Go Back > Extra Stuff > Blogorrhea > storflyt32

Thread Tools
Old 2017-11-08, 03:52   #56
Feb 2013

7348 Posts

Does anyone know, or notice, but also checking out (2^1619-1) by reading around.

From the C1133 of (2^4096+1) there is a PRP642 in between, when next multiplying somewhere and next using the sqrt() function.

Becomes the system hang again and therefore only in one list and not in the other one such,
because here it should be continued on and if not wrong, perhaps it again could break up a little here, for more to be visible.

Making this small one right now, because I am wondering if perhaps the rest could be prime here.

Feel free to give it a try if you will.

And next two quite good ones as well during the week, which apparently did not get down the drain.

Edit: Not prime, but it took a day here.

Edit1 (or two) - Always the composite number in between here and not any prime at all.

Yes, I was looking at the Method itself here, because I am perhaps not stupid.

Adding from the P12 here.

Right now wondering how many such there are still remaining left.

The fact is that perhaps you could not be left to say that X is a factor of Y and so it goes.


P73 = 3256518082311195522905172911158711029259362377407136236870417147103185139

Should I perhaps multiply it with 2, or rather think it could be a factor of something?

P49 = 4294300189186204540683188159167873246431699868607

and next I have not tried it for myself.

So funny, but could have it when perhaps come back, or at least later in the morning, at least for this number.

Should next be a P104 the opposite way around. but when next making it the Monday beer, it becomes the "6" rather than the "9" in the display.

C113 = 79870341490808848773655734814116666912144138077860232969932808238961207074481200971147623060628043234818744625797

Anyone doing the business of factoring here are welcome at giving this a try, because here it became only Windows 32 bit for now.

Adding a little more right now, but still different from that above, because I once again choose to leave it off after another restart and that this factor also should go somewhere else as well.

The problem is that sometimes it could be difficult and sometimes easy, but next it also goes with the number itself and therefore both a Titanic prime added to my list at times, while still struggling with a number
that could be some 150 - 200 digits in size.

Two other numbers that were left alone across two nights of leaving the computer, did not make it during the session and perhaps the above could be described in a better way.

P40 = 4673178337968663531984341036786491968089

P50 = 89177647581795613534693522182368574645586736858827

P61 = 2572766907345268642064354495748751028268296022504726087549989

P73 = 2200432937034353686192348730242230333237896095518015432947312158161184369

If you try multiplying these factors with another, next perhaps with reference to yet another number, like that of RSA-1024, next a couple of different options and here I have not tried it out yet.

A quick test by multiplying the three first above, next makes for a P115 at the other end and still fresh in the buffer and needs to be written down.

But again you will probably choose to continue from the P115 and so on and next perhaps a hint of some three factors in between if it perhaps should be looping back at itself.

Also the first above multiplied with the fourth, gives a result back and here a quite good P188 factor which needs to be written down as well.

Next it becomes the second through fourth here as well for this, but now I lost my fingers for the day and both these will have to wait for at least tomorrow, including the links.

Again also the sense here that while perhaps only a small part of the whole thing, a bit of factoring using Windows, 64 bits, could be telling me about perhaps a bit more of the puzzle.

Except for only losing the good word for this here, only by that of editing.

Perhaps getting a couple of ideas before signing off, but could be adding where it should be.

Should perhaps make a new one here, but with my Thursday beer, I chose to add two loose factors first above.

Next could give it a try, of course.

Returning back to the session, it next becomes the P50 in the second link, so here it becomes that of filling in the gaps.

Next, the C100 as the product becomes a hard one to factorize and should be eating a bit of the whole cake, and could give this one a try as well,
at least for the remaining part, of flip-around, which should be a C209, or so.

I had a P9 slipping away earlier today, because it became both that of being quite near-sighted and also a couple of technical problems.

This because rather than making it P3 = 127 and next assuming a couple of primes, if not any factors, always that of 2^n-1 for this project, and why not this P9 for this as well.

Here the C97 is perhaps one of those difficult ones which I make that of angle numbers at times, because like RSA-1024 itself, it could be such a dead angle.

P42 = 266068276472462678805351153254851642665973

P55 = 8615131641044193804275380855557366159850734323349695999

Here again loose factors for this, because as mentioned, this could be a difficult one to factorize.

Here the interesting fact that the C126 in the second link versus the slingshot number of RSA-155 when multiplied and next the square root, makes for a P127 after a little.

Doing this repeatedly, or perhaps almost all the time, also that of the way things work together, because always the same principle.

You only need some seven of these P42 factors in order to make it RSA-1024 combined, but rather the fact that there are literally hundreds, if not thousands of such factors in total,
and again the story of Achilles never able to catch the turtle on the running field comes to mind.

Some Proth prime numbers are also divisors of Genefer numbers, and the quite simple task of sieving is being replaced with the tedious task of determining possible primality for the part
of the number still left or remaining.

Making a composite number at least a factor, and quite often the remaining part is still also composite.

When making it that of RSA-1024 for such a composite numbers, it also could be that such a number could be "spawning" anything in between which next could be prime.

The P127 above at least divides correctly, making it "1" in the last digit of the factor and next "3" when "dividing", but again the remaining part is still only composite.

As usual, multiplying two numbers always gives a composite number, but also when knowing the fact that there could be many factors, always the given method of making each of these separate parts.

Here the same as above, but even worse so, because here it perhaps is not possible.

P61 = 1113767094422199900605896348724787045161997478687751948513969

P65 = 33402254105198185285433691630917874922211165613246971339531439917

Again, always dinner before the cup of coffee and the cake, but except for that, always the answer as well.

Finding a quite good pair of factors when dividing a bit wrong today.

P66 = 220613731076473158273445123041821814890923488029571976241503174571

P71 = 22043490285279735212421812752979266074264479199416160591154315317677431

Here perhaps the product could be added, because for the flip-around, it becomes a quite good pair of P34 and P138 factors as a result.

Adding this a little later on, but I am not doing the large pair here, of course.

If next making it that above, together with the slingshot number of RSA-155, it becomes a P26 next added to my list from that of RSA-2048.

A closer look tells that it could rather be the previous pair above, but needs cheching for both.

Also the product for the four above needs checking as well, but I liked the two last ones here.

Not working initially, because I think that the closer you are to the desired numbers, also that of a higher bit length, or depth as well,
so, if perhaps a ladder for a fireman, always the difficulty climbing the last step when you are on the second last, and it next titls much the same on each side.

Here a P19 being added to my list of factors, but also that I was looking for a rep-digit prime only having those 0's and 1's recently being found.

Better make a new one here.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2017-12-14 at 20:45
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-12-14, 20:50   #57
Feb 2013

22×7×17 Posts

Here in fact no need, because leaving the computer for a break and returning back, here a pair of P41 and P78 factors which I could add.

Total factoring time = 12205.8954 seconds

Here perhaps exclude a couple of seconds for the P12 and P17, which also had to be added.

But also that it becomes another P121 when using the product of the two large factors and next the slingshot number of RSA-155 with a P15 preceding it.

Not tested yet, but only shows that while making pieces out of a single cake, it does not always divide either when doing so.

Doing so and I also know that it should be worth it, because such quite large ones next opens up the rest of it a little, like that of a Pandora's box.

Here it becomes a P161 with a P14 preceding it, and again an easy one and again we are on the road for a couple of things.

Better could be added here, except for taking a couple of hours in the first case or instance.

Again looping back at itself here because of its relative simplicity or ease.

Next again forgetting a couple of things, and should have finished up here first, but here the FDB apparently knew the answer.

Here for yet another answer to the problem, in that order, except for perhaps the factorization itself.

But still need to continue from the P171 here.

The product here, because in that order of being found, but next I typically use smaller first, next the larger, for that of multiplication,
but here the product makes for a P8 and a P10, before a P328, for that of a secret number, except for P1 = 2 first, only because I guess something broke a little earlier on.

Not adding the rest of it here for the moment, but here a quite easy one.

