mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Blogorrhea > storflyt32

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2019-11-08, 04:35   #100
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

1110000012 Posts
Default

Just a short one right now, because of sitting in the chair.

P40 = 1737947898987389566652004732099910723831

Ended up with the smaller ones, for just reporting, but also in my notes for preceding a P165, and should therefore be first, except for the possible timestamp for that.

Maybe just standing out a little here, except that doing the ecm() thing for just the smaller ones here, for also factors, is not perhaps that easy either.

Therefore perhaps a little better one here, only for that of such a thing.

I could try dividing from the "magic number" directly, for only such an instance, but it should end up just composite at first,
only because of their size, for also relative unevenness.

If two numbers for some reason should not like each other, the answer should be in the remaining part, for only just being found,
and here it could again be that of equal size, for only just hard at doing.

Needs an edit for perhaps the same words, but if just composite numbers versus primes, should be that of "respective" as well,
perhaps not any respect with either, but rather that it should be in a context for just making it a single whole.

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001390528133

But here also just short of 7 AM in the morning, local time.

But does the mentioned P40 add to it, or rather subtract instead, when perhaps forgetting the small factors here?

One thing is looking blind, for only just wrong, but what next happens here, when it could be flashing for just a moment, and next forgetting it all?

Really, I tend to make it the P40 the "invisible man" here, only for just being added, except still on the other side, for just being cloaked or hidden, for also invisible.

Really, "silent night could have been with me all the time, for only that of verses, except not making it any dreadful night either.

The same could also be said for just lost in tabs, because here this happened as well.

I keyed in a P27 for that of a hostile environment of sorts, at least for you, and the rest becomes still only composite.

Doing it twice, for only different numbers, or pairs of such, and it ended up a P111 at the other end.


You also could do it by means of a number starting with 1291... and for that, a C155, I think, which also should be a RSA-512, undocumented.

Next, perhaps a C95, or maybe C97, and multiply it together, for still only composite numbers, except for not tried out right now, even at home.

But if next a product, how does it fare, or perhaps compare, with for example RSA-2048?


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001364192184

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001387799516


Note: Do not try out the C155, it is just a little too hard. Here you do have a very strong or robust pair, when next combined.

Becomes a C249 here for that of a pair, and should more easily divide on the other side, for just only a flip-over.

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001390535887

Not updating with the product here, on the other side, except perhaps a blank line here.

If our search, call it by means of name, if you wish or want it, could be for just interest, except not any scientific one, make it perhaps a
blueprint here for such a thing, except not any static electricity either.

Oki-doki, so here I am trying to understand nature, for only just the blue color, except not making any fool of myself either.

Just "gimme", perhaps one did say, except for the Scientific Method either, which could help solve problems, and also make order out of chaos.

But if any such thing as "convince" for still orders sake, how could you next make it just "Law and Order" for such a thing,
when it perhaps could also apply, for only that of given rules?

Just part of, if still not any cry for also sigh, perhaps rather ugh, because just infinity could be a concept.

I just do my things for also could do as well, except not making it any insanity for just a nature past or beyound any understanding.

Therefore, so it goes, at least when it goes with me, for perhaps being so, except not perhaps being in sync,
for also context, when it perhaps comes to a general understanding of a couple of things, only because of knowledge.

Here I read a script the other day, for just making it a sanctuary, except still not any Religious either.

So except for a translation, or maybe deviation, it became something slightly else, for only that of similar words,
and still I could be crossing my fingers, for only the cold start of yet another day.

The funny thing is that adding, could still be that of including, and also such a thing at PrimeGrid, for only making it Sets.

Here I found it just time to only compare, if not any right either, and for that, using comparison buttons, for rather operands,
when it could still be just Arithmetic.

Maybe just right versus wrong instead, and what am I saying here?

Therefore, just give me a smile instead, except not making it any versus either, when it could be still the opposite, for just operands.

Is 2 less than 3, ("<", or 2<3) or should it rather be greater?

But next, is there any Logic here, for that of any answer, or could you still only be guessing?

What if push became the opposite of pop, for only a stack, except making it a procedure, or function, when still perhaps not any result?

Is the answer just Logic, or could it still be only Arithmetic, for just keeping it simple?

In some cases, for also respect, you could be talking about the trial and error Method, for just making it so,
except for still not any simple either.

