mersenneforum.org Phone Book Numbers from 103,374,001 to 103,374,989 that don't mean anything.
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

2021-01-12, 18:46   #56
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502

"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

29·317 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by tuckerkao 2 people tried to factor this exponent, both got no factors as the results, further proved I was correct.

For numbers in that range with the amount of effort applied, we would expect about 50% to have factors found. So the fact that no factor was found is about what one would expect from a coin flip. If you think that no factor found with 50 bits of factoring and a little bit of P-1 makes your number more likely to be prime, then you are delussional.

2021-01-12, 19:16   #57
VBCurtis

"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

29×32 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Uncwilly If you think that no factor found with 50 bits of factoring and a little bit of P-1 makes your number more likely to be prime, then you are delusional.
Wait- isn't that belief exactly correct? If 50% of inputs have factors from that work, and his candidate is in the 50% that doesn't, then it's roughly twice as likely to be prime as a randomly chosen number of that size with no trial-factoring work done? More simply, each additional bit of trial factoring done increases the chance the candidate is prime?

What is my delusion here?

That said, the odds of prime increase from, say, 1 in 4 million to 1 in 2 million via trial factoring; an additional bit of TF work might change "1 in 2 million" to "1 in 1.96 million" odds. tuckerkao is delusional if he thinks TF is evidence of a prime- on this we agree. But it does improve the odds, no?

 2021-01-12, 20:07 #58 firejuggler     Apr 2010 Over the rainbow 47258 Posts well until you get to the TF square root, then it is 100% sure that it is prime.
2021-01-12, 20:44   #59
tuckerkao

Jan 2020

157 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by VBCurtis What is my delusion here?
The LL test already showed that M103,374,163 was a composite. The unknown is currently on M103,674,163, I've tried several numbers with 1 digit modified by +3 or -3, frequently resulted in no factors as the parallelized twin fate numbers.

 2021-01-12, 21:25 #60 Uncwilly 6809 > 6502     """"""""""""""""""" Aug 2003 101×103 Posts 29×317 Posts
2021-01-12, 22:02   #61
VBCurtis

"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

110008 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by tuckerkao The LL test already showed that M103,374,163 was a composite. The unknown is currently on M103,674,163, I've tried several numbers with 1 digit modified by +3 or -3, frequently resulted in no factors as the parallelized twin fate numbers.
Resulted in no factors- checked how far? To what bit depth did you trial factor?
Also, so what? Seems the second half of my post sailed right over your head. Trial factoring is a nice way to filter out obviously composite numbers. Survivors of TF at this size are still at least a 2-million-to-one shot against being prime. When you claim that TF finding no factors is something that helps your claims, you are demonstrating that you don't understand what trial factoring does.

Also, why did you quote me? I asked where my reasoning was wrong, not where YOUR delusion was; though I'm glad, I guess, that you repeated your delusion when I asked where mine was.

 2021-01-13, 12:44 #62 tuckerkao   Jan 2020 2358 Posts NF-PM1 for M103,674,163 as what I expected since yesterday, coin flips shouldn't be so predictable, thus PRP for M103,674,163 should have a composite residue although I haven't tested it yet. https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...exp_hi=&full=1
2021-01-14, 02:52   #63
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter

Jun 2011
Thailand

3·3,049 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by tuckerkao although I haven't tested it yet.
Well, man, hat off, , despite out argument, I have to stay by your side in this one. At least you were/are doing some work to test your own predictions, albeit the predictions themselves are aberrant. So, I like your optimism, keep on testing!

This is contrary to other crackpots here who come with silly theories/numerology and do no work, expecting us to do their work.

So, reserve this one and test it, same as you tested the other one, and we are friends forever...

 2021-01-14, 22:21 #64 tuckerkao   Jan 2020 157 Posts My very first LL test was of M103,374,163 which is part of the prime trio with M103,374,113 and M103,374,133 M103,377,103 and M103,377,143 and M103,377,193 is a prime trio. https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...3377193&full=1 After I finished the PRP tests of M103,377,103 and M103,377,143 with the composite residues, Kriesel still suggested me to run P-1 factoring on these exponents. I ran the P-1 factoring on another look-alike prime trio(M103,737,103 and M103,737,143 and M103,737,173), all 3 returned NF-PM1 as what I've expected. https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...3737173&full=1 Last fiddled with by tuckerkao on 2021-01-14 at 22:27
 2021-01-14, 22:40 #65 Uncwilly 6809 > 6502     """"""""""""""""""" Aug 2003 101×103 Posts 23E916 Posts For each of those 3, the P-1 testing (with the settings you used and prior TF) should have factor about 4.6-4.7% of the time. Which means that for any 3 similar numbers in that rough range that are tested the same way, about 14% of the time you might find a factor (less actually, but that is a side point). So, this being 1 of the 86% of the time that no factor was found really does not mean much. You are delusional.
2021-01-15, 02:21   #66
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter

Jun 2011
Thailand

3×3,049 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Uncwilly You are delusional.
He's an optimist, let him live
When I joined GIMPS 20 years ago I was also dreaming of finding a prime every month.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post paulunderwood Miscellaneous Math 18 2020-10-18 00:35 Spherical Cow Astronomy 59 2019-01-21 22:47 retina Soap Box 14 2018-11-29 00:59 wblipp Lounge 0 2014-09-09 18:42 JuanTutors Lounge 5 2004-08-18 08:53

All times are UTC. The time now is 05:26.

Tue Jan 19 05:26:58 UTC 2021 up 47 days, 1:38, 0 users, load averages: 1.07, 1.43, 1.49