Next it also loops back to itself for that above, also for the P328 here, meaning that you could perhaps multiply the product with RSA-1024, and next taking the square root,
but in this case, not getting anything particular this time.

Here are two pretty heavy ones, I think, but next the same P23 for both.

Trying the first one now, using two different task windows, the second will have to wait a little.

Doing the usual multiplication, here is a P95 in between when taking the square root, and also a little more at first.

I better should go early at the shop and also getting a big cake this time, and could have the factor a little later on.

Before that, a P43 when factoring from the C147, and the product next should be yet another slightly larger piece of the magic number.

The product becomes a C138 (and not a C139 by just adding) and next it becomes a C143 the other way, which I will leave running.

But also perhaps the question which one could be the more difficult one, except for having the factors for the first one, but still not the second.

I will have it later on.

The fingers are not my friend again, and also looking up Rheumatism in the Wikipedia for this, and this article could have been better, because here a new decease perhaps becoming more common.

Or perhaps more of an illness, rather than a decease here.

Still on 32 bit Windows, here the simple part at the end, and also the rest became noted down as well.

But if next factorizing the numbers, for that of making it valid, it will not easily do or make it here, and also that the C168 will not jump down to the C99 in a simple fashion either.

This perhaps would be so if still on 64 bits Windows, but not for now, or this time.

I will add for the C99 when the factors become available, but next that it apparently runs out here, needing the SIQS, and next some 109264 relations for that of the same.

It could take the rest of the day here and I could have it in the evening, local time.

P48 = 271211449847284420209163583006358364210615255801

P70 = 1837123990256157335518261117523493592106505945818396822772121077408847

Again, the same as before, namely loose factors, because I am not able to do it here.

For this evening, or perhaps tonight, two more factors and this time P1 = 7 and P4 = 1837 in between, both ways.

The two large factors are a P136 and P169, respectively and probably none of these are already known.

But also that it becomes part of a sequence, or a way of running, so also a couple of other things in the meantime as well.

The product could become a semiprime, and always tempting to give a try against the larger cousin as well.

It should not divide directly between each other for that of a composite number only, but here it becomes a P271 when doing the flip-flop and also waiting a little.

Next also a P35 or so in my factorizations, from a C228, but losing it because Windows chooses to be doing a couple of things.

Getting back at it, but for now, not in my logs either.

Here in fact only adding the P17 in the flip-flop, because right now past 9 PM and I will not do the first two ones here on just a short notice.

Perhaps checking in, because at least the smaller factors should be in my list.

The two first initially composite numbers only, and the third becomes the product of the first two, in the usual way.

Here one of those factors being found only by just picking it up and next only guessing.

Also because it became 9:40 PM on a Friday evening, I perhaps could be having a cup of coffee before finishing off the rest.

I could be looking around for the PRP12576 being my current record prime, but perhaps still at BOINC for that of the link, since my main partition became lost or unable.

This because while listing such a number should not be practical, at least that of number theory and next for numbers a bit larger, should still be more so.

I do not know if you could make it a single sequence of all numbers if all factors became available, but here at least making it at least both 2 and 3, should be telling about the possible difference.

While I am perhaps not that familiar with Wieferich numbers, including possible primes, at least it could become that of an ordered list if next making it so.

I could perhaps finish up the day by adding a couple of larger factors, but also that I will be with my mother and younger brother on Christmas evening, which here is on December 24.

If perhaps still a difference between countries here, still that I either perhaps do not know, or at least will have to ask in order to find out.

The fact that it could be going on almost forever for that of numbers, rather than being just a shot in the dark for that of possible success, is yet another reminder of the complexity being involved.

The factor database was able to factor the two small being found, and next adding the factors for the product as well, making for a full factorization both ways.

To my surprise, always that of a composite number still left the opposite way, like that of a C229 being tried out just now.

Here it could take some time however, and it could be left running overnight.

As far as I am able to tell, neither that of number theory itself or alone should be able to tell about possible primality for a given number.

Almost always that of a reference with something already known, before next also adding those parts which are still not known.

I mentioned that of a number sometimes being weighted, because it perhaps is not only about size alone.

If a cat could eat a mouse, always that of a color for that of a mouse, except for perhaps only slim, rather than just simply fat.

It next becomes that of a cake as well, and also that such a cake could also make you fat as well, except for perhaps leaving a piece for yourself, and next the remaining part of the cake for
the rest of the family, if not any other members of your household.

It always becomes that of multiplying two numbers where still a couple of things are remaining, but you rather should be wanting just one or two factors for that of the answer.

Again it becomes the P17 as being one such example, mentioned above.

Here both this factor, and also the P24, P31, P35 and P41 becomes that of excluding factors for that of what we are seeking to find out, or perhaps accomplish, and next on each side.

Next also that of larger factors as well, but also that the principle should still be the same.

If perhaps still a weighted factors, also that of a weighted prime which could be found as well, and still it also could be that of sieving as well.

If perhaps so, at least that sieving could be making for such composite numbers which are that of RSA numbers we still do not have the factors for.

Always that of an enemy which could be coming from above, like that of a movie like Star Wars, but if next asking where the RSA numbers came from, at least they could be coming from above
in a similar way, leaving the thought perhaps open that there could be a prime number or factor around when doing it the opposite way.

But next that it perhaps does not divide either, even when attempting to doing so.

I am mentioning at another place that a word could perhaps be a word, like that of a possible meaning itself.

For that of numbers only, it perhaps should be only two things, namely that of a composite versus prime number.

If perhaps even more, either at least that of still prime numbers, or perhaps that of intermediate numbers which next could be part of the result.

If perhaps RSA-768 could be still only thought of, rather than a true or genuine factorization of its own, also that a possible flip-around next should not be returning anything of importance.

For now, also this mostly not available, because it ended up on the main disk being in use, but for now lying on the shelf.

This makes me think that the C229 could still be a number on its own, because like other factors, also that of no direct reference between any such factors either.

So here perhaps still an open question, because I was also making it the possible opposite way around earlier on.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2017-12-22 at 21:17
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-12-25, 13:45   #58
Feb 2013

1110111002 Posts

Guess it is Christmas, and here adding the P13 in the second link.

Here I had expected a little more beforehand or in advance.

Next continuing from here as usual, since it became another factor.

I decided to go to the shop again today, because I did not keep with the regular for that of Christmas this year.

Next, that I appreciate your generosity when it comes to me, so next thanks.

Except for only being left with 32 bit Windows right now, because of both technical and health problems, perhaps still such a thing as a couple of Numbermaniacs around,
but for this, also that of Pragmatism as well, which I could next check up, because here it just popped up.

I tried to give a mention about that of sieving at PrimeGrid, and do not know if I was heard, or listened to.

Like that of something popping up at times, also those that goes down the drain as well, or just get vanished in the air, because here thinking about "catch it, if not do so later".

Make it four P150 - P160 factors for that of prime numbers, next multiply, and you get a composite factor.

Next assume a composite number for that of the product, and you always should sieve, if not doing anything else, from an even larger number, still also composite.

The point here is that for that of large numbers, you may not be able to catch the factor, or factors in the middle, because it is beyond range of that of sieving.

Is next that of LLR testing such that all, or each or everyone number known only to be composite, and next no known factors for, are being tested,
or could there perhaps be gaps?

You should know that I perhaps should know, because a couple of PSP tasks (Prime Sierpinski), went past some 400,000 seconds of running time, and next I was also late.

For that of a given project, we could sometimes be having that of validity for that of a given task, and next it becomes another line of knowledge in a quite large table.

At Seti@home, a religous discussion at least is being allowed, or permitted, except for perhaps not any breakthrough either.

Except for that of possible Numbermaniacs, we also could be that of "nerds" for that of numbers, because this is what we are supposed to do.

Finding a prime number, or even factor, always adds to current knowledge, but that for a given understanding of nature, perhaps a different approach is needed.

Making a project a distributed one, always makes for a couple of possibilities, but also a couple of disadvantages, or even setbacks as well when it comes to personal performance.

