mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Blogorrhea > storflyt32

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2022-07-03, 01:16   #166
mathwiz
 
Mar 2019

5·59 Posts
Default

Store-Fly, your wit and eloquence never cease to amaze.
mathwiz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-07-07, 23:34   #167
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

32·53 Posts
Default

Thanks for the comment. I leave it standing for now, because this is not my project either.

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000003742466767

Adding the P72 here for that of a loose factor for already known, and really I can not do that one, factorwise.

Any suggestions welcome.

So whatever reason I could make of it, perhaps not any Proof just either.

Could I be speaking on behalf of God, for only the foretelling it perhaps could be?

This means that I quantized nature for the valid meaning it could be, and not any Proof here instead.

So, prove false, for still only invalid (and here my postings at Seti@home), for not any valid here instead.

Here as you know, I dismissed both Logic and Religion for the valid reason it could be, and left it to infinity here instead.

So, prove infinity by means of only a Concept or Construct, and not any false versus true, for only valid here instead.

Is infinity any chance or short-circuit I could make, for not any proving here instead?

Gravity that is, in my opinion, and next also proving for science still.

So, run amok, for still not any close, and it became still only infinity for that of a notion, Concept, or perhaps Construct.

Does an infallible nature also qualify for that of the same, or should I still only prove?

Any believer, for next not any prover, and I should still only believe, for the possible Claim I also could make it.

Sorry for my stupidity or foolishness for telling such a thing, for not any gentle or gentleness of project here instead, when saying thanks.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2022-07-15 at 02:55
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-07-22, 22:20   #168
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

32·53 Posts
Default

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root

Ok, could any or such a thing make me prove for science, if not any numbers here instead?

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000003809940922

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000003809955345

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000003809968749

I went in by means of the square root once again, and was able to get at this result.

Each time for the prime I find, for only the end factor it could become, it next factorizes into the other,
for that of switching around.

Should I, for next only ask, and it became this number (or RSA-1024), for just open, or not factored it could be.

But here also the remainder or remaining number of (2^48853-1) (Mersenneforum.org), relating to the same
Principle or Methodology.

Just a larger sibling here, for that of bigger brother, but next the same procedure for walking across, when perhaps getting at the true or exact number it should be, when only factored.

Remember, that Eve could be eating the forbidden fruit for not any fruitless here instead, when it could be both numbers and science for that of asking.

Edit: That above I just wrote yesterday, for only continuing here instead.

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000003742466767

I perhaps already told, for only mentioned, that this became only loose factors, for only the pair in the middle, which I can not resolve or factorize.

Anyway, quite good or excellent, except that the important point is that any "Magic number" or RSA-1024 should not be any factorizable,
for only such a way of doing it.

Only swada for that of numbers, and I became only a numbermaniac for such a thing, for not making it any ghosts or dreams,
for the possible Belief I could be having, except still not any Proof here instead.

Which purpose for only meaning, and next I made it only my wallet for that of pocket, for not any pocket calculator here instead,
when next multiplying two P100 numbers, for only the composite answer it could be.

Only tell a secret instead, for perhaps only being revealed, because here still not any secrets of nature, for only the provable it could be.

Sorry, it only fell short for the numbermaniac I could still only be, and next also believing in possible numbers for their meaning, and not anything else.

Again, that it becomes only infallibility for that of my give and take on it, for only just infinity for the same, except perhaps not making any precedence.

With respect for only an answer, and next I only could tell, for not making it any other answer here instead, for just being that of importance.

Still working on it of course, except that it could be only the factorization of numbers I could make.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2022-07-22 at 22:32
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-07-28, 06:15   #169
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

1110111012 Posts
Default

Ok, so lost my tab, or way of doing, for only the small factors it still could be.

Here adding a couple of small factors, when that of number when also a P11 and P19, respectively.

Should it, for that of numbers, be still only contiguous, for just adding, for not any multiplying here instead?

