mersenneforum.org

mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   Miscellaneous Math (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=56)
-   -   Number 59649589127497217 is a factor of Fermat number F7 (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=18877)

LaurV 2013-11-16 09:05

[QUOTE=literka;359483]Only the word "kinda" doesn't match.[/QUOTE]
I said [URL="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/kinda"]kinda[/URL], not [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder_Surprise"]kinda[/URL]. :smile:

literka 2013-11-16 09:28

[QUOTE=LaurV;359487]I said [URL="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/kinda"]kinda[/URL], not [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder_Surprise"]kinda[/URL]. :smile:[/QUOTE]

Thanks for correction. I did not want to misquote you.

literka 2013-11-16 09:47

[QUOTE=c10ck3r;359471]Imagine that members of this forum know "ein bissyen" of mathematics, and can recognize within seconds that your proofs are rehashing known results using more effort than would be required by any one of several methods. Throughout this thread you have disregarded the advice of computer science professionals and mathematicians as they attempted to point this out to you. Your first sentence in this quote references questions "which require lot of work to answer" (sic) seems, to members of this forum especially, as rather counter-intuitive given the amount of work you put in to prove that a known factor is indeed a known factor. There have been a number of occasions in which you have posted statements as fact and have had them disproven by [I][U][B]professionals in the field[/B][/U][/I], and yet you refuse to see this.
If you feel that you have been disrespected on this forum, you may go elsewhere, if you are so inclined. Otherwise, if you wake up and recognize that the people that have responded have been making valid points the entire time, and get the urge to learn [I][U][B]why[/B][/U][/I] your proof is, for all practical purposes, pointless, feel free to ask logical questions and to take the advice of the senior members of this forum. Also, if Robert Silverman, CRGreathouse, WBlipp, Batalov, et al. suggest reading a certain paper, [I][U][B]DO SO![/B][/U][/I] Comprehension of the sources will usually provide an understanding of why certain things work or don't work in mathematics, and how to apply them.[/QUOTE]



If you are doing this what you adviced me to do then [I][U][B]DON'T DO SO![/B][/U][/I]. Find area interesting for you and unsolved problem interesting for you and try to solve it. People will tell you that your work is worthless and this is what they will think. It is because everybody thinks that only his area of interest is worthy to pay attentions.

cmd 2013-11-16 11:08

imo
 
[QUOTE=literka;359491]If you are doing this what you adviced me to do then [I][U][B]DON'T DO SO![/B][/U][/I]. Find area interesting for you and unsolved problem interesting for you and try to solve it. People will tell you that your work is worthless and this is what they will think. It is because everybody thinks that only his area of interest is worthy to pay attentions.[/QUOTE]

we [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q1rbhlCMW8"]estimate[/URL] you brother ..

[URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FxqoUOmHd8"]but[/URL]

It [URL="http://it.emcelettronica.com/dimostrazioni-matematiche-della-non-esistenza-di-dio"]also[/URL]


:cmd:

axn 2013-11-16 15:39

@Literka: After step 10, you should b multiplying by 512, not 256.

LaurV 2013-11-16 16:00

What?? After all this fight, you want to say that he has a mistake in that beautiful demonstration?

(read as: did you actually wasted the time to click and read? man, you must be really free and bored! I may change my opinion about you... :razz:)

literka 2013-11-16 16:19

[QUOTE=axn;359515]@Literka: After step 10, you should b multiplying by 512, not 256.[/QUOTE]

Thank you. I corrected. If you agree I can include short note at the end of a page of the form "I am grateful to ..... for reading and correcting text".
In the case you agree, I would need your name.

BudgieJane 2013-11-16 17:21

I am amazed that so much has been written in this thread about the factorization of F7. As far as I am concerned you pass the number into YAFU, wait a short while, and pick up the factors out the other end. End of story, pass on to the next number.

Since you will have done this one a few years ago, with all the others you will have done in the meantime you should be looking at F77 now, or even F777, and certainly not F7.

literka 2013-11-16 17:32

[QUOTE=BudgieJane;359530]I am amazed that so much has been written in this thread about the factorization of F7. As far as I am concerned you pass the number into YAFU, wait a short while, and pick up the factors out the other end. End of story, pass on to the next number.
[/QUOTE]


Yes, it is a wonderful idea. I waited less than 1 sec. for a result.


[QUOTE=BudgieJane;359530]
Since you will have done this one a few years ago, with all the others you will have done in the meantime you should be looking at F77 now, or even F777, and certainly not F7.[/QUOTE]


I don't like number 7. I would better do F88.

c10ck3r 2013-11-16 19:27

[QUOTE=literka;359534]
I don't like number 7. I would better do F88.[/QUOTE]

F88 would take too long to write out manually. Might I suggest F20 instead? Its a nice, round number, and much smaller :)
If you make any usable* progress, I will pay your website's hosting costs for a year.

*Usable progress will be determined and prizes awarded at the discretion of the challenge creator.

Batalov 2013-11-16 20:03

[QUOTE=literka;359518]Thank you. I corrected. If you agree I can include short note at the end of a page of the form "I am grateful to ..... for reading and correcting text".
In the case you agree, I would need your name.[/QUOTE]
His name is Anand Nair and if you will fail to mention his contribution, your page will be a forgery.
[QUOTE=literka;359446]BTW. No matter how much you write these proofs (i.e. about F5, F6, and F7) [SIZE=4]will stay my proofs [/SIZE][/QUOTE]
Even this is no longer true. You didn't even [I]have[/I] a proof until Anand Nair corrected you.


All times are UTC. The time now is 03:40.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.