mersenneforum.org Except for the last page, the previous thread became a bit long.
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2018-01-03, 01:14 #59 storflyt32   Feb 2013 1DC16 Posts But next that always that of simplicity, except for perhaps not making anything worth either, because I also mentioned that of "weighted" numbers as well. A proth prime could well be decent number on its own, but next multiply it with yet another similar, and you are back at a composite number. But next always that of both factor finding and also that of prime numbers as well, except for not making it any sieving either, or at least question other methods for which such a number could be found. In my ten years at PrimeGrid, and also a bit shorter time here as well, always that of sieving versus LLR for that of prime number finding, except for not any factors, or prime numbers themselves. Here is perhaps the culprit, because we could be doing so for both that of RSA-1024 as that of the "Magic Number", except for perhaps not the product of two large prime numbers as well. Always that of one method for that of sieving, and next that of using LLR itself for that of a possible candidate, which next also could be a prime number, but except for perhaps still composite, not any prime number at all, because of also the limits of sieving. Therefore, the big question, namely how, or in which way, a composite number relates to that of the product of two other composite numbers, next slightly smaller in size. Should this be still possible factor finding, or could it rather be cheating, only because of the limits of both sieving, and also the factorization method itself? Again, that except for possible downtime, we could be making it that of priests versus that of a given heaven for a couple of things at Seti@home, but also that I could sometimes be a "nerd" for that of numbers, except for that of a couple of things left out. In fact, for a couple of things, we could make it both "brute force" and next also that of a brute force algorithm as well, only because it is supposed to make it, or perhaps fit a given purpose. Numbers could still also be that for a cryptological purpose as well, except for not too much mentioned, or even stated, but nevertheless, or except for that, also for an important purpose as well, which sometimes is not that easy to catch. Are numbers still just easy, because it next also should be easy to catch, if perhaps not pretend, or should such a thing as going to the Moon, still be a hard thing to do? "Best guess" could still also be that of a Method as well, but still not any such thing as listening and next waiting either, for something perhaps never coming our way. A couple of thoughtful things could perhaps be on our mind, but next that the smile could also be visible in a face as well. Our mission here definitely "first one thing", or perhaps that one, and next another, or such, because it next could fit our purpose as well, except for perhaps not that of another. But next also no such thing as being brave either, because it could still be that of crawling, except for any crawling itself, except for perhaps not any Method either. Happy New Year! Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2018-01-03 at 01:17
 2018-01-03, 01:55 #60 storflyt32   Feb 2013 1110111002 Posts But still that of distributed for a couple of things, we could still make it both Numbermaniacs and also a couple of nerds for a couple of things. But next that also a recent Pope, is perhaps not having such a smile either. Make it next also that of numbers as well, and also that of a dry sense of humor, if perhaps none or nothing at all. There was a recent interview, or perhaps post of today at Yahoo! where some woman was telling that she could be slapping someone, rather than perhaps just telling. As a young child, I remember my self using a tongue on a piece of metal when outside during the winter, and next also the possible result as well. The recent Rose Parade on display, also could be such a thing for that of a lethal weapon as well, and next in the sky, for that of a possible wishful dreams, if not any happiness. But make it perhaps still a competition of sorts, and next not any Consensus either, at least for a couple of things. Next, perhaps hope for the best, if not the worst either, but at least for that of numbers, always that of such itself, and also that of both results, and also a given way of finding such numbers. What if I rather could believe in a peaceful world, except for one such for that of war, because there always could be a disagreement around, including that of our business as well? We could perhaps make it both a leap second, if not a leap year, for that of possible time, but perhaps not so for any accomplishments either, because it always, or as usual, should be that of a Method for such. Could you still have a large dish for that of your meal, and next also have it all put together in one piece or sequence as well? Or is rather so because except for perhaps a single chew using your mouth, the food could still be eaten, and next also finished off? If not wrong, two geniuses perhaps are not always shaking hands either, but except for possible brainstorming, that of "tink-tank" next comes to mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_tank Here before checking on the word itself, and also it becomes a short sentence. If not wrong, perhaps still a mission to the Moon for at least that of Apollo, but next also that of "For all of Mankind" as well. Numbers in fact, could be for a common cause, and next also a common inventory as well, except for perhaps a special word here as well. Martin Luther King perhaps was having a dream, but next not for that of any numbers either, because it still could only be sieving. But next that you are not supposed to tell me that I am perhaps not wrong either, when next perhaps hitting it on the spot, and next for at least that of a prime number. We still could be doing our homework, if not already doing so, in that sieving for that of Mersenne primes at least should be underway, or in progress, but next for that of Genefer, apparently no such thing. But also that such a thing as "embezzlement" or "misappropriation" should not be any such thing for that of any numbers either, because you perhaps still sold and next bought. Believe it or not, but at least for that of PrimeGrid, perhaps simple and next also true, but next perhaps