For that of science, if perhaps not any numbers, always that the Earth is perhaps not flat, but next not any hollow either.

Such a thing as one distributed project next grabbing another, or even the hands of such, also should be known, with also a couple of strange or unexpected things as a result.

If still with another or different project here, I next would perhaps say that it better should be that of "Stay on target", and next also be steadfast for what you wish to accomplish.

Next perhaps no big difference in factors, but rather a difference in possible result, because of the operator itself, which here should be "-" rather than "+", just for "simplicity".

Because of such simplicity, also the next "break ground" for that of using a shovel, and next you could be digging further in a similar way, in order to make steady progress.

Regardless of method, or perhaps which way, factor finding should always be such a thing "per se", in comparison, or except for that of finding a large prime number.

Except for that of distribution itself, which sometimes could be a random one, also a different word as well, which next I could hope could be coming back, or perhaps returning on me.

Perhaps my preference is still different, but also that sometimes a couple of things could be popping up here as well, so next I also could give it a thought as well.

Also that I was giving a thought about possible "move along" here, in that recently a prime was being found for that of Genefer20, but next also with a high value of b.

But next that both factors and prime numbers could be present, but also distributed in a somewhat random order, which next could still follow a possible scheme, or pattern.

Assuming huge or large amounts for that of composite numbers, next that prime numbers could be in between as well.

This makes it also logical to believe, if perhaps not think, that increasing the value of n, also makes it necessary to increase the size of p, k, b, or whatever,
already from the start, because there should be more composite numbers around when next the size of n also increases.

Except for still not checking, n could be 131072 for that of Genefer, and next we also make it Genefer Mega as well, for that of a large b.

Similarly, just that of a P9 here as well, for that of such a candidate for a possible Mega Prime, and you still could be having that of simplicity as well.

Therefore, always the exponent, of course, but next there are also people around asking for that of p, k, or b as well, which next should also be that of the base for such a number.

If not wrong, this should not be about any sieving either, so what is perhaps wrong here?

Should the answer here be that factoring itself perhaps could "bite the dust" for what it perhaps could do, or should I rather still be a possible "Numbermaniac", or nerd,
for that of a result I possibly could not deliver or return?

But next the answer could perhaps be that you "never" could be able to tell such a thing either, because a prime number always is supposed to be on its own,
and next not perhaps you in charge for such a thing either.

For this it therefore becomes that of being a "newbie" at times and next think that perhaps you found something, but next that only sieving was being used, and next that nothing was being found.

Next presumably still that of numbers here, since I did not find anything myself.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2018-01-03 at 00:48
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-01-03, 01:14   #59
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
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-01-03, 01:55   #60
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.

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
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-01-19, 22:29   #61
Feb 2013

22×7×17 Posts

Here I was nice and leaving it to the server, but also that it ended up in my records as well.

There could be other numbers as well, but struggling today with a couple of restarts, and also doing the weekend shopping.

Now, past 11 PM on a Friday evening, things are getting a little back in shape and could next continue the session.

Looking right now for a C124 which vanished in the crowd, but right now not getting back at this number, and guess is is a bit heavy to say.

But rather two other tasks running, one for a C144, and the other for a C130, because a little curious here, because thinking that the PXXX for that of a factor, could be the superhighway of sorts, or at least four lanes,
and next we already know the P57, or the like.

I guess this is a thing which sometimes could be done, but when keying in "NSA supercomputer" using Google, the answer back is that it could take millions of years to factorize even a 200 digit number.

Except for perhaps disagreeing slightly with such a statement as well.

By means of factoring, this could still be a difficult process, but next perhaps not so when being spoken or spelt, or perhaps written.

The two numbers in question are good examples, because here not known for the factors which should be the result.

There is always going to be a couple of such numbers, or perhaps factors in between, which we next could miss, so therefore an ordered factor list should always be welcome for what we have, or perhaps already know.

Really, I should take the time congratulating for the recent Mersenne 50 prime number, which together with the previous Mersenne 49 perhaps did not receive a proper mentioning,
except for being great discoveries on a sheet of paper only, in that there is not that much of complexity here, except for the size of the number itself.

Presumably a sieving algorithm will never be able to tell about the tail number which could be in question, and for this only the LLR method needed, or perhaps necessary.

My factor list starts with P10 = 1165502893 at the top.

Next we choose to sieve it off, and it soon becomes forgotten.

But still those P9 and P10 factors, which together with the little -1 at the end could sometimes be making it the desired number, or perhaps the one we could wish for,
in that sieving not only could be a method for excluding one number for another, but also that of a "determinant" for such a thing as well.

Now I will have the weekend beer.

Here got to think about those small numbers which could be the reason for that of sieving at times.

Quite good example at the top here where three small factors precede four larger ones.

Should numbers still be poor man's science, or should we rather still think of science as cheap in a similar way?

Do not forget that only a couple of years ago we were left with eight digits for that of a handheld computer, so never tell me which thing to perhaps say.

I think that size has become the burden right now, and not the numbers themselves, because from my own experience, you never know when it perhaps could show up.

It really could be nice looking back at history here, and only making it P3 = 127, which next was found to be a prime number, I guess by the Greek.

But next that we also could make it "divisors" for even larger numbers, except for not any RSA number for that of cryptography, or cryptoanalysis either, and here the way for this,
or perhaps the way it could be explained, is perhaps not being readily told either.

So easy for almost everything, except for perhaps RSA-768, and also two or three other numbers, but for the rest still remaining, apparently a bit of a challenge.

Getting a handle on PRP1600 - 1700, and next becoming P for this, also that it became M48*** something here (composite), and also that the disk for this also broke.

Perhaps not the most important here, except for not having the numbers in front of me, but rather thinking about "nextprime" here, in that a titanic prime could be followed by a gigantic prime,
and next also a megaprime as well, but for now lacking the last element here.

But except for that, some 15.20 hours to go for the C144, and almost 12 hours for the C130, so always a reminder of what could next happen if you are in a bit of a hurry.

Continuing right now with an upload for what I have.

But again also making it "literal" here, except for not any "quantisizing", or even that of "Determinism" either, which should be either BOINC, or perhaps Seti@home.

If not wrong, you still could be counting your fingers and toes, and also your arms and legs, and also make it a difference.

Some 50 Mersenne primes, or factors, and next also millions of factors as well, and next ask me about a couple of properties for both that of the possible known, if not unknown, for that of the Universe,
if perhaps not including, or excluding either, and there always could be both questions and answers.

Make it a pencil being held between your fingers, and it next also could break.

Wear a leatherjacket, and next also that of stiff for such a thing as well, for both attitude, if not the jacket itself.

Next recall Harrison Schmitt on the Moon as the only scientist of the Apollo program, and next that it was supposed to be fun, because it next also should be so.

Here the rule of thumb for that of science as well, in that it always should be fun, regardless of subject.

We quite often could be finding a bit of dedication around, but next that both practical, and also technical issues could be hampering the whole subject.

Should it still be the thing to say, namely forget about the P10, because it could be sieved away?

Or should it still be only that of luck for such a thing, in that only a P9 could next make it for the biggest prime number being discovered?

But still also the mentioned superhighway as well, and that for a given purpose it could be way off, or perhaps short.

Really the point is that we should not rely on any algorithm here, but only making it a best guess, because when next doing so, it also could be working, or perhaps even success.

Here another good example, because again it becomes a couple of minutes between each keystroke, for that of Windows as an operating system.

Except for that of a loose pair of P67 and P69 factors in the first link, and here it became a prime factor the opposite way around.

Continuing with this in the third link, and here down to a C135 right now, but the question is still how much we are wasting on a couple of unneeded things.

I could add the factors here as well, if time could tell, or perhaps give me a moment.

But also noticing that while choosing to edit my contents, I am ending up a bit way past, or perhaps down in the buffer, or perhaps page, and need to scroll up.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2018-01-20 at 00:15
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-01-28, 22:36   #62
Feb 2013

22×7×17 Posts

The computer booting up in the second attempt today, because of the problems being experienced.

