mersenneforum.org  

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2019-10-04, 07:55   #89
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

449 Posts
Default

Is science next any with, for also hereby, except not any withstanding either?


Really, Seti@home is just tired of me, for just only explaining, except not making it any Theory for just only theorising either, when it perhaps could be only speculating.


Just think of it, for only just sense, and next also encompass as well, for only a nature still present, for only our eyes, for what we could grasp, and also sense, except still not completely understand either.


Only bitterness, and next think of what it could be worth, for only rather making it instead.


But maybe rather "peruse" instead (needs checking), and you could be back at the debate about whether any God could be responsible for any Events, when also such a thing happening.


We do have the word gratify, for also gratification, if not wrong, except for sometimes also making it that of "betterment" for only just science.


Okay, so stupidity could kill the cat (maybe, or occasionally), except not making it any Truth for such a thing, but only a Postulate.


Is, or are the Laws of nature, only a Concept for such a thing, because they sometimes could be proven?


Or maybe only just a "de facto" standard, for such a thing, because of only just the same?


Bend, bent, bent, for only just Conceptually being just inappropriate, except not any proven either, for just unproven, but if perhaps so, what is the game?


Really, they could sometimes spell it just "irrevocable", for only just a fact, except not making it any inappropriate either.


Some people could end up thinking that nature is just a concoction, for also an ideas or innovations, or or for perhaps not any idea either, for perhaps rather contrivance instead, for just better.


So, betterment is perhaps something we could measure, for only making it the better of things, except not any grand scale, for only that of measurability.


Oh, just thought of process here, if perhaps only a journalist doing the same either, for only just pretending.


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


Just big eh, for maybe rather Probability instead, for also Logic as well, but what next, for only that of our ability to just only conclude, for that of a couple of things?


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


Maybe just Conscience instead, for next also that of Mind, and you also should know that, except for perhaps not such a thing proving anything either, for only just Proof.


Really. I could be wearing an umbrella for only just raining, except not singing any song either, for just "postulating" the fact that we perhaps may not be alone, for only that of citizens of Earth.


Is it just hastily, or could it be rather slow, except for still perhaps a Proof for that of science, when it perhaps could be the thing it next could go?


Blame nature instead, for not any blissful, or mercy, because it soon could be that of religion for such a thing.


The sad thing is that Religion still needs its own Proof, except not making it just a revelation for such a thing either.


Just twist and shout instead, and for that also spin a little, except not any roundabout either, for only just a discussion, because here at least a web of sorts.


Okay, so we are having that of Number theory, for only a thought, except not making it a model for just Proof either.


Is the other thing just sinister, for also being absurd, when next also being Religion, for just only the same?


concoction


Really, 1+3=3 (is still 3), for only such, when only just proving, but if rather proving Religion instead, who is next the fool, for also idiot, except perhaps not any Saint either?


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


Is this the thing I could be making Religion, except not following up on the story, for just to the point either?


Nature perhaps "is", for only what it could be meant to be, except for also the agreement, that at least much, could also mean more, for only that of significance.


But rather that just meaning, could be replaced, or substituted with that of imply, for only just Implication, when next also signify, except not getting any further here.


I guess that it could be still only nature rolling here, only for its Cause, or perhaps meaning.


By the way, needs edit buttons at the top here as well, for only that of text, and hopefully you agree, except for also the gentlemen you could pretend to be.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2019-10-04 at 08:04
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-10-04, 07:58   #90
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

449 Posts
Default

Needs edit buttons at the top here as well, for only that of text, and hopefully you agree.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2019-10-04 at 07:59
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-10-04, 08:28   #91
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

7018 Posts
Default

Maybe just stick to the point, except not redact a little, for only just a concoction for such a thing.


Just an idea instead, and maybe just proven, for only just science.


merrymaking - antics (still) - for only a couple of jerks, and next also what you could make it.