What if perhaps such a word as "absurd", could be replaced with that of "preposterous", for only being the same,
or perhaps the same meaning?

Here in fact a female voice spelling the word for me, when still just on the laptop.

I guess it could be still little or less for that of meaning, except for perhaps not any more either, but here still wearing the
cross on my shoulders, for perhaps rather being mad or insane.

Here at least knowing that the Americans could make it a Thanksgiving, except not any feast for just a party either.

Edit: I edited a bit up (and not down, and came just to thinking).

OK, so just courtship, for also friends, and maybe the blah, blah, just for stuff,
perhaps that thing, for just commending you, once again, for being polite, at least with me.

Is a personal view also an opinion, or could it still be what science could be telling, only because of Facts?

Here maybe just biased for that of "self", except or if not any product for that of science, when rather things being accomplished instead.

Just make it nature once more, for also the same, and it could be still repeating patterns, for also occurrrence,
except not any thing I could choose to say.

Here the word "stamina" comes to me, for also steadiness, or -fast, but here perhaps reminded about another dash,
except for perhaps not telling me any more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination

Dangit, for just having fun, but at least an idea.

Perhaps I could update with this, before next continuing.

I was thinking here of perhaps making it a link for that above, so getting back at it during the day.

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001391349696

Ended up from a C119 here at first, and also where it finished up, for still not continuing here a little.

Total factoring time = 145973.5663 seconds

Still only the laptop here, for just sitting in the chair, but perhaps not too bad either.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2019-11-11 at 02:32
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-11-11, 03:01   #101
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

7018 Posts
Default

God forbid, and this question could also be with me.

Namely that here at Mersenneforum.org, we could be in for finding the biggest or largest prime number, where I unfortunately am not able to contribute directly.

But next that any "laughable science" should not be about making it 999... for just a number, only because it could be divisible by 3.

Still perhaps laughable, and I need pick it up again, but it became something that of not laughing at any Proof, when perhaps or possibly present.

Just pick up by chance, and next also make it a chance, except for also any number you could also choose, and here getting back at that.

Maybe just dedication instead, for only being used to it, and it still could be the numbers you could choose, for also select.

I think I made it that of "bias" somewhere else, for perhaps just thinking, except not making it any opposite either, for just only a laugh.

Here that of hero on just one side, for also a villain on the opposite, and for that also a comparison.

Perhaps just bias could be that of view, for just an opinion, when also having such one, except for still not any view for science, when it could rather be those things wished for.

For one thing, just Proof, could be that of scientific proof for such, except also making it "Poor Man's science" as well, for only the numbers we could crunch.

Should tell, that when at times returning back at colors, for only that of a spectrum, perhaps not any grey or white, for just black either, when it could be complementary for such.

Is bias perhaps that of different opinions, for just having so, and could you next voice your opinion, by means of your voice?

Shame on me, if perhaps not you either, because it could be still spelling for just words, except not making it such a thing for any weather, which could rather be more complex.

Could you make it just a hanging tree that of "syllables", for next also spoken words, or should you rather interpret just numbers being part of science, for that of Number theory?

In fact, this is what I am getting at here right now, after some 15 years or more on the web, namely that spoken language could be still one thing, for also Number theory just the other.

If perhaps so, it could perhaps be both silly and stupid, making it both iterative and recursive, when still that of structures being dealt with, except for still those numbers we could have to "prove", only because it could be Number theory.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2019-11-11 at 03:04
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-11-16, 01:22   #102
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

449 Posts
Default

Not any God past or with me here, for just sitting on the floor.

Just statistics, for a couple of nerds, perhaps.

Keying in 3320... using my laptop computer, and it is having P41 and P61 factors, probably (still) not reported.

Also a P17 in between, for only adding a little to it.

Keying in separately, for only the next day, it becomes the small ones just before, when also both these two.

Here perhaps not any rhyme either, but if using the calculator, make it to DEG, RAD, GRAD, for that of trigonometry, and next RAD, for that of Radians.

Start keying in 0.740, and next click cos repeatedly, for that of a function, and it ends up with 0.739 and something, for that of a constant.

Next, add to it, for perhaps multiply, and here 10 at a time, for making it a whole digit number.

Using only a laptop, it becomes a C102, which I do not have on my main one, but next flipping around, and it becomes at least some way, for that of the other.

