof
of the whole thing, for only making it an orderly fashion.

My software application for that of recovery (GetDataBack for FAT/NTFS), is making the slight error for that of syntax, by making it "build-in viewer", for that of its interface.

Next, anyone does not seem to bother either, except for still a typographical error, just plainly visible in the application (or screen flat, of sorts).

Anyway, pressed the wrong button here, for only getting it reported, so leaving it there for now.

storflyt32 2019-10-23 04:37



Here perhaps a little interesting right now, in that the first one could be having factors that are not that easy at getting at either, but still leaves the other unknown.


Here it flips back for the same P49 as that above, except only trial dividing here, and the rest becomes the following, which is already known.


Here perhaps interesting to "divide" the C140 from RSA-2048, except not specifically looking for the factors of this number either.

It supposedly could make a quite big chunk out of this number, depending on the relative position of the individual elements.

Trying it out right now, and will have the link a little later, and in fact it does not work out here, but again apologies for making it the wrong numbers.

There should be something about computing bit lengths for that of numbers, in order to determine their possible complexity, and how they could interact with each other,
but next I forgot that, for not having visited it in a long time.

The problem is that two RSA-512 numbers do not make for the answer either, but that the first one is definitely quite a bit smaller.

Is it next possible to compute the second one for that of bit length, or just be able to tell how hard it could be here, when only just comparing the individual factors,
for only their respective sizes?

Anyway, before having the rest of the beer, perhaps a difference between good and bad, except for perhaps where also ending, for where it should go,
and here the FDB again, for all those factorizations, meaning numbers.

It becomes quite a lot in the end, for only an intended purpose, when it could be that of meeting next door, when only that of factors for such, except for also
noticing a couple of things.

One thing is that of Polynomials here, for a thing I really do not understand, except also a lesson from school, dealing with that of second degree equations,
and here for that of Mathematics.

The thing being noticed, is that for those RSA numbers, they could be everything just included, when you know that some could be looking for rep-digit factors,
while others Genefer numbers, for also Mersenne primes, of course.

We could be having a discussion somewhere else about making perhaps time curly, for only blond hair, if not any spinning around either, but if perhaps rep-digit,
for only just numbers, should mean that of a repeating sequence, really no problem with that.

Just 111 could be 3*37, but if adding enough digits, you could perhaps be ending up with a prime.

One of my factorizations had a 40-digit factor, but when adding a little for only just digits, it is not working anymore, only because of getting too hard, but otherwise it
could be having a quite decent one here, for only size.

A recent number had a few digits cut off at the start, and here ending up with a PRP968, which was just a simple one.

I know from programming, that there could be structures like B-trees, which could be for that of a leaves for such as well, except for also the way of traversing such a tree,
by means of a specific approach, which also could be a general one, if not any simple.

Just 1+2=3, but for that not any jumping either, when it could also be one step forward, for also one step back, when only just climbing, it could be still just whole numbers,
for that of integers, when you only have to choose just 1, for that of a difference.

If you take all prime numbers starting with 2, and including at least 997, for just less than 1000, you next could multiply each factor with each other, and next divide with the
total amount of individual factors, for just only finding the average, for also mean.

So if perhaps not necessarily any Statistics here either, but just only 3/2 does not divide either, for only that of making it 1.5 a statistical mean, but if perhaps 5/3 instead,
for also 7/2, or even 7/3, you get a different result, for also a similar mean.

Could this be expressed in a different way, for only a total sum, except still not any Statistics here?

Reading around, and I do not find the answer here, but perhaps you know?

One small problem being noticed, is when clicking the Edit button, for that of the small window, I end up at the bottom of the page, and have to scroll up a little.

Perhaps a problem here which could be fixed?


Anyway, the P40 in the link above, is just only a loose factor, only because of not doing that, but found it proper to just add, in that I still do not know the
final answer here, for perhaps also having even more to offer, for just better ones.

"Mean average for the total sum of factors, for only just product, when next also dividing with the total amount of individual factors",
and here the number for this, when only that of different factors.

Becomes Ʃ or Ʃx here, if the graphics is with me, for also 1/x, but here using Character Map, coming with Windows, for U+01A9: Latin Capital Letter Esh,
under the Arial font set, which for some reason becomes Latin Capital Letter African D, for the status line at the bottom.

storflyt32 2019-10-26 14:13

Just funny, isn't it, because if making it 1/3.5, you could end up with, or the result might be 0.2857142857142857‬

So here just multiplying with 10 a couple of times, for only making it an integer, except perhaps only knowing from the start, that this should be a composite number.

