![]() |
![]() |
#1 |
1111000111012 Posts |
![]()
While I'm fairly intelligent, I don't know a lot of math and only the barest minimum of modular arithmetic, the 'mod 12' clock example is about as far as I've gotten, lol.
But I feel that I have a good ear(eye, whatever) for important concepts, so I have a question: With the Riesel and Sierpinski problems, the special ks for those numbers basically arise from a convenient 'stacking' of their arithmetic properties when it comes to the equation k*2^n+c, the Riesel for c=-1 and the Sierpinski for c=+1. I was wondering if anyone had considered going 'the other way,' in a sense. I'm not really sure if one would want to find areas(n-values for specific ks and k-values for specific ns) with few low factors, or a lot of low factors, or even what a good definition of 'low' is in this context. I just thought I'd throw that out there for both the amateurs and the experts to chew over. Comments? |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Feb 2007
6608 Posts |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fast modular reduction for primes < 512 bits? | BenR | Computer Science & Computational Number Theory | 2 | 2016-03-27 00:37 |
Finding VERY large primes | c10ck3r | Information & Answers | 34 | 2012-08-29 16:47 |
Best Work for Finding Primes | Unregistered | Information & Answers | 9 | 2012-06-24 13:50 |
Finding primes from 1 upwards | henryzz | Lounge | 35 | 2007-10-20 03:06 |
Finding primes with a PowerPC | rogue | Lounge | 4 | 2005-07-12 12:31 |