Any perfect, for still also science, next "gimme", except not any Fact for just Truth either.


Just living in the shadows, and it could be that of a prospect for such, except not making it any infinity either.


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


Here a concept, for only just known, except not making it any theoretical Physics, for only that of a structure, in order to perhaps explain our world.


Is kind of proudness, only for such a thing, except for the "context" we still could be making infinity?


Yes, we two, for next all of us, except not any infinity either, for only making it understandable.


Really, just a black sheep, for not any box either, and still only non-comprehensible,for just incomprehensible, and for such a thing, also a liar as well.


Hmm, but really not seeing it that way either.


Is a lie for only just not a Fact, or could it rather be just a Truth instèad?


Really, proving the opposite, for also converse, should be that of Logic here, meaning NOT.


Or maybe just spell, or could be spelling it incorrectly, for not any right either, when just making it "salient night".


Only my words for this here, except not making it any science either.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2019-10-04 at 08:39
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-10-04, 10:04   #92
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

449 Posts
Default

Ploop, but your generosity will always be mentioned somewhere else, for also a thanks as well.


Gimme, for perhaps not any extraction method, that nature is still there, for only just existing.


So, maybe just an assumption for the same, ending up with a postulate as well, if not any Proof either, and perhaps just fine, for only that of nature.


Just "ding-ding", for what we perhaps could think, except not making it any such, for only a couple of eyes either, namely that of provability.


Oh, maybe just Santa Claus, for only a story being told, and perhaps only Astronomy, for that, or when just together.


"Failure to equate expression" - is that and Equation of sorts, except perhaps only Mathematics?



Maybe I could end up being just Portuguese here, for only just "inappropriate".



Maybe just an umbrella instead, for only a couple of raindrops instead, except for still only adhering to the Scientific Method, for only being "trusted".


The thing perhaps being given, should also be that of made, except not just "give and take" for such a thing either.


The "Probabilistic Method" for only just detecting intelligent life past or beyond our solar system, should also be for such a thing, except not any "Soul solemn" either,


Is ant numbers for only just a curse, or could it rather be satisfaction instead, for only that of privilege?


Yes, lost that one, for only the other, but could be getting back at it.


Reimburse, just payment back, oh dear.


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


Need to edit that, except not any sweetheart either, except not any science for only such a kill, when it rather could be a blue whale instead.


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


Maybe an orchestra instead, for sometimes also a flute as well, but could it perhaps be singing a song, for only just ringing a bell?


Except for always that of provable science, and also dangit, for only my own here.


Hmmm.


Is nature, for just only proving it, perhaps simplistic, or could it rather be more complex, only because it could be that a "Cause"?


Just struggling here, and is it perhaps only just an idea, rather than what you could be making it, for still only just "is", except perhaps not any Proof either?


Pertinent, for also absolutes, and both needs checking, for only just fine words.


Glory, glory, and for that, only just hallelujah, except for perhaps not any Saint at my side, for only just preaching either.


Is the model of science just meant to be, or could it also be coming along, for only just a thought, making it perhaps Philosophy?


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


Next, only just a bit of Philosophy once again, except not any strip tease you could be making it either.


Is it just part versus whole here, or could it be just a dream?


Already mentioned, for only just a dream, if perhaps not you feeling it, when only that of encompass, for only just feel, except not you feeling ashamed either, only because of a dream.


Supposedly science could be just a dream, except not any postulate we could be making it either.


Therefore, that is, for also a fact, when not any evidently, for also not any
unsubscruptionally either (needs checking), except the idiot I still am, for also could be.


Is it that, namely substantial versus unsubstantial, when perhaps not any Evidence at all, or what?


Just word instead, for that of the opposite, namely unfounded, and it could be just God for that of writing, except only insanity instead, for only just a shame.


How goes, or should I rather blame nature instead, for only such a thing as prove?


Gimme, for also enough said, if not any prove either, for just only concur, for that of an agreement, perhaps only factors of nature for such a thing, except not any "twist and shout, for only just proven either.


