20210121, 20:28  #1772  
"James Heinrich"
May 2004
exNorthern Ontario
2·3·5·109 Posts 
Quote:
Last fiddled with by James Heinrich on 20210122 at 13:26 

20210122, 07:18  #1773  
Romulan Interpreter
Jun 2011
Thailand
5^{2}·7·53 Posts 
Quote:


20210123, 18:15  #1774 
Sep 2002
5×157 Posts 
P1 found a factor in stage #2, B1=737000, B2=19917000.
UID: Jwb52z/Clay, M102307399 has a factor: 376759813552401417250697953 (P1, B1=737000, B2=19917000), 88.284 bits. 
20210127, 02:58  #1776 
Sep 2002
5×157 Posts 
P1 found a factor in stage #2, B1=738000, B2=19926000.
UID: Jwb52z/Clay, M102357631 has a factor: 321965205924875189306321369 (P1, B1=738000, B2=19926000), 88.057 bits. 
20210127, 07:43  #1777 
Nov 2014
2^{3}·3 Posts 
I found a very easy one (randomly selected a nice number and spent <1 GhzD effort) in M3331331 yesterday, but the number was factored previously: mersenne.ca, Primenet Details. What bothers me is that the same PRP residue is identical for the PRP test with 1 factor and the PRP test with 2 factors? This is a bug, isn't it?
The factor I'm most proud of is this lucky 118bit one in M70553939 which I found in normal LL/PRP testing. 
20210127, 08:00  #1778 
Romulan Interpreter
Jun 2011
Thailand
5^{2}×7×53 Posts 
Yep. Bug for sure, unless you used gpuowl, which totally ignores the factors, and does prp for the whole Mxx, in which case both residues (and the semantic result, like the cofactor being PRP or not) are wrong. Right now, only P95/mprime can be used for PRPCF and PRPCFDC. If you use gpuowl, it will not signal an error, but it will PRP the wrong number. I assume Mihai is working on this, either to include the PRPCF option, or to give and error when worktodo line contains factors.
Last fiddled with by LaurV on 20210127 at 08:01 
20210127, 08:16  #1779 
Nov 2014
30_{8} Posts 
I used mprime and the residue B786DF1732AE7343 is the one which mprime reported in the results.json.txt. I filed a bug in the Primenet section.

20210127, 08:46  #1780 
Jun 2003
2^{3}·607 Posts 

20210127, 16:46  #1782 
"James Heinrich"
May 2004
exNorthern Ontario
2×3×5×109 Posts 
Does this mean one could fake the residue for a PRP test with a different number of cofactors (trivial, it's always the same), but one would not be able to (so easily) fake the proof?

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
A new factor of F11?!  siegert81  FermatSearch  2  20180124 04:35 
AMD goes inane  jasong  jasong  18  20131115 22:54 
A fond farewell  rogue  Lounge  10  20081121 05:25 
P56 ECM Factor  wblipp  Factoring  4  20050423 11:41 
Shortest time to complete a 2^67 trial factor (no factor)  dsouza123  Software  12  20030821 18:38 