not any "simplistic" either. Is this because of perhaps a simplification or possible facts, except for that it perhaps could be true? Next, always that of some four P150 factors, of course, and next it should be that of "next prime", but except for the possible algorithm, of course, I next could also be left to wonder as well. Both that of getting a bit older, and next also making it both priests, if not any beings, next took a bit of toll on me, but except for that, always the answer as well, and next also the way it could be sought. Are numbers supposed to be about possible disagreements, or should it rather be about possible results and achivevements? I still could be doing a couple of other things, but except for perhaps minor or mediocre for a couple of things, I still could be here for what I am supposed to do, and next we always could discuss that of an algorithm for that of a possible subject, because next here I still am. Also that such a thing could be about a possible conjecture, of course, but needs checking. Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2018-01-19 at 23:00
 2018-03-25, 22:19 #66 storflyt32   Feb 2013 22×7×17 Posts http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001112089377 http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001112968210 The first one above made it a short while ago, and it is a quite big one here. Total factoring time = 125209.6818 seconds Flipping around first, and initially not the same factors, but could be something similar or like when next continuing, and here difficult to tell, because of it still running. But nice when it becomes prime factors for both, and next a finished job, because then it cracks it open for a bit of the rest, and next that of sense of satisfaction. Adding the factor a bit later on, and also the flip around for that of doing it the opposite way. Here it became a different factor in the second, and adding here in a short moment. The funny thing is that you next will be able to get at the first factor only by this. Also a C173 in the running as well, but could be even more difficult here. Next giving a thought about the possible algorithm itself, if not already being a couple of written words, and next not in my postings at PrimeGrid, when it better should be here. Except for not any "sieving factors" either, for that of possible results, also a thought why it sometimes flips around for that of a prime factor at both ends, while at other times it ends up still composite. Perhaps not the correct word, but makes me think about "skew" here, for that of an imbalanced tree, where not all factors are readily available. P115 = 1985528148022884181391232005013155942380305331344066616268026231489733493385698672046326629676919082224171784849747 P62 = 10863352068794832459068341042946717414553477391523920698397879 Loose factors here, out of context and not keying in the product this time. http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001113153831 But the question becomes whether it is possible to compute the level of "fragmentation", when possible factors are being considered, relative to their individual sizes? Any formula for this, and suggestions are welcome. If choosing to pick some four factors, out of random, perhaps P40 or larger in size, and next multiply each other, I could get roughly a C160 or so. Next a some C149 or C150, when doing it the opposite way, because here it should not be a factor or prime directly on the spot. But also that this could go on almost forever, in a similar way as also making it two P150 factors much for the same. The only way of understanding the principle, or perhaps Method, is returning back at RSA-128 or RSA-256 for this, and notice the individual factors. But for now it ended up on another disk which suffered a failure. Another one thinking about, is that of privacy versus semiprime numbers. http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001113044433 http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001113043816 http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000633991051 Again it does not work here, but "dividing" with this number when flipping around, and it becomes a P143. This because here pulling the pizza from the oven, and next a piece of cake as well, for that of both being composite numbers. Here it works quite often, but is not a "true" or real factorization either. http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1000000000012154120 Still the "+" for that that of my part, but next that of "sieving" a composite number for either odd or even for that of its ending, only making it P1=2, or P1=3, and next a M50. Next it perhaps is not supposed to work that way either, except for not doing such prime finding myself. Here P9 = 949758289 in a recent factorization, and for this also (2^949758289+1) for the guess only, that it could be composite. But next perhaps making it a "shot in the dark", and not a good way of phrasing such a thing either. If assumedly still only composite, you next could rely on the fact that it could be still such a small factor, except for not making it anything else either. Looking for the "calculator" here, also that while making it perhaps larger factors for that of sieving itself, also that the whole or total number needs to be reduced in size. For this, a given "b limit" at least when it comes to Genefer at PrimeGrid, but next perhaps not such a thing for that of Mersenne factors or primes. I make of it that of High versus Low for (b^131072+1) a bit harder, or perhaps more difficult, when b is larger in size, than perhaps small, but here perhaps a bit diffuse or unclear, when it comes to possible overlapping of the syntax. Here it looks to me that it "smooths" out in a way, for that of making the factors more equal for their respective sizes, and it becomes that of RSA numbers again, because assumedly Mersenne primes are not about any factorization either, but rather that of trial division. Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2018-03-26 at 12:03

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post R.D. Silverman GMP-ECM 4 2009-11-14 19:57 grandpascorpion Programming 7 2009-10-04 12:13 panic Hardware 9 2009-09-11 05:11 gribozavr Twin Prime Search 10 2007-01-19 21:06 JuanTutors Marin's Mersenne-aries 1 2004-08-29 17:23

All times are UTC. The time now is 00:19.

Mon Aug 15 00:19:53 UTC 2022 up 38 days, 19:07, 2 users, load averages: 0.77, 1.05, 1.11