So, what is not forgotten, except only the motion of the Earth, for also its trajectory around the sun, except not forgetting the implicit "Causes" either, for only just being around, except not any spoken nature either?


Maybe just explicit, for rather implicit instead, except for still not knowing to the point,
for exactly science, when it also could be the thing I am doing.


And yes, knowing about the error of sorts being made here, for only just being tired.


Getting back at it.




Need to pick up another beer, except not making it any depletion either.


How comes, but is it only just that of science, or could it rather be a notion instead, for only just belief?


You said, and for only just Truth, still that of science, except not any "matter of the fact" either, when perhaps still the same.


Is it order for just that of Rationality, or could we perhaps think it could be just only a sample?


Maybe just waving a flag, for only an excuse, and perhaps the wind.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001367975112


Only loose factors here, for only just multiplication, but either I gave only an answer, for also flipping around, for just losing that of content.


Never mind, for at least showing up, for only just standing, except for only just preliminary, for only just not dividing.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2019-10-04 at 15:37
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-10-08, 20:21   #93
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

449 Posts
Default

If it became that of a P41 for also a P106, a laptop computer here, and I forgot the whole thing.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001369260578



Here PRP106 at first, and need to go back for the correct link as well.


Total factoring time = 156057.3099 seconds



http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001369246662


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001369245742


Here again my bad for reporting in the wrong order, because the second one took a bit longer, and should also be visible for the numbers.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001369261502



But flipping back here, for only that of the large one above, should I have my coffee first, or should I just trial divide instead, for only the same factor?


On my job now, for only working a little, but back soon for cleaning up a little, because apparently does not so, for only a P119.


Perhaps a little more room here in this window, for only the laptop being attached again, for being used.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001369261502


Adding here for that of getting to it, for still visible on the desktop, but need the coffee first.

But also noticing that it became a different one here, for next also not writing any good.

But for only the quite similar factors, except nothing else either, it perhaps should be possible to notice the imbalanced tree here,
for what we could be seeking for, because here a complete factorization on just one side, for only partially so at the other,
meaning that making it from the start here, but just going opposite ways, is not the alternative solution either.

But in fact, this should be known already, from only the end factors.it

Oh, my fingers, for only just having dinner, but if I multiply two composites, for only just C,
and next take the square root, it should be more difficult to fully factor, except for the other number you get,
by just dividing it from the starting number.

Getting back to it before bedtime, because turning on the heater here.

So if perhaps keying in wrong order first, sensing next that the C160 still in running, in fact is the more difficult here,
because the other one do I have, but not reported yet.

Apparently so, for only reporting in the wrong order again, but only just 6 minutes apart, and link coming up.

Finishing up the day for perhaps not the right stuff either, but at least this one for now.

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001370191142

So if not any happy to say, for maybe not, should it perhaps suffice, for only the P147 not any dividing?

As I mentioned over at PrimeGrid, no point of wasting space for only a million digit prime either.

Dangit, the last one perhaps was a pretty good one as well, but except for that, never mind.

Maybe just spoof instead, because out of there for only Seti@home, except for still your generosity, for just trying.

Quote: We tend to prove nature for what it is, not what it is supposedly is meant to be, only because it being so.

I think it is just a nice thing to say, except not any liking at Seti@home either, for just only a quote, because I already said thanks at you, for only being just polite.

Call it just only by name, or perhaps a competition instead, and it perhaps it could be science versus numbers here, for only such a thing.

By the way, I could still be picking up an avator for only just a user at PrimeGrid, for only that of stupid, except not any name calling either, for such a thing.

I probably will be better at explaining, when back at 6 hours of ban, for just only Seti@home, except only they slipping, for not you any falling either,
because once again thanks to you, for your hospitality.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2019-10-10 at 11:23
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-10-19, 11:17   #94
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

449 Posts
Default

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000901302627


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001142954399


Here, noticing this for only my laptop, and here not taking part for only just contributing, when only just my recall.