For that, unfinished business, but only noticing that reporting these two factors separately, does not make for a factorization of the C102.

So, for that of a sour note, please tell me if any 999... is still only composite, for that of a number, except not any "make or break" either.

If not so, does it perhaps divide, making for perhaps "142857..." of sorts, for that of a rep-digit number, possibly being prime?

Here 10/7, for example, and thinking this should be such a thing, but if next looping in any circles, for only repeating itself, perhaps not any prime number either, for only a thing you perhaps could "derive",
or only come up with.

14285714285714285714285714285714‬ (...)

Ding, ding, ding (ding) - ditto.

It still should make it at least 2, for that of a factor, except not knowing, for that of the rest.

Checking here for only doing it better, because making it for only that of constants, could also make it better,

Before I go for the night, making it the bed, just checking in here, and leaving some three tasks running, for at least tomorrow.

As usual, appreciating your gentleness, for also hospitality, when only commenting on a couple of things.

Any such thing as for or against, should perhaps not be against any will either, but here making it only the Magic number,
for the thing we perhaps only could be guessing.

Being part of PrimeGrid, for only just a member, still perhaps joined, except not making it any paragraph either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph

Usually not making any links here, but could be trying this time.

If you happen to read around, you also could be making it a context that of a statement, for only paraphrasing a little, except not any numbers either.

Anyway, I made it PPS Sieve Jade, for only just running blind, when perhaps not making any sense of it, when still only numbers.

There could be some people around, just thinking that Probability theory could be the "answer", except not telling anything for much either.

But maybe rather just sieving instead, except for not feeling any proud here either, for only what I could accomplish.

It should be succssive here, for also respective, when still that of a result, which could be only just obtained, for also accomplished,
and here with the other projects, I also made it that of Rate, when also that of success.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate

Here guessing that possible Productivity could still mean that of gain, except not any success for that of a rate, when also a possible story.

Anyway, even just here, and it could be that of price elasticity, for that of a curve, except not making it any elliptical either.

Rather just part of Economics here, for still an important subject, except not making it any ability for just produce, when it rather should be consume.

Make it just composite, for only a stupid idiot (never mind), and perhaps still only Number theory, except the other thing which at least you could be able to deduce.

Just "wack", and the stock could be tumbling up, for also down, when only an irregular pattern for such, for also not any meaning.

Here, any regularity should be substituted, or replaced, with that of irregularity, only because no specific pattern could be present, or found.

Is it that of such, that any Predictability could be founded on such a thing as just unpredictable, for only that of nature, except not making it any irregular either?

Maybe the answer for a couple of things, could be the sum of each respective factor, except not knowing what each factor could mean, for only its own meaning.

Just on the spot, I could be making it "inheritance" here, except perhaps not any Charles Darwin either, for only his theories.

Similarly, I could be making it just "quantum rebate" here, for only a discount, when it perhaps should still be a rebate.

So, thought of, maybe, or perhaps, and it could still be only just inclined, except not making it any approximation either, still for that of science.

Just little, less, or at least, and what is perhaps my credit here for this project, except for not giving any answer, when rather making such a thing?

You know, but at Seti@home, we could be making it a credibility issue, for only that of an ability to just prove, and for that, still only science.

For that, no such thing as "doing me a favor" either, only because it could be favorable.

Why is it so, that perhaps making it Number theory instead, and it could be that of knowing, for just only numbers?

Do you next take it for granted, or should it rather be so, for only its own, simple thing?

Or, should you rather make it that of provable science instead, for still that of numbers, when perhaps not any "laughable" either, just for science?

Just reflect upon a couple of things, and perhaps rather a mirror instead, except not making it any Number theory for only a couple of things you could
be asking, for also answering, when perhaps needed, for also possible.

Here thinking that a database inquiry, for rather a query, should be a general one, for not any specific either, but at least an answer back in return.

For that, also Normalization, for just to the point, except not any subtle, or quibbling either.

Again, thanks for your hospitality, for only being generous with me.

Next, where is my Edit button, for only a previous message, for obviously getting it wrong?

Here I could be attached to Seti@home, for also PrimeGrid, making it that of a result, when it also should be an answer.

Next, getting it wrong, and perhaps not any answer either, but rather "Hayhoh" instead, for only just failure, or maybe error.