Therefore not my intent at being here for the current moment, because I am unable to do something.

But take this into consideration as well.

At the primeform group, which should be with Yahoo!, I wrote something like
"Mind your wording perhaps a little for this prime, Mr. Underwood".

Here meaning Paul Underwood for this.

Why so?

Am I supposed to be perhaps mean, or even a bit naive, when making such a comment, which next was not approved there?

Or should it rather be the way the original post for this was being formulated?

Not in front of me right now, but I read or perhaps misinterpret it as "just another prime", or even number for this, when it rather should be thought of as a great discovery of such a prime number.

Next still which method which could be used for this, and supposedly I also could be naive for such a thing as well, except for perhaps not making it P3 = 127 either, or rather 2^496942763-1 either.

So, what is the secret here, except that from only the look of it on the spot, you perhaps could tell that this number could be composite only.

Should it next be that of LLR testing on such a composite number which could perhaps be on the fly, or should I rather let it run, and make it a day or two for it in order to happen?

Sieve a couple of things, and next you also sieve away as well, in that at least I made it PPS Sieve Jade, and also the downgraded Ruby for that of CW sieve as well, or down from 4 million to 2 million for such a thing,
only because it became the few winners here.

Therefore, make it either Congratulations as usual, and next also the fine words as well, except for perhaps something else, which also could be interpreted in a similar way.

Again, make it on the spot for such a thing, but if not wrong, there should not always be such a thing either.

Here you could make it a list of both small factors (less than 10 digits), and also the list of larger factors as well.

Make it still a 309 or 617 digit composite number, and also such a thing on the fly as well, because at least the algorithm could be telling so.

If this was the intended meaning already from the start, namely subtracting not only 1 from a given number, but also that the number itself should be for a given meaning, perhaps I did not catch the point from the start or perhaps beginning.

Make it slightly larger, and for this something like 2^1165502893-1 and still perhaps the same, except for not any big discovery either.

But again that the answer once again could be simple and straightforward as well.

If perhaps not that simple, there perhaps could be an algorithm which could be telling whether or not a given prime could be "weighted", for what it perhaps could mean.

The problem here is that for now it probably ends with RSA-512 for this, and not always so either, except for also RSA-768 for much the same thing.

Here a quite good example, because for the first one, it could be almost RSA-768 all over again, and for the second one, at least it became the most basic sieving here, and you are still left with the total factorization.

Here it runs out, or perhaps in the blind, because this is what numbers are supposed to be all about.

P125 = 86737086240212626511899122127211566597927434517362636731073773877597018636167892779006796362683240741596592268257795886935031

P128 = 46023623556505344551566133963564068980872493455649757291948097960040888366597607417766953501553810921470553998454526488438192209

Next finish off the second or remaining part of it, and we could be one step closer to knowing the whole story.

Also adding the P21 for that of the second link above, where at first it only became the P18.

Sorry for that above, but here adding two more factors to the list, and I have not looked at the product yet, for that of doing it the opposite way.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2018-01-29 at 00:28
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-01-31, 19:57   #63
Feb 2013

22×7×17 Posts

I need you here for that of a temporary storage buffer.

C106 = 2741272335905625596671993119681976731684287791393316807290426806335925066302027372822579448466165128450089

Finally got a Windows 64 bit installation up and running, but it is blank from the shelf, and had nothing else or more, so I will be switching back to it, for that of also having Yafu installed as well.

Took an hour here to get it working, because the computer is still borking with the undervolt problem, and the only option is using the fingers on the cables with the mains shut down.

Here it needs some 12 minutes getting ready for the SIQS.

And guess what, here it blew as well, still on 32 bit Windows, meaning that I got the factors for it here as well.

P41 = 12728735481560502479273543677853904817069

P66 = 215360931954063541307798159063863249442628246774227279079847257581

But only for reference here, because I will be switching back to the 64 bit installation I got set up or installed as well, and here apparently unable to read back to the 32 bit partition which finally got in order.

Therefore I will need to update with the factors in the FDB before that, so I will rather do it right now.

Except for that, really a beast here of a number, and here for once, not any loose factors for that of such, because here it took a loong time.

C189 = 480721557758169428234543171978867957975972532363105544995615132470792266432268324883983523733262648495533287564414411773614277688991292375769540432049045527978520198570967112480658250120159

Same thing as above, but switching to 64 bits right now for that, but also I know that numbers are wasting space.

Getting back at it later, but again that it is not always lunchtime here.

I forgot copying over the vcomp100.dll file (perhaps large caps) for that of 32 bits factoring, so for now making no shortcut icons here, and rather run it from the shelf,
and here only 64 bits right now, but if still at 32 bits Windows, it could perhaps remember the four factors above, and before trying out, not sure if it will split into two here.

It became a restart of the computer here, but actually correct here when saying so, in that it gets right to the C106 which became factorized a short while ago.

Again being interrupted by both a freeze, and also some three or four restarts, but it may seem that problems are getting sorted out right now.

Except for my file system which is still in a bit of shambles.

The problem here is that here it ends up with a couple of composite numbers, so if I could make it here for now, for a couple of items at a time, it would be fine.

I make it an asterisk here for meaning "my use only", because I rather would like to switch back to 64 bits, and in the meantime I am unable to make a copy of things.

My personal notes below right now for own use, and I will clean up afterwards.


C84 = 175364392461705175920213651332954424278435279712185874872709548008813071230702226631

P34 = 1964800810875324866228664053364937

P50 = 89253013074429562246736548825149514541405933678863

Or perhaps I should rather skip the header for the two above?


Before doing the restart, perhaps this question as well.

Namely 1, 2, 3, and so on, and why do we not just count the numbers in sequence and next always could know what they should be all about?

Example number here.

C128 = 78244149094010011551712629650065462531430530363409268109697925804587903980663243494550096311778575867291556500689086243166037593

This number is known to be composite only, so why no factors here, when we are supposed to be counting, and also should know to do it?

Could you perhaps make one number a sieving factor of yet another number, only because the first could be composite, and the second either just the same, or even perhaps a prime number or factor?

Should perhaps be only prime number above, but next also the difference between the sizes, because if not wrong, sieving should not be about any prime number finding either, but just about factors.

Here perhaps also the possible leftover as well, in that it could be an "exclusion" of factors by means of the method of elimination, in order to find the big such one.

Before I do the switch, also that Yafu once again divides it wrong, and here adding a P75 to my list, only for that of above in full.

Checking with the well known C147 for that of splitting apart of sorts, next that of a P16 and P49 at the end, where the larger is a pretty nice one.

But also that the product here once again becomes one such sieving pair.

C123 = 448641120391000388518138744921139298119655689250036864409006004981275111305274318763288127336248681409945610389320411411923

You are of course welcome to try, but I could have the factors for you when returning back to this partition.

Either it is the computer back on its heels, or it could be the night shift for that of network maintenance, but here again so for each keystroke.

Take this for a grain of salt, or at least unofficial in the second link, because here I could key it in all, but rather I choose a redo here, and could have it in after the Thursday shopping.

The first becomes a product of already known factors, but next the question of whether it could be possible.

Here for now, a smooth pair, with a P35, P46 and P47 pair, which like the first part also came with the little bit of failure at equating the relation.

Either the computer is hanging, or maybe the page, so I will need to fix this later.

I made an entry for the C123 in the FDB, and it became a new such one here.

Flipping around as usual, adding a P24 here, but the remaining C111 could take a while, and here I do not have the factors.

Perhaps not any big here, but also that I still have the end result in mind, for what we could be wishing for, and sometimes not that easy at getting at.

Testing out a little more, and the product of both the P35, P46 and P47, together with the P31 and P66, gives a P110, the other way around, with only a couple of small factors in between.

Again both the borking computer, if not hanging network, at around 08:20 in the morning, but here the P110 should only be part of the result as a whole.

Here, dang it as a whole, and I soon noticed that it became quite difficult here, for that of a possible factorization.