But in fact, some quite nice numbers here, for only that of factors, and if perhaps setting sail for only just the wind, it could also be blowing away.

Anyway, nice here, for only just a job, except perhaps not any completed either, when rather that of a task, which could be in front of you, for also not any resolved.

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

The old James Bond movie, could be making it that of "Oddjob", for just only a peculiar figure, except also Algorithms & Structures, for a particular job we wish to be having an answer to.

Here just on the job myself, it becomes thinking of that of subsets, for also supersets, when next that of nature, but need getting back at it, for only just a passing thought.

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

Am I right, or am I wrong, or could I perhaps still make it that of subsets, for also supersets, when next in relation to that of a given nature, which could also be that of Mathematics?

If still in one door, also out the other, and here at least Hypnosis for such, except for the man in the street, for also sinister figure, which most people are not supposed to believe in.

Sorry, my bad here, for only making it Cosmology of the whole thing, and rather should redact myself a little.

But if you happen to read around, still that a knight could be swinging a sword, except not making it any "Broadsword" either.

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

It is supposed to be a novel here, for also an adventure, but also that I forgot the third name here, if not any fourth either, and had to get back at it, for only a closer look.

Spell it rather fiction instead, for just only making it so, and perhaps not any Proof needed either, for only just a bedtime story when getting to sleep.

Rather past versus present instead, for that of a nature which "is", or could be, for next also in fact just being, for only being present, because if not wrong, we still have to make it Proof
of the whole thing, for only making it an orderly fashion.

My software application for that of recovery (GetDataBack for FAT/NTFS), is making the slight error for that of syntax, by making it "build-in viewer", for that of its interface.

Next, anyone does not seem to bother either, except for still a typographical error, just plainly visible in the application (or screen flat, of sorts).

Anyway, pressed the wrong button here, for only getting it reported, so leaving it there for now.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2019-10-26 at 12:20
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-10-23, 04:37   #95
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

449 Posts
Default

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001372861683


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001372861735


Here perhaps a little interesting right now, in that the first one could be having factors that are not that easy at getting at either, but still leaves the other unknown.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001379364794


Here it flips back for the same P49 as that above, except only trial dividing here, and the rest becomes the following, which is already known.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001372859020


Here perhaps interesting to "divide" the C140 from RSA-2048, except not specifically looking for the factors of this number either.

It supposedly could make a quite big chunk out of this number, depending on the relative position of the individual elements.

Trying it out right now, and will have the link a little later, and in fact it does not work out here, but again apologies for making it the wrong numbers.

There should be something about computing bit lengths for that of numbers, in order to determine their possible complexity, and how they could interact with each other,
but next I forgot that, for not having visited it in a long time.

The problem is that two RSA-512 numbers do not make for the answer either, but that the first one is definitely quite a bit smaller.

Is it next possible to compute the second one for that of bit length, or just be able to tell how hard it could be here, when only just comparing the individual factors,
for only their respective sizes?

Anyway, before having the rest of the beer, perhaps a difference between good and bad, except for perhaps where also ending, for where it should go,
and here the FDB again, for all those factorizations, meaning numbers.

It becomes quite a lot in the end, for only an intended purpose, when it could be that of meeting next door, when only that of factors for such, except for also
noticing a couple of things.

One thing is that of Polynomials here, for a thing I really do not understand, except also a lesson from school, dealing with that of second degree equations,
and here for that of Mathematics.

The thing being noticed, is that for those RSA numbers, they could be everything just included, when you know that some could be looking for rep-digit factors,
while others Genefer numbers, for also Mersenne primes, of course.

We could be having a discussion somewhere else about making perhaps time curly, for only blond hair, if not any spinning around either, but if perhaps rep-digit,
for only just numbers, should mean that of a repeating sequence, really no problem with that.