Here making it that of successive rates, when perhaps not any previous either, when still that of PrimeGrid.

So, next should also be that of follow, except not any delay either, for just waiting.

Just standing in a queue, and it could perhaps be still waiting, except not any science you could be making it either.

Here that of postpone, for also a postponement, and still that of PrimeGrid here, except not any grid, of course.

Only just a loopback, and it could be a thing across a shoulder, except not making it any time or space either, for only just another place.

Rather just factors upon factors, for just adding, when also that of enumeration, except for still no such thing as any contribute or contributing either.

Maybe just shoelaces instead, for that of a lack of, when also inability as well, for just doing a couple of things.

We think it could be that of inclusion at times, for only just an add-on, except not making it any exclusion that of a mechanism, which also could be a throw-away.

Maybe just garbage collect here, except not any sample either, except for perhaps still only just a meaning.

Is it perhaps that of fulfil, for also fulfillment, when still that of a stamp, or should I rather subtract, for making it something else?

If you could make it to PrimeGrid, also that of success versus failure, for only that of a discussion, except not making it any rate or rates either.

Rather put it on the shelf instead, for only just resting, except not making it any Probability just an issue either, when it perhaps could be the answer.

Anyway, Normalization could still be an issue for only database handling, or management, except not any "quibbling" either.

For that, also it becomes the best, when only just thinking, except not resting on any laurels either, for that of a late night show.

Continuing later, if necessary, and here also looking for a split, when perhaps only contents.

Getting back at it.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2019-11-22 at 05:14
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-11-28, 02:45   #103
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

449 Posts
Default

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001403833865

Ok, I am drunk (just beer), so please have me excused.

What is lowest, or "next lowest" meant, for only being a category, for that of such (rank)?

Is just 2, or maybe 3, that of a factor, only because you could sieve, or rather that you should be making the larger number, also the better one?

Needs checking, but it becomes that of a C180, for a P41 for its factor, next running a "loong time", for only becoming so.

Could I next add the same P41, for only making it simpler, or for that of simplicity, or should it rather be a different thing?

If perhaps so, it also could end up become a "lower context" as well, only because it could be meaning less.

I will add the link here for the C180, when I get at it.

It also reminds me of the gcd() function here, for that of the same, but again more that of taking a long time here.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001399298732

Again, not for free, but here where it ended up first, for that of result.

http://www.prothsearch.com/GFN06.html

And no, not one of my particular favorites here either, except for the +1, when only having to translate a little.

Is it not a fact that just 2, for also 3, could be hidden inside a couple of numbers, except not being any real fact either?

You just "add" a little, for only multiplying, when perhaps knowing the number, when also the factors it could be concerned, for that of being the "next".

Is it that of just adding 2, for also 41, the "next" number when also becoming so, or should it still be rather the prime in between, for only being so?

Maybe just consecutive for that, but next also a sequence as well, when we rather could be asking for primality, when only seeking so.

We do know that maybe 20*10^200 is perhaps not any prime, for only making it 2 a factor, but is rather that of split, for only divide, perhaps better?

Meaning, do we just take a composite number for that of a factor, when it still could be that of primality, for just in between?

Perhaps it becomes the ordereded sequence as well, for only just knowing as well, except for the whole thing still that of prime numbers, for also factors,
when only resolved into such a thing.

P54*P54*P56. and only a loose example on the spot, for only hard to factorize, except not making it any "Number theory" either, for only a couple of things we could resolve.

Ugly, yes. and for that also dirty, except not making it any SGS prime or factor here as well, for only the "dirty" thing we could perhaps could speak of, and next also resolve.

So, what are computers for, and namely for that of numbers, when only asking, except not any dirty business either.

Here at at competing project, I made it that of "respect" with another, for also with, when it perhaps should be a different thing.

This project is supposed to follow a "blind" formula for that of its meaning, when also possible success, except not any new right now.

Rather it becomes a little less right now, because we perhaps know.

It really reminds me about that of a "trick" here, when it rather should be "Hocus-pocus", but next question me for that of science, and what could be the answer?

The composite product of each known Mersenne prime, for also factor, should be well known, but what next about a possible successor?

Maybe you could be making it a lieutenant here, for also a general, when also possible history, except not any stupidity either, when it could be killing a cat.