Here sqrt(C111 = 3228... * RSA155) for that of a P119 a little down.

Adding perhaps during the night shift for this one.

Also at least 64 bits for that of booting up here, but also that I lost both the P35, and also the C93.

So, perhaps Genefer here, because a long time since last time, and also that I also lost this factor as well.

In fact, except for not any divide and conquer, I have not had the time or opportunity at looking at this little thing for now.

You next know where it stands, for that of making it at least a P9 for a couple of things, if perhaps not any sequence of numbers either, which could lead to a possible "Proof".

For this Genefer as well, and next mamma mia, because at least I should be able to "divide".

Here perhaps both "divide and conquer" as well, if you do not mind, because as usual. we could always question a possible method, if perhaps not, for that of bringing possible result.

For this, always the biggest and best, if not perhaps any "hidden primes" either.

Make a fool of myself, and next not yours either, but it also could be a C93 not being factorized.

Sorry about that wording above.

If I rather choose to make it anywhere else, you next probably would say stop, but is this perhaps still about a Method?

Needs a fix or update for that above, and working on it.

Back later on.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2018-02-20 at 21:02
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-02-09, 03:09   #64
Feb 2013

47610 Posts

I need to get back at the correct disk, if not partition, because checking, it is not here.

You are so friendly with me, so here the P119 for you.

P119 = 56796619258313522879161668314803581099957816362058970670160675791399037357595524929310995369016327572505230812150824563

I please ask for respect, because not here reported yet.

Here we still could make it "Deep in the underground" for that of a pop, or musical band.

Or perhaps still the C123 above, sigh.

Should I perhaps make it the factors here, if you do or did not know?

Not even the correct disk for this right now, so it presumably becomes a guess in the blind.

P87 = 138204427620602625156084149042090671268825372481271571092581359674372795393229733257107

P97 = 1799701431392965366078171712083348490129299477445003529164136672462974288408908579134208224387133

Both factors are known individually this time.

Here the factors of the flip-around in this case, and one possible solution is perhaps pretending a couple of these numbers to be semiprimes, but next that it could be rather done the opposite way.

Also no reason to add the product here to the FDB, because it only becomes a waste of space.

But it only goes to show the complexity involved here.

Just in from the shop and forgot the needed coffee the second time, so here in the meantime.

P62 = 18622932908849933529872834723913414110721287772872992013238359

P74 = 12415765527282907142645442571333163956992118765826496440008640434915391689

Here two separate or different factorizations, and the P62 is coming with a P24, while the P74 is with a P22.

Again, need the cup of coffe here, but here you could be lost in the dark for the C135 and could make it a multiply with RSA-155, and next the square root as usual, for that of the flip around.

Here not done so yet, but could add both factors before it gets to late in the evening.

If sieving is still only the possible method for that of leaving a couple of numbers out for another, also that we probably would like the individual factors when at least making it such factors for those numbers
which could be large.

Really the fact is that such numbers as at least RSA-1024 could also be nicknamed "spawning" factors, in that it could be kind of balanced around, by means of being weighted, in that a P154 could always be there,
but next not divide this time either.

Should it next be the small or large factor left to decide when it comes to factorizing a number?

Meaning that the mentioned P154 may not divide, and similarly not 2, 3 or 5 either.

Is it possible to show which approach or alternative is the better one, for that of coming up with an answer?

Checking out, at least the C135 above, with the mentioned factors, is having a P16 and a P154 using the flip around, so this also becomes as almost expected as well, in that it also was being sensed.

Or perhaps rather in the cards for this.

Still the bit of a borking computer, so I better could have it here and make an edit on it later.

Apparently both factors in here, so I could add the flip around as well.

Continuing as we speak and also have the coffee, here adding the P16 for that of the P154, which is not the same as that above, at least not at first.

Also adding the P16 here as well, but except for the term "Jack in the Box", which needs checking, also that of having fun if you absolutely want to do the C135 manually,
or perhaps the ordinary way.

Or rather say it in this way, namely for that of losing out on a couple of disks and partitions, here it became one good up and running, and also four disks inserted as well.

Therefore quite a bit available in front of me, and possibly even more as well, and if you check in with PrimeGrid, one of their goals is teaching us the subject of Mathematics,
if not making it any Cryptography or Cryptoanalysis either, and for this also the relationship between Fermat numbers and those which happens to be Mersenne prime numbers.

Here the steadily increasing number of Fermat primes, including a recent Genefer 262144 prime.

I will try fixing the syntax later on, because here it became a bit of stuck arms, but also a genuine interest in the subject, because I left both binoculars and also the telescope on the shelf.

Think of it as an "Amicable" prime, if not anything else, including possible factors, and you probably see what I mean, in that factors should always be in between, and therefore also intermediate as well.

Here a bit of long line, so I could get back here as well, but if you compare with a C209 also running, here perhaps not any loose factors either, so where next to look?

If I was able to get to my factor list, or perhaps table, it could be shown that most numbers should be composite only, because you are not supposed to make it a P62 and P74 from only a C135.

Same should go for even larger numbers, because it also should be about the limits of sieving as well.

For this a P55 just in the door, which also became added, and next together with the mentioned P62.

P55 = 1318728975142328469587516039442265901282109426046157327

For the record only, and next it should be having a more proper place.

The flip around is having a P28 from a C153 which could be next up.

The bad thing is that you could end up doing your things on a couple of factors which could be kind of semiprimes, but next also in a hidden way, because it might not be a readily fix, or solution.

If still "make or break" for a couple of things, also we should know that it might not always work here either, for at least this kind of work.

The practical, if not ideal solution, would always be having both the P55, P62 and P74, and next think that it could be doing at least part of the trick,
but the world of reality, or perhaps facts. should also tell that this might not always be possible.

For this you could be left to decide here.

But still "Nobody's fool" as usual, thinking it could be Slade for that of music, when it rather could be the almost endless list of multiplications, this time that of factors,
in the hope that it could be making up part of something even larger or else.

I have not tried this yet, but if I multiply these three above, something like a C191 as the product.

The flip around here should be something like a C118, but sadly also a quite big chance that no such thing as "break even" is possible, and you could end up twisting your hair for perhaps both.

Adding the P28 and I still have to add the product here to my list as well, in order not to forgetting it altogether.

Remember that if it became that of "make and break" in a similar fashion for that of breaking a couple of numbers, perhaps not my genre or fashion either, but at least I heard about the subject.

Here PrimeGrid still chooses to make it rather "cracking", but except for that of Cryptology again, apparently no practical applicability either, except for that of a possible hidden meaning.

If you read around, perhaps you know that the Pentagon, or U.S military could be sitting around with a couple of numbers which could be for a given purpose, because the general public is not supposed to know.

For this also the story about Alice and Bob, or vice versa, as well as the possible "handshaking" which could be needed for that of a protocol for the use of information interchange.

Here a long time since last visit with the subject, but from recall, it should be about one protocol more safe than another, and next also more trusted as well.

If Bob chooses to send Alice a message for noone else to read, a hashtable could be needed in order for a translation of one set of contents into a cryptic or garbled message, which next needs to be translated back.

Previously my pants came with a zipper, but is now only knobs only, but also the fact that numbers could be zipped in a similar way, in that it always could be a new day, and also new or more recent numbers as well.

Perhaps leaving the tracks a little, but the fact that we could be left stuck on a C125, while also knowing about a 20 million digit prime number, should be telling about a bit of facts.

Doing only the local factorization right now, the product of the P55 and P74 makes for a C168 in the flip around, after a bit of basic factorization.

Translates into "one thing for another", except for perhaps not knowing any of the details either, before giving it a try.

If I mentioned "Balanced budget" before, also that of weighted distribution of numbers as well, and next one piece of cake for you, and the rest left for me, as usual, in that we could still make it the similar thing.

If numbers still could be "poor mans science", next also perhaps RSA-1024 in a similar way, in that it could be dinner served, but next not so either, and why?

For at least the purpose of safe communications, we are supposed to "know" that the developers, or at least those in charge, could know these factors individually, but perhaps this is not the case.

