ECMNET REPORTS; Zimmermann's Web Page

[R.D. Silverman]

Someone seems to have hacked Paul Zimmermann's web page
that announces the latest ECM factors. There are a bunch of
purported results at the end of the table that do not belong there.

[Batalov]

This was not a hack. The factors are real (the form only accepts legitimate factors) - and the factored composites were removed from the input list cunnigham.in . That was the desired effect.

The factors showing up in the records table is an unfortunate (but easy to fix) side-effect.

[Raman]

27061274672708699326609768156777363988042527261853049427552775878973839531215357631
55689495605155319991104394339716588666292932422482577
32066039581084608234530436622210937908724090089606941026078750243892289807051
542386699809206521167664377679235482113503370942017294492342497725064744615307084697173312788543096361

That last thing is my today's prime factor for 5,415+
Can anyone please find out soon what numbers are other things rather factors of?
That way, in case that they are factors for new unknown factors for that unfactored remaining composite numbers,
then it is rather good for us, right then?

[bdodson]

Originally Posted by Batalov

This was not a hack. The factors are real (the form only accepts legitimate factors) - and the factored composites were removed from the input list cunnigham.in . That was the desired effect.

The factors showing up in the records table is an unfortunate (but easy to fix) side-effect.

I'm not sure that "unfortunate (but easy to fix)" is the correct
description of the effect on the main display of the most recent
ecm factors. As I read "Cunningham factors found by ecm", sorted
by date, there's recently been found a p83, a p77 and a p102.

More like "urgent to be fixed"; and "experiment that oughtn't to
have escaped from the lab" come to mind.

-Bruce ("it's such a fine mind ..." -NY)

[Raman]

By the way, for #856 that factor for 3,605- which had been found out by using GNFS had been added up into that ECM factors list page

May be that, I think probably someone has been factoring integers by using that Shor's algorithm
with the help of some quantum computer!

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by Batalov

This was not a hack. The factors are real (the form only accepts legitimate factors) - and the factored composites were removed from the input list cunnigham.in . That was the desired effect.

The factors showing up in the records table is an unfortunate (but easy to fix) side-effect.

They are not "real".

This is a table for ECM factors. These were not found by ECM.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by bdodson

I'm not sure that "unfortunate (but easy to fix)" is the correct
description of the effect on the main display of the most recent
ecm factors. As I read "Cunningham factors found by ecm", sorted
by date, there's recently been found a p83, a p77 and a p102.

More like "urgent to be fixed"; and "experiment that oughtn't to
have escaped from the lab" come to mind.

-Bruce ("it's such a fine mind ..." -NY)

The p102 was Raman's result from 5,415+. What are the other 3?
They seem not to have been reported to Sam?

[Raman]

here are that numbers with that prime factors as follows

#856 3,605- (that was a GNFS candidate!, that was being rediscovered up by Mr. Paul Zimmermann yesterday,
thus why is he not aware about that process of checking/or otherwise getting up with that latest factors/reservations
from that Prof. Samuel Wagstaff's website page, at all?) thus
#857 3,1515L
#858 3,1233L
#859 3,1449L
#860 5,415+

from that following website page only actually
http://www.loria.fr/~zimmerma/records/c120-355

[bdodson]

Originally Posted by Raman

#856 3,605- (that was a GNFS candidate!, that was being rediscovered up by Mr. Paul Zimmermann yesterday,
thus why is he not aware about that process of checking/or otherwise getting up with that latest factors/reservations
from that Prof. Samuel Wagstaff's website page, at all?) ...

... and not pleased at not having been included in our factorization
report to Sam. Our mistake (and yours?) of requiring PaulZ to spend
his attention in the way we'd spend ours; when he has lots of better
things to spend his time on. -Bruce (and B+D)

[Batalov]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

This is a table for ECM factors. These were not found by ECM.

Agreed.

This form is a

Title: Factor report form

Factor: [_________________________]

All remaining fields are optional.
...

The cgi called by the form removes the factors from cunnigham.in immediately, and all ecm clients start spending more time on remaining composites. The alternative is: all clients continue factoring some factored numbers, in some case for up to two months after the official reports.

The table is another matter; the cgi should not have put them in the table. None of the options leading to any conclusion that they were found by ECM were clicked. After all, all fields are optional, except a factor that divides anything on the input list.

[bdodson]

Originally Posted by Batalov

...
The cgi called by the form removes the factors from cunnigham.in immediately, ...

The table is another matter; the cgi should not have put them in the table. None of the options leading to any conclusion that they were found by ECM were clicked. After all, all fields are optional, except a factor that divides anything on the input list.

This sounds like a reasonable description of what the cgi _might_ do;
maybe even what it _should_ do, but the effect is still the same, we now
have a report of a new p95 on the table of ___ecm___ factors. As the
cgi clearly _is_ set to record a factor report, perhaps Paul could make
a new file for recording factors _not_ found by ecm.

Again. Despite any appearances, the current setup doesn't need any
options selected; whatever is reported gets listed as an ecm factor.

--- Mr Obvious's oblivious observer.