Stuck, for only a meaning, and perhaps also so, for only a result, when not being able to getting any further, for possible results being accomplished,
when it should be that of success, for stilll those numbers.

What more perhaps should be said, for also being told?

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2019-11-28 at 03:40
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-12-03, 18:12   #104
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

449 Posts
Default

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001407249736

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001407246789

Here in that order, for only being reported first, except not the other way, and sorry about that.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001403833865

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001399298732

This perhaps only a loose factor, for the first one, except trying out with ecm, using 2^22 curves, and still not finished.

Only for that of the above, for taking quite some time, as previously mentioned, because not too bad when all just combined.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001390536309

. . .
ecm: 904/904 curves on C249, B1=1M, B2=gmp-ecm default, ETA: 8 sec
ecm: 2350/2350 curves on C249, B1=3M, B2=gmp-ecm default, ETA: 21 sec
ecm: 4480/4480 curves on C249, B1=11M, B2=gmp-ecm default, ETA: 1.1 min
ecm: 499/7553 curves on C249, B1=43M, B2=gmp-ecm default, ETA: 783.73 hrs
ecm: 4/7053 curves on C201, B1=43M, B2=gmp-ecm default, ETA: 2022.07 hrs
Aborting...
ecm: 5/7053 curves on C201, B1=43M, B2=gmp-ecm default, ETA: 1977.24 hrs

***factors found***

P48 = 456947850714047391901362074672136380806498392337

***co-factor***
C201 = 35325655922020322168447656927872842856736927129194988472619901881326195088291331931447999205313752707213679500217878522464004688076671545773336667832185862552700326
1709795367390783788828110889617185737

And here the factor is apparently already known, but only to show here how long it could take, for also that of effort.

Edit: Just 2*2 here, or did it rather become a pair of factors here, like almost a P47 versus a P48?

Not with me right now, but could be checking later on, for perhaps not any Square Pegs either, when it should be still four versus one.

Is that just a stereotype, for not any balancing either, when also weight for such, or weight-balanced?

Co-joined twins, for also siamese, but I also mentioned this another place, for not being any smooth either.

321 just a task type here for that of LLR, except not making it any 1-2-3, for that of music either, and here Yes.

Any disappointed, and it should not be any appointed for just a position, when perhaps only me, for just knowing.

Just a flipover, and also I could faint, except not make it any science I could just find or get at, for next also contribute.

Perhaps I should remove the above altogether, except still showing the time it actually took here.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2019-12-07 at 03:30
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-12-20, 15:55   #105
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

449 Posts
Default

Should I edit the previous, or should I rather make a new one here?

The one thing being experienced, is that even small factors could kick in quite well for that of the larger numbers, when only properly balanced, for also some size at least.

Here choosing to "divide" the mentioned P48 from the secret number meant for that of privacy, except still that I am not any savvy for being a numbermaniac, and therefore it becomes only more general for such.

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001418344914

Here that above, for only doing this factorization, and adding the P29, while I am unfortunately not able to do any PRP checking right now, for only technical difficulties.

Now I got the large window for that of editing here, and next thanks, for also just gentle people around here as well.

Just bias for that of meaning, at least sometimes, and it could be only project work for only just participating, when also those things needed to be carried out.

Thumbs up, really.


Any "Mission impossible", and perhaps also such a thing as well, for only just luck or Probability, except not any success rate, which could also mean failure as well.

Therefore, any "Magic number" I could make it, and perhaps also impossible as well, except still not any meaning for also purpose as well.

Just 2+2=5, and next 5+2=7, except not any middle sequence, for rather just a number in between, which could be that of intermediate for such.

For that, (7+5)/2, making it 6 of course, for only just 2*3, except still perhaps only just lying a bit.

Could you next rather assume 5 instead, for not any 5.5, or should I rather round off instead, for still making it just 6?

Here not having the details, but if you could make it a C201 for just above, it should not divide either, but still be a factor in some way or another.

Again, not knowing whether I did that, or possibly so, but here needs checking, for only being off right now.

First guess is that just a remainder, could be making it that of subtraction here, except not any difference for rather division instead, and here perhaps trial for such.

Just curiosity, and 1/5.5 makes for 0,18181818181818181818181818181818‬ next, and here a comma visible.