Here one more P18, and for now I let this one go, or still running, and also checking where it all came from.

Possibly some bad wording above, and I could make a fix on it before going to bed.

Here being distracted by something crashing out, and here the P33 before the P19 in the result output of the factorization.

The remaining C79 could be a bit difficult and perhaps needing ecm here.

Here that of three more restarts of the computer and it flips around into a P63 here, while losing the ecm for the C79.

Should be this from another tab, but also struggling a bit with my hands.

I will have a couple of beers in a short while and make it perhaps a little better when times comes, before next past.

It got to my list here and when adding to the other things, my guess is that we still could be better off when next cutting it a bit short, at least when it comes to size,
rather than perhaps making it if itself, for the given purpose of finding the largest prime number.

Again, as previously mentioned, I could still make it X * Y for that of product Z, if not something else, but is next 2^n-1 supposed to be a prime number?

Here again only the cup of coffee, but next slap my tongue, because is not this supposed to be what we should be doing, when I rather could make it only "+" instead?

For this, something like p*2^n-1, or p*2^n+1 and we could be back at the old syntax being used for such a thing, including also factors.

Here you could make it sometimes Turqouise (needs checking) and also Jade for that of CPU sieving when it comes to PrimeGrid, and here PSP sieve and TRP sieve.

But next that apparently the server for this broke, and you could end up with a similar Genefer sieving, which next could be a manual sieving issue, if not any process.

I could be having a couple of 100 thousand factors right now, and the Factor Database similarly a couple of million factors.

Next still that of multiplication and division, rather than possible addition or subtraction, and you could end up thinking that a factor could sometimes be the "difference" between two numbers.

I still have to launch a couple of these things manually, and while not having the vcomp100.dll file in front of me, for now leaving the icons for Yafu out from the taskbar, and rather launching the file directly from My Documents.

Here the syntax or parse error being experienced each time when launching Yafu, and this is perhaps not because of the missing file.

Needs getting back at, but for now it is a rather unpleasant thing to deal with and makes things a bit harder.

For this thinking about the product of the P54 and the P63, and how it relates to the rest or remainder of the number.

Again I have to launch it manually before trying out, but I could have the factorization later on.

Before a short break, here that launching Yafu-x64 from My Documents, and it becomes an error message about the publisher or issuer unable to verify the origin of the software.

Either the compressed file became borked of sorts, or I would need to get back at the download for the whole software application (.zip file).

Here it should be for this, of course.

Read what it says in the comments there and absolutely true, in that it could be only numbers at times, and next also missing its specification, or parameter, meaning C, P, or PRP.

Sometimes it could be missing files, while other times it could be a complete mess.

Make it a bit too much to handle, and it also could become that of "fragmentation", which also could be similarly difficult to handle, or be dealing with.

The C79 passes me right now and I am happy to see the numbers, except not me this time either.

I rather could continue on the C209 because here a tough number for a good computer.

Really not any point of adding the C189 to the FDB either, for that of the P55, P62 and P74, but here only a C119 when doing the basic flip around.

I could give this number a try, however.

Remember what I said about having a total of four disks installed?

For this at least two Temp directories where I had my numbers placed or inserted, and thanks to some nice people who probably gave me some help, at least I was able to partly recover.

I still could make it My Documents for the most recent files, but having it all in this directory makes it much more easy for that of access.

You are not supposed to be three people for that of a single dance, but rather it should be only two.

Next deep below the surface as well, and not scratching at the surface, because while we still could be having both RSA-1024 and RSA-2048, if not any smaller, for now looking in vain for that of RSA-4096.

If still perhaps the biggest and also best for that of numbers, always that of a Genefer prime versus a Mersenne prime and next you made it a happy event, except for still only scratching the surface.

For this again that of "weighted" numbers sometimes, in that one single number or two could eat much or most of the cake, despite being sometimes only a small part, or fraction.

Here I think I could know, but need scrolling up the list a bit for this.

For that of a C1133 for that of Genefer, a P20 or less was found to "almost" divide this number, leaving only a small composite as the remainder.

Here something is wrong, and I really do not know what.

If you do not mind, I could always at least "deduce" a composite number, except for not knowing all the details either.

Here a quite good example for this, including the P1764, which I think should be mine, but here thinking more about the C12593, which is a classic example of a semiprime still left unsolved.

But not when in the door from that of the shopping for this, as you probably know, but should tell that at least I gave it a try.

Here needs a fix for that of a typo, but also that the C119 became much as difficult as well, leaving us still with the unanswered question left to solve.

Except for that, if I made it 2^n-1 in the previous, I meant to say n=2^n.

BTW: Pressing the Edit button, I end up at the bottom of the screen each time and have to scroll up each time for that of the editing buffer.

Here it needs a fix.

Also that the C119 ran out at 11:28 PM local time and needs the SIQS.

Here 365648 relations needed, and I could have it for you tomorrow.

I still could continue a bit more, since not past midnight yet.

Here a P157 using the flip around method, or for this and for now perhaps not added,

But next same thing all over, if not wrong, namely that of the ostrich with its head in the sand.

Beware the wolf, at least for that of RSA-768, if not the opposite, but here I did not get it working.

But perhaps rather Bingo! for such a thing, and you could be sitting around with a couple of "loose factors" and next it could be supposed to be working.

Pardon me, but at least this becomes my notion, or perhaps thought about this whole thing, or perhaps idea.

Split it up, by continously dividing (or factorizing) and the true or real factors are not supposed to be showing up either.

The simple answer is as following.

RSA-155 could be still a mighty example of a facorization, but I could be left with the thought, or assumption, that even this could only be a piece of cake, compared with the rest, or whole of it.

I mentioned the C189 above, which for now I chose not to add, but also that the C119 in the flip around, also chose to flip over as well.

If I could make it PXX * PYY where both XX and YY > 50 (or perhaps even 80), where next the break even point, where the rest or remainder could be readily found?

Is the C119 perhaps more easy than the C189 here, or in which case is it supposed to be any "break even" for such a thing?

Before it broke, the Genefer factorizations ended up on one of my disks, and I have not seen it since, or afterwards.

Here perhaps still a bit clumsy of sorts, and I could be making PrimeGrid still a template, in next thinking that 2 * 3 * 5 ... should be able to offer me a quite high, or significant number (Genefer).

Here I chose to launch BOINC Manager again for that of checking, and here I rather should be checking in with my lists for that of any result output, including possible factors.

If not wrong, it ended up with Genefer 23 (the 23'th prime number in the list, or sequence) being fully written to the disk, before no more, except for at least Mersenne 48.

Guess what, but perhaps like many others, I could be concerned with that of syntax here, namely the way we are supposed to be finding such prime numbers, among many composite factors.

Here perhaps both that of syntax and syntax error, if not any Methodology either, in that at least sqrt(2), like also pi, should be that of a fractional number.

Here, also that of transcendental numbers for this as well.

Beware the wolf, I still happen to know about P2 = 61.

So what is next for that of such a story, except for not any divisibility here either for any such number.

Again that my facor list ended up on the broken disk, but here still also far off from that of any major factors.

You perhaps know about the P252 and P564 for that of Genefer, and also that it does not divide with any C1133 either.

Make it still 2/3 and also sqrt(2), if not any pi, for both fractional and transcedental numbers, and my catch, or perhaps observation, is that we should be looking at the individual factors themselves.

Here a quite good explanation for this.

Is 6 supposed to be a factor of 17, only because it could also be 2*3?

Or is it only because 6 is composite, while 17 is a factor?

Next divide it if you will, and it could end up still being only composite.

Still perhaps a piece of cake, if you will, but next "I do not know" either, for such a thing, and here the C12593 as an example,

If not enough, or the most simple or basic answer, take 2 and next add a million 0's to this number.

Next subtract 1 and on the spot I would say composite only here.

Should I next try 11, or perhaps 19 instead, if not rather P3 = 127?