Keeping a card for just being hidden, is not the same as showing it either, for only a Straight flush, except for still Number theory telling me that a couple of numbers could be prime.

So presumably only just a Method for such, except not any guessing either, and here perhaps only my bad for just thinking, when it should be that of jump buck (or jumping buck), when only for that of one number versus another, when still only prime.

The sad thing being noticed, is that prime number finding should still be that of a computational issue, for also that of processing time, except for still any Algorithm involved, which at least could help.

But if next also making it that of Mersenne numbers, for only just primes, just my bad again, for that of making it a rebate, when it should also be that of sale.

If it could still be true, for also a stated fact, that any Genefer numbers could still be that of 3, or 5, and so on, at least a reason of feeling proud, when only your business for such a thing.

The repeated sequence could perhaps be endless, except not necessarily always divide either, for only a result, because this could be the intended purpose for that of making it prime numbers, except for also the results which could be needed.


Still able to write, except for being late last night, but here that this one blew as well, for only quite good factors,
and next I made it a previous P49, for only multiplying a little.

Doing so, and it flips around with a P15, but here not doing anymore, except that it could end up being an incomplete factorization here as well.

I could add the factors if being wished for, but also that diving is not the same as climbing, and that some could end up being angry,
for only secrecy being broken.

Is it possible to make it just 1 and a half, for that of line width (1.5), because here having a little problem with the links,
for either too wide, for also narrow, and here do not confuse the 1.5 with the previous stuff either.



Here the first one apparently blew on my laptop just a moment ago, for only knowing it to be the more easy one.

Total factoring time = 167134.4603 seconds

Or perhaps made it instead, because here a pair of P42 and P104 factors, initially a PRP104, and like another the same,
it did not get to the postings where it was supposed to be.

The second one is a bit smaller, but even more difficult, and here just a huge SIQS for this, which I have not got back at,
for only quite big problems with my main computer.

Here the Saturday beer perhaps needed, so out doing the shopping, and I will have it when back in the old chair.

storflyt32 2019-11-03 00:30

Just past 1 AM, and it could rather be closed eyes instead, because the web got saturated until now, at least for that of wireless.

So here big roses to you, for only being so gracious with me all the time.

The P104 makes it further at a P166, for just flipping around, but here still only in my notes.

Here the window closed for that of a restart, but maybe around 15 seconds or so only, for that of factorization time, only to show that this P104 is pretty heavy.

Makes me think of the word "alignment" here, when it sometimes could divide only for this, while other times not, for only a couple of numbers not liking each other.

Here should perhaps do the same for that of RSA-2048 as well, but again that I am doing this for only that of numbers, except leaving that of secrecy still alone.

So, unlike a boxer in the ring, for also a heavyweight lifter, it could still that of balancing of sorts, where it also could be that of inching its way, and here perhaps it became one thing of such.

But unfortunately just flipping around instead, where in one case it was found not to be working, for rather just doing so, for perhaps the little better.

Many people running PrimeGrid as a project, could be dealing with the task types, only for taking part, or perhaps interested, except perhaps knowing which purpose, or even role, such numbers could just play.

For that, still just only mean, except for the general rule (still), that these numbers should be divisible by only itself, for also 1.

The Fermat Number sequence could be almost endless, for only just a given purpose (guess which one, for not any rather), when also that of the just little minus, for also negative, when it could be still the sun rising, for only making it the biggest of all.

Here not any Translate in front of me right now, but will try getting back at it tomorrow, for a better fix.

So, except not any "witch-witch" either, for just pondering, it really should be a fact that just "C", for that of a number, could still mean composite only, except for hiding a couple of primes.

Just that of C versus P, could make you think of that of a circle versus square, when in fact it is not so.

If still composite for a couple of things, I still make it so that all those P100-P200 factors, when that of being combined, makes for the next, or perhaps second best solution, except for a prime itself, because you never know what could be in between.

For that, 2*3*5 is still 30, except for not knowing about any 7 just in between, and here only the larger number available, except still not knowing.

So here the one thing being speculated on, namely whether any RSA-1024 could be found within itself, or rather it could be coming from a larger number.

For one thing, it is not any square root, and it is not any golden ratio either, for just the same, so here that of balancing, for just only weight, could still be with me, for just only a thought.

I think this became a better writing of contents, except for still only closed eyes.

All times are UTC. The time now is 05:49.

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