Go Back > Extra Stuff > Blogorrhea > storflyt32

Thread Tools
Old 2022-04-01, 17:09   #155
Feb 2013

1111010112 Posts

That was better, so thank you very much.

If I could be getting a C200, with two factors known to be P100, it could not be so easy to factorize.

Only that such factors become added to the exclusion list, when dealing with such numbers as RSA-1024 and RSA-2048.

Here making it at least one better earlier on today, for that of at least one P35 became added.

Only knowing that I could multiply such factors together, and next "divide" from the RSA number, I get another one still left to factorize.

Here should tell that I got a P364 earlier on by doing it this way, but here still not being added yet.

This because the larger RSA is still meant for that of security, and I could be just ment to be kept away or hidden.

I could be still making a list of the factors I could get for the purpose it also could be meant for, when that of bit length or depth could be telling about complexity.

Really that multiplying all the small Genefer factors, or really Mersenne primes for next a "divide", only makes it still composite for what you could get, unless being lucky.

Here the problem is not how much dinner you ate, but what could be still lying on the table, and it only became a taste, when counting the number of possible factors less than or equal to 309 or 617 digits.

Should I try out WinPFGW or the like using the laptop, and it could become a red nose for getting hot, so not doing that for practical reasons.

I could be thinking of that for getting my flat in order, because here still a GTX480, two GTX680 and two GTX1080 cards lying around which did not break here.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2022-04-04 at 21:48
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-04-04, 21:45   #156
Feb 2013

491 Posts

Just the other problem for that of the Factordb, and you should be throwing out wrong or erroneous users for only leaving the server intact instead,
for still only such a thing meant.

This one broke on the steep side a short while ago, and I could have the factors before bedtime.

Quite good ones here, considering just a laptop being used, but initially a PRP for the latter one.

So do you make it any Proof method for not any guessing, when only the possible relationship between large factors for that of primes?

Either running endless for that of continuous, except only erroring here instead, for that of becoming too complex to handle.

So flip it around instead, for only the other factor being known (P46), and you end up with the same P92 here.

Trying out once more here for the regular factorization of the C138, for also a huge SIQS for that of the same.

Should I tell here as well, but my flat at home got out of shape for that of a fridge, so therefore being moved at doctors request.

Last night I lost the running session on the laptop for only a restart, and only two cups of decaffeinated coffee after having a shover first.

So here a little more positive now, for waiting for a little more heating in my room, and also someone charging my new mobile phone.

Here the problem is that of USB-C versus USB, where it does not fit against each other for only a proprietary design and development.

Therefore my laptop unable to connect with the phone, unless able to get at a bag where things from home could be lying.

But here only the weekend right now, and the keepers are not up to standard for not offering me any coffee or biscuits when starting.

So launching the mentioned SIQS in the background here for a DOS window, except still able to report the factor here.

But only for that of 877440 relations needed, I better should be doing other things instead, for not any waiting.

So why is it so that the software could be guessing about the factors when still only such a thing needed?

What if it just divided with 3 here for more of an easy answer, for not taking anything in advance for only granted instead?

Just for only predetermined at times, also a lookahead as well, but still not the software knowing the answer just here.

An example here is the number 24, where the small pocket calculator could be slow at giving the result.

This because it could end up becoming a computational issue for the whole thing, for not anything which could be known in advance.

Here left with SGS in my task list for that of PrimeGrid, which like PPSE or PPS, should be more neutral for that of running.

Becomes that of computation times for that of running here as well, for not any comparison it should be with any factorization instead.

Here I could be running a SGS in less than 30 minutes for that of being finished, except tomorrow or day later, for that of the SIQS.

So with my larger computer at home which only broke, that of PSP LLR instead for that of a little more complex, and I could still be
relating for only a comparison, between different numbers.

Here that of megaprimes became many now for only a discovery, and you could be making it a Genefer17 for only that of such.

So if not any suffice here for only that of processing time, still a Mersenne prime could be needed for just only better.

But is it so for only that of rowing at sea, you still wish to get back at shore for only discovering land, except only waiting instead.

Here it should not be any such thing for only determined when still only just waiting, for only back ashore for such a thing only made.

Only that of living your life for not any Event happening instead, it becomes only a wait here instead, for also delayed time for the same.

So here only included for that of "en masse", and it becomes all those things still happening, for not any "inclination" instead.

Rather we could be asking for an intended meaning for only such a thing happening, except it only could be taking place for that of happening.

But still only a couple of factors for that of (2^4096+1) and I better should be making it Mersenne numbers for that of being added here instead.

Next only subtract 1 for that of -1 when only a less for that of a multiplication being made, because any such number should be still the largest.

But only that a wait is still for a possible betterment, when only waiting for a result happening, and you could be celebrating for only such.