Even some people at Seti@home could make it "geeze" at times, except not any Number theory instead, when we could only be just asking.

If I could make it that of "breakdown" for only just a word, perhaps only tears for such, except not any Project breakdown,
when it could be lack of results.

I know that somewhere around, there could be found an area called "Texas panhandle", for not any promised land either, when at least not manhandled.

Only out of shape, and next out of bounds, except not any Quality assurance I could make it, for still another project.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_assurance

Please tell me if you do not like any linking here, because next I will stop, only for that.

You know, for only just told or mentioned, that I really should like to know the Method we could use for only finding a number,
except my inabilities of doing so right now, for only that of technical difficulties.

In fact, for only just here, that of only aim for such, when also purpose and meaning next for the other, when still Projects for such.

Here just flipping around with the mentioned P48, for that of RSA-2048 at the other end, and next a secret that better could be kept.

But still a P29 showing up here, for only a couple of minutes of factoring, and next being added to the FDB, for only that of result.

Is just "Money for nothing" that of a Myth, or could I rather be questioning any numbers instead, for that of value and worth,
when still only the business of factoring for such?

"In the name of science" and next also no end in sight, for only being just translucent, except not any near-sightedness,
which could be only that of glasses for such, and not any shortage of breath either.

Yes, stuck in the mud, at least sometimes, for only making it 2+2=5 once again, except not any composite number or factor instead,
when only product, or products, for just the same.

Still having the day off here, for only just enjoying the beer.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001418359838

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001418618133

This one is apparently stuck right now, and I am quite experienced, for not the second one either, which apparently was able to resolve.

The first one it really do not like, and not you here either, for only a number a bit of difficulty, and next also such a thing to just get the answer for.


Edit: Is the P29, for also P25, the same for that of in my list, when also reported as well?

Yes, ugly, or ugly me, for only knowing where I am, for only 20 years of experience,

Some could choose to make it only the ugly cat here, for not any dirty, when still that of skill, for also obedience.

Allegiance - next Allegory, hmm.

Make it just Double standards instead, if you will.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard

Next, keep it up,and next lift your shirt, only as usual, except not any tainted for just a meaning.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2019-12-21 at 05:12
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-12-25, 09:30   #106
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

7018 Posts
Default

Maybe a new one again, because any heckle should not be any shirt either,

Like you being nice with me, also that numbers should go with me as well, for only just being there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_conquer

Any Divide and conquer we could make it next, and perhaps still only rule of Law, except not any "pest" we could make it either.

Here perhaps the "juggling" of balls you sometimes could make it, except not any P35 for just a P37, next only a composite either.

Next, only just "troll", or even sigh, for perhaps not any answer you could make it either.

I could get it here, that it sometimes could signify, for just mean, except still not any science for just meaning either.

Only being a tool of war, for also warfare as well, just the torpedo, for perhaps only such.

Any grand, for also -lative you could make it, and next not any explosive either, when perhaps more substantive or superlative instead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The problem here, is for not any calculated risk either, we could make this method perhaps flawed, for only the way it could be used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature

Here is the purpose or meaning I could make it, except still not any shark either.

Only just will and expenditures, and it becomes a payment here as well, for only just cost.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenclature

So, what is a Probabiilty factor, for only just keying in, except not any density I could make it either?

Give me a chance, but next only next prime or nextprime() for such, when it also could be a Mersenne prime for such as well.

Could I be perhaps a little exalted here, for only exaggerated as well, or could we rather be waiting for the next prime, for only the method we could use, except still not any expect either?

Just choose, for only just deliver as well, but here perhaps also the relation you could make as well, for only comparing a couple of numbers, except not any distributing, for just well meaning or care.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symposium

Only just a symposium, for not any well being either, but still I could perhaps care, for only linking a bit at times, when it only should be such, for that of a couple of numbers.

Never mind.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2019-12-25 at 09:32
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-12-29, 06:56   #107
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

44910 Posts
Default

Merry Christmas to all of you as well, for not all I have being reported yet.

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001421635156

So who reported this one except perhaps me, because here I forgot the whole thing, for not in my notes either.

Doing it myself here, but guessing that it will take a while to finish.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001424185357

I reported the P43 separately here, for only a division without a blank separator in my notes on just one single line, and next past the end of the screen.