Too many, and next also too small, except for still the P19 for perhaps being valid, and next added to the Factor Database.

So here perhaps only 1000# for making it all prime factors in between, for not any fib() here instead, when still using Yafu.

Only that the contiguous sequence I made for just adding, did not become any factors for just multiplying instead, because it should be still prime factors for that of numbers here.

Should I forget any numbers, for still only the 1+2+3 I could make it, or should it rather be that of a prime, for that of a factor here instead?

And here snort, for still not any problem stumbled upon just either, for making it the Magic number, or RSA-1024 (my choice), for determining a possible prime between numbers, for only the factoring it still could be.

Here 1000# once again, for also fib() for that of a number, and next I was trying with a laptop, except still only waiting in vain, for not anything happening.

So here any adding, for just "+", becomes the sequencing I could make, for not any multiplication here instead, because the latter should be still only the ratio between factors, for the relationship it possibly could be.

Only that I could know, for still only trying, except still not there for the possible answer it could be, except only the Method it perhaps could be for only running.

Please visit me at the Factor Database, and not this place, for only the closing it could be, when also the Magic number, or RSA-1024, for only selecting between choices.

I guess it could be proving here instead, when that of smaller intervals for just "in between", for only the factors you could make it,
except that it perhaps it was not any reported, for only the close it still could be.

I tried making a note of much of it, for also perhaps all, except that it could be lying in rest for that of being uploaded, when necessary or possible.

Closing in, on a valuable or better number, and also the best you could make it for that of factorizing, except still only yourself, for that of Mind.

Did it next factorize, for only becoming the Magic number (or RSA-1024) for that of the rest, and it still needs to be factorized.

Just think I could be skilled for next also clever, and next I also proved a thing to be valid, for only the valuable it could be.

Ok, or anyway, but still not having the numbers (or factors) here for only impossible, except also the Method it should be for that of running.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2022-07-28 at 06:32
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-07-29, 05:18   #170
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

32×53 Posts
Default

Should it be only perfume, for not any proving here instead?

Next, which-which for only a given nature, and we could be still only proving just here.

Asking me for that of such a thing, and I could still only prove, for the single thing it perhaps could be.

So here we are only scientists, for only asking, for not making it any side-by-side, or juxtaposed, for only the God it should be.

Prove by means of a Negation, and perhaps better proving a Fallacy, for only the invalid or unquanitfiable it perhaps could be.

So here only a follow-up, for just continuing, and next it only could be the nature we could presume, for not any God here instead.

Is any God we could make it, only that of nature for only juxtaposed, for not any supreme or better here instead?

The problem here is that we could quantify nature for the valid meaning it could be, for not any better here instead.

The postulate or Axiom for making it a possible God or Creator by means of a third Set of Laws, is not any response or answer I could get just either.

So prove for that of validness, and still not any infinity, for only the possible meaning or definition it could be.

Here I am not supposed to be any discipline or representative of nature either, for only sitting in my chair with a laptop.

Only that I quantized nature for that of being complete, for not any infallible for Religion here instead.

But here only standing feet, for not any whipping here instead, because next I could be dismissing any God for only being invalid, except perhaps only a Fallacy here instead.

Any two hands for only making, and next we should only believe, for not any Truth we could be making it here instead.

Is nature any fantastic, for also incredible, and next it also could be going down the drain for the thing you could be making it.

Because of such a thing, you could be quantizing for that of validness, and not making it any invalid here instead,
only because Logic should be such a thing, for that of a flaw or fluke.

So when I am on, and not any off, I could be still running a couple of things for only my discretion, except not any faltering or failing, for just only falling off.

So here we think that nature should be complete, for only the validness or validity we could be making it, for not any Proof or proving here instead.

Prove a Fallacy, and next also such a thing for that of Religion, and not any Logic here instead, when it should be still only invalid.

The error you sometimes could make, is quantifying for that of infinity, for only the provable it could be, except still only being undefined or undetermined.