Here the little expectancy is still for only a delivery for that of a child being born, so here not any Laws or Equations of nature just either.

Checking, and the list of primes for only just known, should perhaps be a little more or higher up in the list for that of being visible, but here 51.

here still only a bit of running time for only a computation when also a slight delay for not any spinning loop, where it also could be erroring.

So if love was still only a kiss, and I ended up only falling for such a thing, I could be still erroring out for only failing, except also down the drain.

Perhaps still only hopelessly in love, but the end result could be still only a failing result, because here I was still sailing at sea, for only just waiting.

What if I made it all the Mersenne primes for just known, and next added it together for only multiplying, and next subtracted with 1?

Is the answer you could get only Probability for only such an issue at hand, for not any predetermined instead, when still not any knowing?

Here I could be still making it a preferred issue by means of Mersenne primes for only just looking, except not any other for still only a guess.

The little priest could be still asking for only making it religious Belief, except also the scientist giving the answer by means of Equations.

Here a given notion of time and space could be making it open for that of completion only for such, only because it should be having an ending.

But only that we made it no such thing either, for still not any knowing for only the answer it could be, when still adding for just together.

Only that a completion of nature could be still made or possible for having that of Religion being included, except not any ghosts or dreams instead.

So forget the M52 here for not any impossible just either, but only the time it could take, when still pondering about the secrets of nature,
for just the other thing.

Again the SIQS here for that of the previous, for only the comparison I still could make.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2022-04-09 at 07:58
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-04-19, 19:48   #157
Feb 2013

1111010112 Posts

Next I was mistyping for only making it Faculty here.

Apologies here, for just adding the P83 to the P48 for already having, except that the factorization could be a difficult one.

More that I could be wrong, because here the product in fact is a C131, and not C137, and next checking for actually being true.

But rather more asking how many such we could be having, for still only composite numbers needing such a thing for only being factorized.

Substitute or replace either the P48 or P83 with the P55 here for much of the same, and next the same flipover for doing it versus RSA-1024
for only the repeating cycle it could be.

Trying out with the P48 here at first, and becoming a C103 after checking, and the flipover just below, for also a SIQS.

Next keying in the factors in the wrong direction for that of order, and sorry about that, but a P34 or so here.

There you have it, for that of welcome, but if making it a SIQS here, I could be checking in tomorrow for that of result.

And Google Chrome could be having a problem for that of pull-down menu for that of tabs, because here clicking for a new one instead.

Perhaps old habit here only, for still the "+" sign besides or to the right of opened tabs, but here clicking it anyway, for not the down arrow.

But only so sad once again, for that of re-running the task I already got quite factors on, but next stuck in the mood for not any willing.

Here the elephant could be remembering what he only got to learn, for not picking it up again for only learning again for the long time it could take.

Such a thing should also be with Yafu, for only ending up so for picking up a previously run task for only a redo, except only a refresh.

But also that for a laptop computer, I am still back at the limits of factoring for only coming a short way, for not any full distance instead.

Here it should be a 64-bit processor for also 8 GB RAM, for also a mentioning about possible SSD, which needs a lookup.

Suppose that capabilities for only intended becomes the range such a processor is capable of reaching, except also sieving limits for also FFT.

In fact, just 32-bits here for also memory, only makes for limits for that of such when still given range for possible, because here not any cracking.

Doing so, and next only say goodbye for doing any such thing, when perhaps a RSA-155 or the like for just the breaking of factors it could be.

More that it could be about processor speed here for that of cycles, because a good such one could be running at 4 GHz speed at optimal.

But also that processor could be more that of clock speed as well, for still cycles, because here also timeslices for that of interval.

This because the clock inside the processor is not only showing the time of day, but also could be making that above for distribution of processes,
or maybe affinity for also synchronization.

So easy it is for only a tick of a clock for only the second it could be, when a processor could be carrying out thousands of instructions in the meantime.

Once again I am getting a C95 for that of a remainder, and will have to wait a little for only the factors showing up by means of SIQS.

So here you know that a processor is capable of doing such a thing for only that of speed, and next forgetting about the little tick it could take.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2022-04-19 at 22:21
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-21, 22:12   #158
Feb 2013

491 Posts

Let us continue here, shall we.

Here my local doctor preselected for me, came for a visit in my flat at the housing community.

Either he, or it was someone complaing about smell from my flat, and the fridge has become broken.

Also a bit of waste lying on the floor and also carpet, together with some computer parts not possible to fix.

All this kind of technical problem, and despite being transferred to a mental institution, my health is now good.

Therefore not any possible to fix, when also the same for only salvage as well.

I know here that another name for doctor is a short word, but this one I really do not recall.

But also that my computer did a restart once again, but not until I had reported both that of P35 and P37 factors.

Again slippering for also faltering hands, and not everything ended up on my laptop for only local storage.