Sorry about that, for only just a start of the weekend.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001425405057

Any bad conscience perhaps, and this could be only such an example.


Total factoring time = 157630.5188 seconds

I will try having it in before going back to bed again, but like the one above with the P92 at the end, it is not any small for only such here.

Also not any carry on, for just getting it any further, but could be a bit more for just running, but here needs checking.

Again, for only the cut you could make it, except not any slice for just a cake, sometimes it could really divide, for only breaking up.

Trying out that, and it sometimes or at times works for even large numbers, when only doing so.

Just purpose for not any mind, if not any other project either, it could still only just fit, for just divide instead, and for that we could be making it both RSA numbers,
and also Genefer as well, except still not the little "-" either.

Only number types for such, and next it becomes only lost in the crowd, for only the different types you could make it,
when still having to look back, or trace down the path it once became, for only just the larger ones instead.

That just said, and for that also a bit unfriendly, if not any terse, for only stuck in the mud, for not any way left open, and it could end up with just that.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_prime


Checking with the list, and still only 51 such for that, when also that of stuck I could make it, for not getting any further.

Perhaps it could be the end of the road here, except not any afraid of such either, because here still only just the road you could make it.

Sometimes numbers could be liked, for also preferred, except not any disliked for only the way you could make it, and here perhaps not any
qualify versus disqualify either, when only just the one you could like, for also choose.

Here that of 3*43 only for just such a thing, and it becomes only just a thing I could understand, except not any sense or meaning, for just numbers either.

Call it by name, for just not any Sophie doing any dirty tricks either, but rather that we could build on a foundation at times, for only that of a structure.

Only factors at a glance, and still the complexity involved, except also the same for that of finding prime numbers at times, and next only the unknown for such.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2020-01-04 at 08:43
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-01-05, 15:08   #108
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

449 Posts
Default

And here doing something wrong, for not getting the large window coming up, so back here later instead.

But here the large one in fact coming up this time.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001423329692

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001423330198


I gave it a try here, but it became a restart of the computer for only a message that it could take 1000+ hours, so therefore the reason for that.

Breaking it up further by means of the 1291.. number, which is either undocumented, or should be a RSA-512 only for such.


Here some other good news as well, except for having me excused once again, for the wrong project only, because once again sensing that we could be hitting the wall.

One number here is having factors 2. 19, 6599, and P10 = 4740233177, ending with a P427.

The other number is having factors P8 = 41208737, P8 = 50563217, and ending with a PRP691, when flipping around from the (2^4096+1) factorization (the C1133):

So one thing making it here, is that both these numbers should "weigh", for only being considerable for such, and next tempting to make it the larger numbers for this as well.

Here only a couple of minutes old or previous for only this, so here still on my way, but could be having the factors a little later.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000878554626

Keying in that, for only just a number, and guess what, for only having it already, and being just known, except not any sticking notes I still could make it either.

Maybe just a kiss we could make it for only just second half, and here only a secret for such.

And here the wrong link of course, so back in a moment for the correct one.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001428585786

Here taking quite a long time for lying around since yesterday, but here closer to it, for only a P40 just added.


Perhaps having a nap before continuing, because here again carrying some four bags for only the weekend shopping.

One fear here is that I could be doing some unnecessary things, by factoring numbers there already exists known numbers for,
but in such a way that they are really hard to do.

One example here is a C101 versus a C102 respectively, which I left unfinished, for other the third part of it reported.

Here a P44 in the last one, but except that while this is not any megaprime of sorts, they could still break some numbers apart.

But doing so becomes only a task on its own, and here the good sitting needed, for also a pillow as well.

If I could make it the P44 versus a P57, not necessarily that above, but still a quite tight pair that you do such a thing the other way.

Only a C133 being run here, is now on its fifth day of just running, so here guessing it could carry some weight.

A couple of years into this right now, but still surprised how difficult it could be at times when not any result coming back.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001430741540

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001430741668


Here getting at the loose factors for perhaps already known in the first one

P44 = 34355196051274864923057268436829417947650133

P57 = 425437241933372258075918506818688290898055998080213752453

but adding the P13 in the second link, for just complete, and perhaps the C101 should be left to stay.