Is that of nature its only Cause for only reason, when still not any explaing just here either?

In the shadows, for stilll only undefined, and it became only a God you perhaps could believe, for not any nature
you could be proving here instead.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2022-07-29 at 05:22
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-07-29, 05:28   #171
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

1DD16 Posts
Default

A couple of hanging sentences could be fixed, and perhaps doing that later.

But next my good Idea falling apart for being lost once again, so here only stuck.

Could be trying later, except more important (that word, or contribution or deposit) for that of the bathroom here instead.

Ok, so I am on it right now, for not any casualness or accidentally it could be here instead.

Translate any wrong, for only the obedience it could be, next only casual or random here instead.

But only arbitrary just for nature, and next only random or casual for the same, which you only could prove.

Any infinity here for that of the other discussion, except perhaps not you knowing it, should perhaps be still only proving here for that of the same.

Prove nature for that of its inconclusiveness, and still only arbitrary for just the same.

Only that it falters (or could be faltering) for still only a mechanism, and we could be still proving here, for still only an incomplete or invalid nature.

So here it still only falters, for not any perfect or complete instead, for only the full number, or in full, it perhaps could be.

Next see it, for only making it different, for still only nature here, for the random or casual it perhaps could be.

So here left stuck, for only the limitless it perhaps could be, when also nature for that of the same, for not any proving here instead.

Any one-sided, for not being any dual, and next I was only proving nature for the tantamount it could be, for not any single or singular here instead.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2022-07-29 at 05:52
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-08-11, 22:23   #172
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

1DD16 Posts
Default

Sorry, I just forgot you, for not using this one as a slingshot.

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000003844053209

Almost sick for that of Mentality, because here I added at least the P24 for that of factor.

The rest of it a P42 and P144, and could be using it almost as or like an excuse.

Total factoring time = 350869.0720 seconds

BTW or anyway, the more or most of any factoring time I have ever seen, and therefore also taking use of it.

I could be having it later on, because at first it only became one in the crowd, for the rest having to be factored.

Or, maybe depends on, for sometimes not working, because this should be still only numbers as they is (or are).

Meaning, that I find it not to be any working for the rest or remaining of the number, for only the "twisted" it could be.

Here it leaves me with a C110 for only factoring, except also the rest, when perhaps closing in on the answer we could be wishing for.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2022-08-11 at 22:29
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-08-11, 23:10   #173
chalsall
If I May
 
chalsall's Avatar
 
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados

1059410 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by storflyt32 View Post
Sorry, I just forgot you, for not using this one as a slingshot.
Could I please ask you a very simple question?

Why?
chalsall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-08-11, 23:16   #174
mathwiz
 
Mar 2019

5·59 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chalsall View Post
Could I please ask you a very simple question?

Why?
You're saying you would not be using it as a slingshot, for only factoring, but also filling the trough with factors both big and small?
mathwiz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-08-12, 08:07   #175
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
"name field"
Jun 2011
Thailand

11·911 Posts
Default

you are talking to a bot, storflyt is not a real person
LaurV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-08-12, 13:06   #176
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

10101000011012 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathwiz View Post
You're saying you would not be using it as a slingshot, for only factoring, but also filling the trough with factors both big and small?


Well played.
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A Previous Miss? R.D. Silverman GMP-ECM 4 2009-11-14 19:57
Using long long's in Mingw with 32-bit Windows XP grandpascorpion Programming 7 2009-10-04 12:13
I think it's gonna be a long, long time panic Hardware 9 2009-09-11 05:11
UPDATED: The current pre-sieved range reservation thread and stats page gribozavr Twin Prime Search 10 2007-01-19 21:06
Ram allocation (in Re: previous thread) JuanTutors Marin's Mersenne-aries 1 2004-08-29 17:23

All times are UTC. The time now is 13:04.


Thu Aug 18 13:04:13 UTC 2022 up 10:32, 0 users, load averages: 1.07, 1.51, 1.69

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

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