Except for only doc when using, should not be any pediatrician just either, for another word.

Only that I was entering the stairs for that of one step at a time, and next slipping and falling a little, except that it become only one step back instead.

What about the C12593 there at the end, for still only "-" for the number - does it tell you anything?

Should I next skip a little for also jump, except making it the algorithm for traversing this number in detail, except those numbers which could be in between,
and not meaning anything?

Here I strongly suspect that the way it could be broken for this number when RSA-1024, is the same way of doing it for the larger, except only the hacking
and cracking it could be for secrecy.

If someone could tell me how to proceed, except not giving me any details, next also such a thing for that of making it two primes for that of factors,
when each should be hidden for not any known.

Being of not any practical use anymore, it could be left open for scrutiny for only being able to get the answer.

But here 10 years or more on just this number, for not any progress, and it is still keeping its secret.

Here very sad to say, but here the small number became a first attempt for that of trial, when still left with the other or larger one.

The secret which actually comes with RSA numbers for that of pair, are those numbers we happen to know about, for only factorized, like RSA-155 for example.

Almost beloved, for that of switching number I could use, this one is supposed to work for only dividing a little.

Either this number became factorized, or it only became a loose number instead, for that of similar in size.

In other words, I could be lost at sea for only my user name here, except also way of progress for only making it any factors of the larger number for
only the cracking it could be.

So like the doctor, for still only a practitioner, also an algorithm we could be using, except also ways or means for only progress for the same.

Maybe the pair of P35 and P37 factors reported could be dividing here slightly, but need getting back at it first.

Only for a couple of feet hurting, my legs could need an examination instead.

Could anyone be so kind locating the P37 being posted yesterday, for only a restart of my computer?

The only option becomes the main log for that of separate pages, and here it becomes only the link for reference, when any backtracking in the tab
becomes impossible.

Thank you in advance.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2022-05-22 at 21:48
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-22, 21:47   #159
Feb 2013

491 Posts

Notice the little question at the bottom of my last post here, and it would be helpful.

Apologies for that.
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-22, 22:05   #160
Feb 2013

1111010112 Posts

Found this by coincidence for only being a P37 here, but perhaps not the same factor.

Only it reminds me that the Factor Database is being filled with factors both large and small, but also to capacity.

This became the ratio for only just known, when still such for not any unknown, except typically composite for only number.

Here a P34 versus P37 multiplied with each other makes for a C71, and next it only "divides" with a C309 for becoming the rest of the factorization.

But for not any laptop having any capacity either, such a thing became only left alone when not found to be working, except that I could be giving it a little time.

If we ever should find the factors of RSA-1024, not any break-even for just number, when it still should not divide any (2^4096+1) either.

But again only apologies, for my way of choosing for only +1 here instead, but except for size, I do think the factors we could find should be more meaningful.

Here I am away from home, and it become only the hard drive still at home for storing all the Mersenne primes through or including M39, for also M48.

But next I ran out of space for also fingers, when still left sitting here, and next be visiting the skin doctor tomorrow for a consultation.

So before going to bed, just another thing not any related to you.

We know that Seti@home went into hibernation, for only becoming a master database still filled to capacity, but not the same as above.

But also a moderator who chose to dismiss any validity for an observation it could be for only witness, for not being any true.

Just true for that of skeptical, when still not any numbers, but also that the WOW signal was at least disputed for only such a thing.

So trying for just hard, and we also should know, except still not finish any goal for what we could seek to achieve.

But also that we could question any nature for only meaning in the same way, for only the query it could be, when Google Translate still
makes it wrong for not any inquiry here instead.

Making it questionable here instead, only doubtful for that of word, except that it could also be interrogative here as well.

But only answers for science here, when still only questions, and it became only such for that of meaning, when still only seeking an answer.

Again I lost it for only the little thought I had, so will have to edit that.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2022-05-22 at 22:46
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-23, 17:29   #161
Feb 2013

491 Posts

Or maybe quote the priest here instead.
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-23, 17:48   #162
Feb 2013

491 Posts

So down in the chair again, after visiting the doctor for only surgeon.

To my surprise, and I did not know before just now when checking, but congrats to the finder, or who did such a thing?

One of my earlier thoughts here was that this was a number only breakable at the middle, for only a few or couple factors, but next showing up to be not any correct.

The question becomes what if I flip it the opposite way again, for only the other side, except impossible to do or carry out with only a laptop computer.

Meaning here that this number overall, should be a remainder of the total number in question, because you only factorize a composite number for the factors it becomes.

So here 2^7-1=127, and next relates to 256 for only dividing, and next I am not supposed to be doing that for only easy, because it makes for 2.

But the only thing I heard for also learnt here, is that (2^(2^32)+1) should be still composite, for also the other project here as well.