Just 111 could be 3*37, but if adding enough digits, you could perhaps be ending up with a prime.

One of my factorizations had a 40-digit factor, but when adding a little for only just digits, it is not working anymore, only because of getting too hard, but otherwise it
could be having a quite decent one here, for only size.

A recent number had a few digits cut off at the start, and here ending up with a PRP968, which was just a simple one.

I know from programming, that there could be structures like B-trees, which could be for that of a leaves for such as well, except for also the way of traversing such a tree,
by means of a specific approach, which also could be a general one, if not any simple.

Just 1+2=3, but for that not any jumping either, when it could also be one step forward, for also one step back, when only just climbing, it could be still just whole numbers,
for that of integers, when you only have to choose just 1, for that of a difference.

If you take all prime numbers starting with 2, and including at least 997, for just less than 1000, you next could multiply each factor with each other, and next divide with the
total amount of individual factors, for just only finding the average, for also mean.

So if perhaps not necessarily any Statistics here either, but just only 3/2 does not divide either, for only that of making it 1.5 a statistical mean, but if perhaps 5/3 instead,
for also 7/2, or even 7/3, you get a different result, for also a similar mean.

Could this be expressed in a different way, for only a total sum, except still not any Statistics here?

Reading around, and I do not find the answer here, but perhaps you know?

One small problem being noticed, is when clicking the Edit button, for that of the small window, I end up at the bottom of the page, and have to scroll up a little.

Perhaps a problem here which could be fixed?

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000933971070

Anyway, the P40 in the link above, is just only a loose factor, only because of not doing that, but found it proper to just add, in that I still do not know the
final answer here, for perhaps also having even more to offer, for just better ones.

"Mean average for the total sum of factors, for only just product, when next also dividing with the total amount of individual factors",
and here the number for this, when only that of different factors.

Becomes Ʃ or Ʃx here, if the graphics is with me, for also 1/x, but here using Character Map, coming with Windows, for U+01A9: Latin Capital Letter Esh,
under the Arial font set, which for some reason becomes Latin Capital Letter African D, for the status line at the bottom.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2019-10-26 at 15:06
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-10-26, 14:13   #96
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

449 Posts
Default

Just funny, isn't it, because if making it 1/3.5, you could end up with, or the result might be 0.2857142857142857‬

So here just multiplying with 10 a couple of times, for only making it an integer, except perhaps only knowing from the start, that this should be a composite number.

Keeping a card for just being hidden, is not the same as showing it either, for only a Straight flush, except for still Number theory telling me that a couple of numbers could be prime.

So presumably only just a Method for such, except not any guessing either, and here perhaps only my bad for just thinking, when it should be that of jump buck (or jumping buck), when only for that of one number versus another, when still only prime.

The sad thing being noticed, is that prime number finding should still be that of a computational issue, for also that of processing time, except for still any Algorithm involved, which at least could help.

But if next also making it that of Mersenne numbers, for only just primes, just my bad again, for that of making it a rebate, when it should also be that of sale.

If it could still be true, for also a stated fact, that any Genefer numbers could still be that of 3, or 5, and so on, at least a reason of feeling proud, when only your business for such a thing.

The repeated sequence could perhaps be endless, except not necessarily always divide either, for only a result, because this could be the intended purpose for that of making it prime numbers, except for also the results which could be needed.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001379067901


Still able to write, except for being late last night, but here that this one blew as well, for only quite good factors,
and next I made it a previous P49, for only multiplying a little.

Doing so, and it flips around with a P15, but here not doing anymore, except that it could end up being an incomplete factorization here as well.

I could add the factors if being wished for, but also that diving is not the same as climbing, and that some could end up being angry,
for only secrecy being broken.

Is it possible to make it just 1 and a half, for that of line width (1.5), because here having a little problem with the links,
for either too wide, for also narrow, and here do not confuse the 1.5 with the previous stuff either.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001384512448

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001384508855


Here the first one apparently blew on my laptop just a moment ago, for only knowing it to be the more easy one.