If the C119 should still be only composite, because it could be the "inverse" of some three good factors the opposite way, next that of possible comparedness,
or rather perhaps "comparatibility", in that one number could be the possible leftover from yet another, and still only perhaps composite.

Should I make it the C189 to the Factor Database, and next also the three factors for this as well?

I perhaps could, but would you next question the factors themselves, or rather perhaps the basic factorization method, or principle?

Same goes if I had a P9 or P10 for you and next it goes down (the drain), only because you perhaps already know, or it could go down the drain for that of a couple of small factors.

Or perhaps rather "open minded" for such a thing, because "heck", you did not tell me, but here at least a small factor in a given fashion, for at least making it a big prime.

Umm, so P3 = 127 could still be a factor, and next 2^127-1 also that as well?

What is supposedly nextprime() here for this number?

P39 = 170141183460469231731687303715884105727

Next perhaps (2^170141183460469231731687303715884105727-1)

Come on, but for one thing still that of possible syntax, if not algorithm which could be possibly used as well, for that of finding possible factors.

Before testing, or at least checking, I know that this should not be working out.

Keying in 2^127 only and it makes for that of "E" when using Windows Calculator, so for this rather Yafu.

Is the P39 next supposed to divide let's say (2*10^500), or should I rather add or subtract 1 for this?

Again, check in with the FDB, if not, and next a bit of "cuckoo" as well, in that there always could be one factor for or versus another, but also a bit of leftover,
if not any loose threeads, on each side.

When I get to the mentioned P157, it also has a P13 before or above, and presumably this should be about sieving, if not any factorization either.

But next a possible leftover, if not any slap of my hands, or perhaps fingers, because I was lazy and forgot to note it down.

Here be proud if you will, if perhaps not stuck in any mud either, because you already know that I came in here using the other door.

Here the same thing, because opening up the "Small factors" file located on my disk, here some nine factors available.



Perhaps does not even need checking here, but at least should be composite only.

But next also a sign of relief, in that a P9 for some reason could be showing up for that of a thing, and next also be making it a quite big prime number.

Leave the party and next still the company for that of a club, in that for one thing we could be still having a couple of factorizations, when it rather should be about prime number finding.

I could still be the Genefer talent or genius, while you could also be the similar fool for that of making it the biggest prime number known.

Should it be only about sieving here, or should it rather be about prime number finding "as is", only because I should know better?

Honestly, I have more than 19 million in credit on my main PrimeGrid account, and also more than 2 million on my secondary account.

Before it all blew, or perhaps even before, I had a Genefer factorization (once again) which I either lost, or did not make the whereabouts for.

Mind you, I can look up my list for the small number which could make it even, or at least "make or break" for even bigger ones.

So here is the question for you, namely that of whether a composite number (only) should suffice, for that of a particular purpose.

Remember that the C119 chose to blow, only because of some three factors on the other side, and what are we next supposed to be doing here?

Dangit (again).

But perhaps which numbers to choose here?

Should they, or these, be composite only, or should they rather be prime, only because it could be showing up?

Again multiply the largest Genefer prime with the largest Mersenne prime and next "divide" from some (2^10^n) (and not n-1 or n+1), and you probably know the answer.

Again, or for this, that of "given purpose" as usual, in that "expectancies" could also mean "deliveries" and next also on the door, but if for some reason you choose to multiply PX?? with factor PY??,
where each factor is different from each other, ALWAYS the composite number back in return when doing so.

For this, perhaps still a question about the number in question, if not any bit depth either, and here perhaps thinking about RSA-2048.

"Tick", and next also mean it as well, because if I happen to scroll up my list, a couple of numbers could be ticked in such a way, only to show that it could possibly break much of the rest.

For this, I already mentioned the 1133 and next the stupid idea that I could be fooled, or perhaps fooled around, by thinking that it could be even more to it.

>> ecm(ans)

ecm: 1/1 curves on C170, B1=11K, B2=gmp-ecm default

***factors found***

ans = 19020145176624619512787722721631191668531892095504567103821497113215099212

>> ecm(ans,30)

ecm: 5/30 curves on C170, B1=11K, B2=gmp-ecm default

***factors found***

P13 = 4008768699781

P157 = 4744635223694421338596262985884861170074660753500424658783154566510312770

ans = 47446352236944213385962629858848611700746607535004246587831545665103127706

Note, or again, private purposes only, because I do not know where it goes this time, or for now.

Could perhaps have it one line or two down here for that of the posting buffer. and could I perhaps have an even larger page for that of posting (not meaning any buffer)?

Here the P157 just in the door, and guess you know the outcome, or perhaps result (again that of break even for such).

If still perhaps a shortcut on my desktop, next also "no-no" for such a thing, only because it could be still composite.

You know, for one thing still that of X*Y for at least making it composite, but if next asking for a possible Method, next what the heck.

Here still a bit of proud for what I perhaps could be doing, but next also some 11 years with PrimeGrid and also 15 years with Seti@home, and next only a SGS piime as a double-checker.

Perhaps we should not forget the rest of the world either.

If that of "complexity involved" should be readily assumed already from the start, why not make it possible Axioms for such a thing?

Or should it rather be thought or deduced that Mersenne primes could be known in advance?

Forget any sieving, or even LLR, if you will, but it could be possibly shown that prime numbers could be actually found, when adhering to both a principle, and also method which could be used.

Here the bit of anger, if not any left-over either, in that it could still be the flip around, and next the prime number also showing up as well.

Make it still rather sieving, and next also much the same.

Here blame king Alcohol for such a thing (namely square root).

Which factors at the other end, I may ask.

Or perhaps leave it off for that above, only because I rather could have the beer or two.

Either it could slip, and next be forgotten, or it could rather be saved, for that of possibly being proud (or at least a sense of it).

P55 = 8615131641044193804275380855557366159850734323349695999

Again, good example here, and next also many such in the crowd, but getting tired right now.

Next as usual for that of the "remainder", or perhaps flip around here.

Here both editing myself and also try to be polite, because, here I could be still "suckers" for that of a lost fan, if not any devoted or perhaps talented either.

For this, perhaps still no, while I could rather be saying "Hay".

Again, that silly or stupid word (suckers), but here again for that of simplicity (meaning suckers).


Silly me, but could it be shown that it perhaps does not make such or any such difference all in all, or perhaps altogether, in that we could perhaps make it a big piece as well, without thinking about possible consequences.

C186 = 10674527296261914093378535741445498623666595548934350282129148875202269828

Three lines, or perhaps two only needed, for that of some two factors?

Come on, it is not supposed to work.

Ha, hah, but next forget it, at least this time.

Yes, I know, time for a new one here.

Or maybe something like this,

ans = 8615131641044193804275380855557366159850734323349695999

>> ans*12415765527282907142645442571333163956992118765826496440008640434915391689

ans = 10696345444188072199471141432485583343839042991603547929482796958775894750

Again, blame king Alcohol for that above, because here needs checking, but next also the possible excuse for at least making it a couple of composite numbers for that yet or still to come, or perhaps remaining.

And also that of the possible flip around here as well, which could possibly be needed.

Yes, funny feeling perhaps, but at least needs checking here, and I have not done this yet.

But again, still the possible remainder, which could be the leftover, or traceback.

Here it locks in my mind, but should be that of flip around yet again.

Here I was in the kitchen again, and the bottle of beer chose to fall to the ground, leaving me with a soar toe.

Dang it, but here I perhaps could not resist, but rather think it could be perhaps the more correct, or better thing to do.

Suggestions welcome.

Oops, looking for it (or perhaps the error being made, or in the past.

Again, appreciate the generosity, but so for my coffeee as well, and next you never know.

Getting back at it.

Again, nice, or so friendly, and next thanks as well.

Hardly could be made when leaving in the middle of the day for such a thing,

Because of that, always that of numbers and next also numbers as usual as well.

I guess, or presumably nuff said, if not any dang or dangit either, for that of such a thing.

So, or perhaps hmm, what is the difference between any bronze, silver and gold, for that of a competitition, including that of a possible pedestal?