More that it should be about Number theory here instead, if you happen to disagree with me.

Either (2^48853-1) becomes a divisor (or remainder) of (2^(2^32)-1) here instead, for still only the other thing.

But next it still flips the other way for perhaps not any more easy here either, except still a couple of factors.

Could be testing that with isprime(), but is going to take some time.

=== Starting work on batchfile expression ===
not prime

ans = 0

eof; done processing batchfile

Please, have me excused, for not doing any similar using ecm instead, because still only composite here.

The problem becomes that of reporting for only a (valid) result, because you could think I am cheating, for just only a liar.

Before checking, not thinking it should make it with ecm using 30 curves here instead.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2022-05-26 at 14:59
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-06-02, 17:30   #163
Feb 2013

7538 Posts

Found this.

Here the factors of (2^523-1), where I made it (10^100)/523 instead.

#332 above for that of post, when also 523 a factor.

The four large factors above, but also two different syntaxes.

Should it not flip back different, only because of a prime (here P209)?

Here coming up FF immediately, with just a red star at first.

Total factoring time = 165514.6540 seconds - so here my contribution, on a laptop.

Not a good start here when flipping around, but could give it a little try.

Also that I am not about to crack a number for only what it is, but only Number theory instead.

Here back again, because the previous became only nonsense, for that of updated posts instead.

But just think you could enlarge it, also a prime for that of same size or comparison, for only the method being used.

My guess is that for only the small thing I could be doing, also something which could be coming back as a result, eventually.

The problem is that my flat of living got crashed, and here I am sitting with a laptop on my knees, together with my second beer.

Add to it both a mouse for also keyboard, and it becomes a little cumbersome to handle, especially when up from the chair for an errand.

Here a C93 for that of an end factorization vanished or disappeared for me, so asking for this one to just continue on.

Still work in progress, and let us continue, for only the part it could be for also remaining, because it should here be still only an infinite nature.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2022-06-17 at 22:27
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-06-20, 00:24   #164
Feb 2013

491 Posts

Could anyone do this for me, because here not with 2^21 curves on my laptop, and could be quite good factors.

Wow, thanks for that, but I could be sitting in the chair right now with a couple of beers.

Guess which one here, for not any order of factors it should be either.

Total factoring time = 375902.6636 seconds

This one could be lying for dead until further notice, or someone else does it instead, except for still only having a laptop at my disposal.

Only that it factored into a P39 and P142 here, and for just popping up, I have not continued anymore just here.

Ok, or anyway, but I just added it here, except for the devil in the middle, where it still could not be any factorized.

This is a better one, from perhaps my point of view.

More less to go, and it also kills a couple of numbers, is it not so?

Not any ruthlessness here, because such a thing should only be dishonesty, of course.

Only that I trusted nature for that of its validness, for not any gremlins here instead.

Still, anyway, for only a couple of numbers at our disposal.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2022-07-01 at 06:35
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-07-02, 23:24   #165
Feb 2013

491 Posts

Should tell I regret this one a little, because here it only became loose factors for that of multiplying.

The only thing I could tell, is that some numbers are heavier than others, and therefore also weigh much.

So putting a big stone onto a pie for just small, it gets crushed for that of the same, except only numbers instead.

Here I got another example for just more clean, when doing it the whole way in regular fashion.

Total factoring time = 40060.6023 seconds

At times it does work and sometimes it does not, because factors could be matching each other in a better way.

So apologies for not any sieving either, except mentioning that even such factors could be quite powerful when breaking large numbers here instead.

The C108 in the middle for the first link above, became a P57 directly when "divided" from a P51 already known.

Guess what, I could be a stone hunter for only that of Geology when still not any pyramids here instead,
except also asking a couple of questions about a given nature.

One thing is making it numbers for only codes and cryptography, when also fractals here as well.

Therefore science for a meaning when still also numbers, except that it became only pyramids here instead.

So either losing track of it when only numbers being run for also credit being given when at PrimeGrid, for not any
single overhead when making it a Seti@home task here instead.

There are many who could still beg for only praying, except still the science that matters for not any believing here instead, except only Proof still needed.

So reflect still on science for not any numbers when only purposeful, and it becomes the scientific Proof you still could make when only asking.

Not to be any ugly with you, but Mersenneforum is still about finding the largest prime known, except syntax for only the same.

So prove whether a 100 million digit prime could be still a Mersenne prime for not any Genefer instead, and even such a thing could perhaps be disputed.

Only that it could break a little for being heavy, except that it also could be the big issues for only fundamental questions when still only asking,
and here not any begging just either.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2022-07-02 at 23:40
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote

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 04:08.

Tue Jan 31 04:08:52 UTC 2023 up 166 days, 1:37, 0 users, load averages: 0.85, 1.01, 0.96

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, 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