Phone Book Numbers from 103,374,001 to 103,374,989 that could be worth big bucks - Page 6

Uncwilly · 2021-01-12, 18:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuckerkao

2 people tried to factor this exponent, both got no factors as the results, further proved I was correct.

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

VBCurtis · 2021-01-12, 19:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

If you think that no factor found with 50 bits of factoring and a little bit of P-1 makes your number more likely to be prime, then you are delusional.

Wait- isn't that belief exactly correct? If 50% of inputs have factors from that work, and his candidate is in the 50% that doesn't, then it's roughly twice as likely to be prime as a randomly chosen number of that size with no trial-factoring work done? More simply, each additional bit of trial factoring done increases the chance the candidate is prime?

What is my delusion here?

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

firejuggler · 2021-01-12, 20:07

well until you get to the TF square root, then it is 100% sure that it is prime.

tuckerkao · 2021-01-12, 20:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by VBCurtis

What is my delusion here?

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

Uncwilly · 2021-01-12, 21:25

VBCurtis · 2021-01-12, 22:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuckerkao

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

Resulted in no factors- checked how far? To what bit depth did you trial factor?
Also, so what? Seems the second half of my post sailed right over your head. Trial factoring is a nice way to filter out obviously composite numbers. Survivors of TF at this size are still at least a 2-million-to-one shot against being prime. When you claim that TF finding no factors is something that helps your claims, you are demonstrating that you don't understand what trial factoring does.

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

tuckerkao · 2021-01-13, 12:44

NF-PM1 for M103,674,163 as what I expected since yesterday, coin flips shouldn't be so predictable, thus PRP for M103,674,163 should have a composite residue although I haven't tested it yet.
https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...exp_hi=&full=1

LaurV · 2021-01-14, 02:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuckerkao

although I haven't tested it yet.

Well, man, hat off,

, despite out argument, I have to stay by your side in this one. At least you were/are doing some work to test your own predictions, albeit the predictions themselves are aberrant. So, I like your optimism, keep on testing!

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

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

tuckerkao · 2021-01-14, 22:21

My very first LL test was of M103,374,163 which is part of the prime trio with M103,374,113 and M103,374,133

M103,377,103 and M103,377,143 and M103,377,193 is a prime trio.
https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...3377193&full=1

After I finished the PRP tests of M103,377,103 and M103,377,143 with the composite residues, Kriesel still suggested me to run P-1 factoring on these exponents.

I ran the P-1 factoring on another look-alike prime trio(M103,737,103 and M103,737,143 and M103,737,173), all 3 returned NF-PM1 as what I've expected.
https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...3737173&full=1

Uncwilly · 2021-01-14, 22:40

For each of those 3, the P-1 testing (with the settings you used and prior TF) should have factor about 4.6-4.7% of the time. Which means that for any 3 similar numbers in that rough range that are tested the same way, about 14% of the time you might find a factor (less actually, but that is a side point). So, this being 1 of the 86% of the time that no factor was found really does not mean much. You are delusional.

LaurV · 2021-01-15, 02:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

You are delusional.

He's an optimist, let him live

When I joined GIMPS 20 years ago I was also dreaming of finding a prime every month.

2021-01-14, 22:21	#64
tuckerkao Jan 2020 13² Posts	My very first LL test was of M103,374,163 which is part of the prime trio with M103,374,113 and M103,374,133 M103,377,103 and M103,377,143 and M103,377,193 is a prime trio. https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...3377193&full=1 After I finished the PRP tests of M103,377,103 and M103,377,143 with the composite residues, Kriesel still suggested me to run P-1 factoring on these exponents. I ran the P-1 factoring on another look-alike prime trio(M103,737,103 and M103,737,143 and M103,737,173), all 3 returned NF-PM1 as what I've expected. https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...3737173&full=1 Last fiddled with by tuckerkao on 2021-01-14 at 22:27

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Prime Numbers Book	paulunderwood	Miscellaneous Math	18	2020-10-18 00:35
Cell Phone AstroPhotography	Spherical Cow	Astronomy	59	2019-01-21 22:47
IRS Phone Scam	wblipp	Lounge	0	2014-09-09 18:42
Masking a PIN over a phone call.	Flatlander	Puzzles	35	2013-10-31 10:34
Best Prime95 bang for my bucks?	joblack	Hardware	21	2012-04-01 00:40

2021-01-12, 20:07	#58
firejuggler Apr 2010 Over the rainbow 3²×281 Posts	well until you get to the TF square root, then it is 100% sure that it is prime.

2021-01-12, 21:25	#60
Uncwilly 6809 > 6502 """"""""""""""""""" Aug 2003 101×103 Posts 2³·7·167 Posts

2021-01-13, 12:44	#62
tuckerkao Jan 2020 13² Posts	NF-PM1 for M103,674,163 as what I expected since yesterday, coin flips shouldn't be so predictable, thus PRP for M103,674,163 should have a composite residue although I haven't tested it yet. https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...exp_hi=&full=1

2021-01-14, 22:40	#65
Uncwilly 6809 > 6502 """"""""""""""""""" Aug 2003 101×103 Posts 2³×7×167 Posts	For each of those 3, the P-1 testing (with the settings you used and prior TF) should have factor about 4.6-4.7% of the time. Which means that for any 3 similar numbers in that rough range that are tested the same way, about 14% of the time you might find a factor (less actually, but that is a side point). So, this being 1 of the 86% of the time that no factor was found really does not mean much. You are delusional.