You know, that of a bit of crank for that of a possible feeling, when it rather should be "nuts" and I could also or next be the "suprembe being", if not any idiot,
for such a thing either.

Yes, pretending, and next also for that of a stupid idiot as well.

Not my first day here either, and except for possible BOINC moderation, or the like (perhaps not of your like), I changed my mind and it next should go wherever you wish.

First of all, being insane is not necessarily what you coild wish for, including the Chinaman, and his possible "beliefs".

Next that of sentiment, and pardon me (again, for this word, or naming).

If you did not know, or pardon me for the same, I was just banished (for a couple of hours), for that, or perhaps which thing, I could have to say,

For this we could know about not only the salmon itself, but next also "Jack in the box", or the similar, for what we are supposed or could be saying.

Say "ah" when at the dentist, but next still "Nobody's fool" when it comes to that of Extarerrestial intelligence,

Except for that, question my mind and also personal intelligence, if not any intellect, but I also happened to mention at Seti@home, that I could be an astronomer of sorts,
and next also working from home.

So, what is supposed to be the main point of the discussion, except for perhaps the cold front?

One thing is perhaps sluggish, the next could be the cold front for that possibly beyound.

I personally made it "Nuff sad" at Seti@home and next they took my for my word.

Dingaling (a little or perhaps a bit, but what about a possible "Method of Proof" for at least that of numbers being concerned?

Get lost, and not on the agenda at all, at least this time, because numbers could still be "poor mans science".

Next you could perhaps say farrwell, or even "fuck off", but next not my style or fashion either.

Hmm. any roundabouts for that of at least guessing (if not any sieving).

Or shiould it rather be a hostile envrironment here, because I could not make any difference between that of possible results and that of similar "gains" if any.

Killing of thwe "K" in the buffer for "Reason for Editing", next it becomes that of sleeze versus possible neeze.

Again, a bad one here, in that it should rather be grebuloner, for that of a possible "squeeze", and next I got banished there as well.

So it goes and next also could pretend.

Keying in "Number analysus" using the Wikipedia, and it does not take that one, at least not directly.

If perhaps still only Number analysis, or so, for such a thing, next perhaps go as well, if not any "doh" either.

Here kick my ass, or perhaps arse, as usual, in that i could get nothing, and next nothing of there, for that ot possible results.

Say you, say me, eceprt for not any foolproof either and I also could interpret it to be so.



Trying again (for starters).

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2018-02-21 at 06:50
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-03-18, 21:19   #65
Feb 2013

22·7·17 Posts

I had the big computer crash again.

Flrst of all. perhaps "nuts", except not any spammers either.

Here the flip around for that of RSA-2048. and next also a red star as well, meaning that the factor, or perhaps number itself, became added.

Or perhaps it could rather be a hacker of sorts, or even the U.S. military sitting around with all the answers?

For now still only a C394 here, but also that I know why it does not readily become more to it than this.

Like the chicken, or perhaps siblings of the national hawk of the United States, also that they could "prick" the feather of their mothers, for that of providing food to their nest.

Next perhaps not a good idea from underside, or even the belt, so better stand at the top for this.

The buffer window for that of editing became a bit small, but rather that I should click the refresh button here, after posting.

If stiill working, I could leave the C394 running when leaving for the night, but you never know what happens when you get back at it in the morning.

Except for both simplicity and also simplicism for that of an algorithm which could make for a big find, of course.

Here I guess, if not presume, that only subtracting 1 from the given number should perhaps be enough, but except for that, you never know.

Getting back at it when things are in a more correct order.

Returning back to the session after the break, and finding that the computer once again had rebooted, and left alone.

Because of that, no factorization this time either, but using the above for that of getting at it in a simple way.

But also that here again only one possibility among many others for that of the final result.

PRP99 = 378783130819896053017473880048208838546614049125583711849211818446989611353705429822579317797421489

Total factoring time = 2936.5980 seconds

Not too difficult here, but should be a P158 at the other end.

I had the big computer crash again.

Flrst of all. perhaps "nuts", except not any spammers either.

Here the flip around for that of RSA-2048. and next also a red star as well, meaning that the factor, or perhaps number itself, became added.

Or perhaps it could rather be a hacker of sorts, or even the U.S. military sitting around with all the answers?

For now still only a C394 here, but also that I know why it does not readily become more to it than this.

Like the chicken, or perhaps siblings of the national hawk of the United States, also that they could "prick" the feather of their mothers, for that of providing food to their nest.

Next perhaps not a good idea from underside, or even the belt, so better stand at the top for this.

The buffer window for that of editing became a bit small, but rather that I should click the refresh button here, after posting.

If stiill working, I could leave the C394 running when leaving for the night, but you never know what happens when you get back at it in the morning.

Except for both simplicity and also simplicism for that of an algorithm which could make for a big find, of course.

Here I guess, if not presume, that only subtracting 1 from the given number should perhaps be enough, but except for that, you never know.

Getting back at it when things are in a more correct order.

Returning back to the session after the break, and finding that the computer once again had rebooted, and left alone.

Because of that, no factorization this time either, but using the above for that of getting at it in a simple way.

But also that here again only one possibility among many others for that of the final result.

Edit: Problems at logging in, because of Norton Identity Safe, and therefore a double post, or perhaps record.

Needs a cleanup here, and getting back at it.

I want to edit a little up and next getting at the bottom of the web page itself, when pressing the Edit button.

Needs a fix here, because as already mentioned, no need to add two P99 factors only because they either match, or rather could be different,
and next not part of the result as a whole.

PRP99 = 378783130819896053017473880048208838546614049125583711849211818446989611353705429822579317797421489

Total factoring time = 2936.5980 seconds

Not too difficult here, but should be a P158 at the other end.

Edit: Or perhaps rather two lines here in the result output, for next making it a P from that of a PRP.

Next give me a laugh, if it should be about one single P99 versus another similar one, because as probably know, it should not be working any better.

Here both factor P62 = 93461639715357977769163558199606896584051237541638188580280321
and at least P99 = 741640062627530801524787141901937474059940781097519023905821316144415759504705008092818711693940737
could be worth consideration, or perhaps interest.

Could make an entry for the flip around for the two P99 factors here, and adding the link in a short while.

Something like this.

Adding the factors for the second link, you probably know what to say, because it could be unfair.

Try it yourself, again for starters, because having a bit of fun with this.

Here another example why it is not always working, because it probably will not do anymore in the first one.

Next it becomes this, and I am wondering a bit of still making it a sequential chain of numbers, or whether it should be still thought of as a tree structure,
or perhaps hierarchical branch.

Still RSA-155 as the slingshot here, and except for going down the drain at PrimeGrid, one thing is that of an angle of approach,
except for both 0, 45 and 90 degrees, in that it could be both the Euler-Mascheroni constant, Golden angle, and perhaps one or two other similar methods as well.

Checking in with my posting there, also adding Integral calculus as well, and also that of Heuristics as well.

Only suggestions here, except for perhaps also known stuff, but for that above make it still larger numbers as well, and that a given transform should not be the same as any sieving
when it comes to breaking a number apart.

One thing could still be that of Number Theory itself, but I do not see any reason for making it any Probability either, when it rather could be about a function.

If M45x, or perhaps larger, became the hidden, or perhaps forgotten prime, because of a lack of sieving, trust the algorithm here for such, in that we know the limitations of sieving,
for what the rest is perhaps meant to be.

The P40 and P41 factors above makes for a C81 combined, and as usual it could be at least a factor when doing it "the other way".

If perhaps not any better, is it because it could be 3/2 for such a thing, or maybe even 2/3, because this also could mean a function, as well as a numerical relationship between numbers?

Or perhaps ratio instead, because it also became the Golden Ratio here as well, because here perhaps not any comparison either, for making it "comparativeness".

Needs a fix on that above, because here Internet Explorer is not with me.

Please have me excused.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2018-04-13 at 11:20
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-03-25, 22:19   #66
Feb 2013

22×7×17 Posts

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.

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.

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.

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
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 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

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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