20140617, 14:14  #45 
Feb 2010
Sweden
173 Posts 
What is considered to be a definitive proof for a number being prime? What is the golden standard (beyond TF)?

20140617, 14:26  #46  
Nov 2008
3·13^{2} Posts 
Quote:
Please, no more misleading claims, you just make yourself look, well.... It's very simple to make untestable claims, like this for instance I claim that M849153401 has a factor somewhere between 200 & 300 bits. Want to prove me wrong then to verify whether it does or doesn't you'll only need 485,895,372,555,841,087,175,428,001,228,835,474,093,331,694,585,558,681,189,783,437,312,000 ghz days. In other words my claim is safe for billions of times the known life of the universe. See, making ridiculous claims is easy, and that's only a 300 bit test never mind 173 thousand digits. and to give you a head start I've TF'ed it to 67 bits.... Last fiddled with by Gordon on 20140617 at 14:31 

20140617, 14:37  #47 
Undefined
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair
2·3·1,093 Posts 
I don't agree that claiming a PRP as a complete factorisation is a ridiculous claim. Actually the confidence level for PRPs is extremely high. Indeed it is not definitive proof, but saying it is ridiculous is not right either.

20140617, 15:10  #48  
"William"
May 2003
New Haven
4504_{8} Posts 
Quote:
I'll lay out my logic is excruciating detail. I'm thinking we our disagreement is in step 3 or 4. ====== 1. We have a factorization. (We agree)2. We don't know if it is a factorization into primes (We agree)3. If it IS a factorization into primes, then the number is completely factored. Your definition of completely factored 4. You have asserted that is NOT completely factoredA possible source of disagreement is whether or not a factorization into primes that is not proven to be a factorization into primes is a complete factorization. My understanding that is IS a complete factorization, but it is not KNOWN to be a complete factorization Your post, quoted by me 5. Because of #3, your assertion in #4 is equivalent to asserting the known factorization is NOT a factorization into primes.This is also a possible point of disagreement. You may think that that you have merely failed to assert the factorization is complete. I think you have made the much stonger assertion that the factorization in known to be incomplete. Here is where the disagreement gets visible But it makes no sense for the disagreement to be in this step  it's a simple consequence of 3 and 4. So I'm thinking the disagreement must have been in 3 or 4. 

20140617, 15:48  #49 
"Daniel Jackson"
May 2011
14285714285714285714
2C4_{16} Posts 
With the possibility of quantum computers coming in the near future, Gordon's claim probably won't be safe for very long. Also the large PRP you're talking about may be proven in our lifetimes (I hope so).

20140617, 16:03  #50 
Nov 2008
507_{10} Posts 
Neither is the OP's claim of completely factored ....

20140617, 16:06  #51 
Nov 2008
3·13^{2} Posts 

20140617, 16:26  #52  
Nov 2008
3·13^{2} Posts 
Quote:
RSA says a 2048 bit number is 617 decimal digits The OP's PRP has 173,528 digits, or 281x as many Think it will be a while afore we get 575,000 bit QC's2. I think the chances of factorising a 575,000 bit number in the next  insert any ludicrously large number you like here  years, centuries or aeons are zero. 3. The current world record for quantum factorisation is 143 

20140617, 16:36  #53 
Aug 2002
Buenos Aires, Argentina
10110101110_{2} Posts 
According to http://primes.utm.edu/top20/page.php?id=27 , the largest prime verified by ECPP has 26643 digits, so except if you plan to die in the next 510 years, you will be able to check whether the 173528digit number is prime or not in your lifetime.
In the other hand, verifying Gordon's claim is far more difficult. 
20140617, 16:49  #54  
Account Deleted
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA
2×3×23×31 Posts 
Quote:
log_2(1800) * (18 months) = 5921 days = 16.2 years April 3, 2011 + 5921 days = June 2027, so 13 years away. Lots of inaccuracies here, obviously. Still, 510 years sound overly optimistic to me, especially when you consider that there's not much mathematical need to prove Mersenne cofactors (only 1 of the top 20 current ECPP proofs is for a Mersenne cofactor). If there's some interest in it, 1320 years sounds more reasonable to me. 25+ if there's little interest in proving cofactors like this. Last fiddled with by MiniGeek on 20140617 at 16:56 

20140617, 16:55  #55 
Aug 2002
Buenos Aires, Argentina
10110101110_{2} Posts 
Well, I was not very far from your timing. Now, you can estimate when we will be able to prove Gordon's claim, so we will need to perform TF until 2^300, as it is possible that there are no factors in the 200 bit to 300 bit range.
It is clear that it will not be in our lifetimes, except if there were some "revolution" in factoring algorithms. PS: In that range, ECM would be used, but at this moment it is not possible to find 300bit prime factors using that algorithm, and it would be worse still when you are trying to factor a number with several hundred million digits. And using this algorithm we are not sure that a number below 300 bits is skipped. Last fiddled with by alpertron on 20140617 at 17:08 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Smallest exponent for mersenne notfactored  preda  PrimeNet  10  20181104 00:47 
Largest Mersenne Number Fully Factored?  c10ck3r  Data  49  20171210 19:39 
Possibility of a FullyFactored Number  Trejack  FactorDB  7  20160514 05:38 
Estimating the number of primes in a partiallyfactored number  CRGreathouse  Probability & Probabilistic Number Theory  15  20140813 18:46 
Number of distinct prime factors of a Double Mersenne number  aketilander  Operazione Doppi Mersennes  1  20121109 21:16 