Total factoring time = 167134.4603 seconds

Or perhaps made it instead, because here a pair of P42 and P104 factors, initially a PRP104, and like another the same,
it did not get to the postings where it was supposed to be.

The second one is a bit smaller, but even more difficult, and here just a huge SIQS for this, which I have not got back at,
for only quite big problems with my main computer.

Here the Saturday beer perhaps needed, so out doing the shopping, and I will have it when back in the old chair.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2019-11-02 at 14:25
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-11-03, 00:30   #97
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

1110000012 Posts
Default

Just past 1 AM, and it could rather be closed eyes instead, because the web got saturated until now, at least for that of wireless.

So here big roses to you, for only being so gracious with me all the time.

The P104 makes it further at a P166, for just flipping around, but here still only in my notes.

Here the window closed for that of a restart, but maybe around 15 seconds or so only, for that of factorization time, only to show that this P104 is pretty heavy.

Makes me think of the word "alignment" here, when it sometimes could divide only for this, while other times not, for only a couple of numbers not liking each other.

Here should perhaps do the same for that of RSA-2048 as well, but again that I am doing this for only that of numbers, except leaving that of secrecy still alone.

So, unlike a boxer in the ring, for also a heavyweight lifter, it could still that of balancing of sorts, where it also could be that of inching its way, and here perhaps it became one thing of such.

But unfortunately just flipping around instead, where in one case it was found not to be working, for rather just doing so, for perhaps the little better.

Many people running PrimeGrid as a project, could be dealing with the task types, only for taking part, or perhaps interested, except perhaps knowing which purpose, or even role, such numbers could just play.

For that, still just only mean, except for the general rule (still), that these numbers should be divisible by only itself, for also 1.

The Fermat Number sequence could be almost endless, for only just a given purpose (guess which one, for not any rather), when also that of the just little minus, for also negative, when it could be still the sun rising, for only making it the biggest of all.

Here not any Translate in front of me right now, but will try getting back at it tomorrow, for a better fix.

So, except not any "witch-witch" either, for just pondering, it really should be a fact that just "C", for that of a number, could still mean composite only, except for hiding a couple of primes.

Just that of C versus P, could make you think of that of a circle versus square, when in fact it is not so.

If still composite for a couple of things, I still make it so that all those P100-P200 factors, when that of being combined, makes for the next, or perhaps second best solution, except for a prime itself, because you never know what could be in between.

For that, 2*3*5 is still 30, except for not knowing about any 7 just in between, and here only the larger number available, except still not knowing.

So here the one thing being speculated on, namely whether any RSA-1024 could be found within itself, or rather it could be coming from a larger number.

For one thing, it is not any square root, and it is not any golden ratio either, for just the same, so here that of balancing, for just only weight, could still be with me, for just only a thought.

I think this became a better writing of contents, except for still only closed eyes.
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-11-03, 00:37   #98
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

449 Posts
Default

Just past 1 AM, and it could rather be closed eyes instead, because the web got saturated until now, at least for that of wireless.

So here big roses to you, for only being so gracious with me all the time.

The P104 makes it further at a P166, for just flipping around, but here still only in my notes.

Here the window closed for that of a restart, but maybe around 15 seconds or so only, for that of factorization time, only to show that this P104 is pretty heavy.

Makes me think of the word "alignment" here, when it sometimes could divide only for this, while other times not, for only a couple of numbers not liking each other.

Here should perhaps do the same for that of RSA-2048 as well, but again that I am doing this for only that of numbers, except leaving that of secrecy still alone.

So, unlike a boxer in the ring, for also a heavyweight lifter, it could still that of balancing of sorts, where it also could be that of inching its way, and here perhaps it became one thing of such.

But unfortunately just flipping around instead, where in one case it was found not to be working, for rather just doing so, for perhaps the little better.