It is possible here that I may be hitting the wall here right now, if you are not doing the same either, because the other alternative could be just faking,
except perhaps trying out the P187 from the C617.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2020-01-16 at 09:19
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-01-16, 09:18   #109
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

449 Posts
Default

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001433960710

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001433965487


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001433967064

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001433967234


Once again the same thing as before, but knowing it for the third link above, and therefore going for the rest or fourth.

Here it became a pair of P42 and P119 factors for the latter or remaining part, and will update shortly.

Total factoring time = 113635.7728 seconds

So here guessing or sensing that the first pair could still be the more difficult here, for next only comparing, and therefore did not give it a try.

Here any P100 through P150 for not any dividing either, but if not just 2, 3, 5, or 7 either, more like that of a sample picked from the crowd, for only having it eliminated,
being left with only the remaining part of it.

Here only the first cup of coffee at 10 AM, but will continue from the 119 afterwards.

And next forgetting the whole thing, for only the rain and slippery road here, full of ice, but could have it when the beer gets cold enough in the fridge.

Flipping a couple of these things just around, it becomes the same factor for only just trial dividing, but here it will not do it, when only the usual or regular way for that of factoring.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001434934060

Mind you if I update for the rest here, because this one got quite pretty, but have not flipped around here yet.

Problem is that this is still only loose factors, for only just told, but perhaps doing it anyway.

Edit: I could not resist here, only for this time, but could be looking at the C125 or so tomorrow, for perhaps only overdue or past.

Second problem is not any to or from I could make it, but rather a C135, for only just a start.

If this one could take at least 17 hours or more, for just the thing being added, also the difficulty coming along for only just being included, except still factorization needed for only just
purpose and goal, when also the answer needed.

Guess what, but next anything else in between, and perhaps it still will not "divide" either, for only the wished result we could make it.

Here the remaining part, for just only number, could still be the better one. except not knowing the reason why, only for such.

Edit; Here the C135 for also C136, making for a strong pair, and checking tomorrow.

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001435024005

Should I be doing that, only for a reason?

What about given practices instead, for only the nature, err numbers you could make it?

Oh, 2*2=4, and next you leap a step, for only just making it 5.

And the trailing end could be still just more difficult to handle, when also factorize, only that you should know that.

Or maybe just wealth for that of magnitude, because it should not correspond here either, for just being relative.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2020-01-17 at 07:58
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-01-17, 11:56   #110
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

449 Posts
Default

Maybe the broken heart heart here, for not any stench you could make it, but only for such, pehaps a misconception.

Except for sometimes, or always, being a real fact of life, for what we next could get at, for also conclude.

Here next, or at least thinking at it, when we perhaps could be able to conclude only for numbers, except rather science instead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_theory

Dangit for just being my friend. but here that of such for only the gentle people here, except still the thing we could make it for both purpose and meaning.

Dam-ti-di.

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001434364679

Just said, but perhaps so for the ones looping back on itself.

Total factoring time = 154880.4197 seconds


So, would it perhaps be unfair, if all the answers perhaps were hidden in all those numbers, for only us wishing to know at times?

The endless sequence for that of factorization, may, or surprisingly so, also be the multiplication of the numbers we already have, or know,
but the other way, where someone, or sometimes, it could appear only to be a fake for such, when that of validity is considered.

I gave the little hint, or perhaps notice, that just flipping over, and doing it the opposite way, could perhaps be true, but still possible.

Here it comes to me that this perhaps should not be any bouncing either, for only just identical, if not any repeating either.

Because here a repeat,for only repeating, should not be the same as any rep-digit either, when just only a prime for such.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Trick_of_the_Tail

Only just a bad example, for next the pinch you could make it here, except not any answer you could make it for science (or Number theory)
in order to just conclude.

Is just stuck in the mud your "pinch" on it, for also attitude, or should we still rely on the Scientific method only just to conclude?

Anyway, lost at sea for only just meaning right now, if not any numbers you could make it either.

Again, just saying, for not any repeating either, that just faking at times, could be just the way to go, when you do not know the answer for at least one thing,
but next also wish to continue, for what you could be striving for.

Just curious electric instead, and for that the C135 versus C136, and I will checking in tomorrow.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2020-01-17 at 19:05
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 16:37.

Wed Nov 25 16:37:27 UTC 2020 up 76 days, 13:48, 3 users, load averages: 2.15, 1.95, 1.83

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.