Many people running PrimeGrid as a project, could be dealing with the task types, only for taking part, or perhaps interested, except perhaps knowing which purpose, or even role, such numbers could just play.

For that, still just only mean, except for the general rule (still), that these numbers should be divisible by only itself, for also 1.

The Fermat Number sequence could be almost endless, for only just a given purpose (guess which one, for not any rather), when also that of the just little minus, for also negative, when it could be still the sun rising, for only making it the biggest of all.

Here not any Translate in front of me right now, but will try getting back at it tomorrow, for a better fix.

So, except not any "witch-witch" either, for just pondering, it really should be a fact that just "C", for that of a number, could still mean composite only, except for hiding a couple of primes.

Just that of C versus P, could make you think of that of a circle versus square, when in fact it is not so.

If still composite for a couple of things, I still make it so that all those P100-P200 factors, when that of being combined, makes for the next, or perhaps second best solution, except for a prime itself, because you never know what could be in between.

For that, 2*3*5 is still 30, except for not knowing about any 7 just in between, and here only the larger number available, except still not knowing.

So here the one thing being speculated on, namely whether any RSA-1024 could be found within itself, or rather it could be coming from a larger number.

For one thing, it is not any square root, and it is not any golden ratio either, for just the same, so here that of balancing, for just only weight, could still be with me, for just only a thought.

I think this became a better writing of contents, except for still only closed eyes.
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-11-03, 03:19   #99
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

1C116 Posts
Default

Hopefully getting it right, but if not any saturated web either, it could be at least a couple of beers, and here reloading the page for being visible.

Just sitting in my chair, the modem is standing on the floor, and still Huawei, by the way, but also quite elegant, for only being sleek in design.

But also the cover on the bottom, or underside, for all the login details, making things where they should be, for correctness, or maybe accuracy.

Yes, that envy again, if still the correct word, because next watch it, because the Chinese could be just coming, if not any snooping around the corner either, for just an ugly face.

So here I could perhaps just cut it short again, for only just a comma, if perhaps not any true for what I could be saying either.

Is it not so, that you could solely swear, if perhaps not any lie either, when perhaps not any

solemnly

Really, justify could still be a right to kill, but next only laughing, when the translate could be offering you just the bad, or incorrect word.

In fact, just praying could be worshipping, but here not the forum for this, when also perhaps another word.

If you perhaps think I am silly, or could be silly, why not report it for me?

Just easy making it silent night, but when rather solemn instead, it does not have it for me.

So, if I could be wrong, for perhaps also astray, ever heard about such a thing as "brute force algorithm", and what it could perhaps mean?

Could we perhaps be just friends of sorts, and next think that such a thing could open up a door, for that of secrecy, when possibly such a thing being involved?

Here that of Cryptography perhaps, and next I could be skipping on some three or five letters, with a space in between, next without understanding anything.

Is just clear text a simple phrase, or could you rather make it PGP instead?

Don't be a fool, because just being so, and it could be back, just haunting you.

Rather make it a cipher instead, and next a code, and here on the spot, should tell that in fact did not checking that.

Getting back at it, of course, for just an idea.

Make it rather a liar instead, and it could become a translation, at least of sorts.

Because here not any next door Alice either, for only just factors residing side by side, when it also could be that of nextprime() for such a thing, and here both ways.

We should know that there could be hundreds of reported primes just for an intended purpose, except still not any match, only because of the original thought.


So, if perhaps not any "reason behind" either, at least that of RSA here, for that of a cryptographic algorithm, which could help safeguard from simple use,
and rather make it safety instead, for still that of use, when next only the net.


Yes, I thought it was better with some blank liines here as well.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2019-11-03 at 08:40
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 20:34.

Fri Nov 27 20:34:42 UTC 2020 up 78 days, 17:45, 3 users, load averages: 1.04, 1.42, 1.62

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.