project out of work?

9 views
Skip to first unread message

zombie67

unread,
Aug 28, 2007, 7:20:09 PM8/28/07
to Mersenneplustwo
No work?

James Wanless

unread,
Aug 30, 2007, 4:49:26 AM8/30/07
to Mersenn...@googlegroups.com
I'll have to see if I want to take it forward.
I still think it's an incredible piece of kit, but it was starting to
feel like a job, and an unpaid one at that.
Also I was beginning to wonder if I was wasting people's time in terms
of the algorithm.
I am now conducting some more tests on that to reassure myself.

On 8/29/07, zombie67 <zomb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> No work?
>
>
> >
>

zombie67

unread,
Sep 1, 2007, 8:46:47 PM9/1/07
to Mersenneplustwo
Looks like you got things rolling again. Glad to see it.

On Aug 30, 1:49 am, "James Wanless" <bear...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll have to see if I want to take it forward.
> I still think it's an incredible piece of kit, but it was starting to
> feel like a job, and an unpaid one at that.
> Also I was beginning to wonder if I was wasting people's time in terms
> of the algorithm.
> I am now conducting some more tests on that to reassure myself.
>

> On 8/29/07, zombie67 <zombi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > No work?

bearnol

unread,
Sep 22, 2007, 3:56:40 AM9/22/07
to Mersenneplustwo
This is the current state-of-play regarding those extra tests I
mentioned. I am currently pursuing P4253 in the hope of finding its 14-
digit factor(s), ideally fairly soon. But anyway, here are the results
I have so far (and on which I base/d my promising outlook). If anyone
wants to repeat them/extend them, I'm posting the source of the C file
I used (as a file) (factorize2.c). It needs to be compiled with -lgmp

tiggatoo:~/math/wec james$ ./factorize2.gmp4.2.1 -Pp89 -a0
a= 357 factor=537
a= 199539 factor=62020897

tiggatoo:~/math/wec james$ ./factorize2.gmp4.2.1 -Pp107 -a0
a= 429 factor=3
a= 643 factor=643

tiggatoo:~/math/wec james$ ./factorize2.gmp4.2.1 -Pp127 -a0
a= 509 factor=3

tiggatoo:~/math/wec james$ ./factorize2.gmp4.2.1 -Pp521 -a0
a= 2085 factor=3
a= 164637 factor=501203
a= 15643514741 factor=443418473521

tiggatoo:~/math/wec james$ ./factorize2.gmp4.2.1 -Pp607 -a0
a= 2429 factor=3
a= 30351 factor=115331
a= 1947729461 factor=202769117249
a= 5185906000000

tiggatoo:~/math/wec james$ ./factorize2.gmp4.2.1 -Pp1279 -a0
a= 5117 factor=3
a= 28139 factor=706009
a= 383701 factor=3107971
a= 1279001

tiggatoo:~/math/wec james$ ./factorize2.gmp4.2.1 -Pp2203 -a0
a= 8813 factor=3
a= 13219 factor=13219
a= 2742871587 factor=208613913329
a= 50000000000

tiggatoo:~/math/wec james$ ./factorize2.gmp4.2.1 -Pp2281 -a0
a= 9125 factor=3
a= 13687 factor=2185362233
a= 2281001

tiggatoo:~/math/wec james$ ./factorize2.gmp4.2.1 -Pp3217 -a0
a= 12869 factor=3
a= 19303 factor=7489177
a= 800000000

tiggatoo:~/math/wec james$ ./factorize2.gmp4.2.1 -Pp4253 -a0
a= 17013 factor=3
a= 58512775 factor=118071787
a= 2777209001

tiggatoo:~/math/wec james$ ./factorize2.gmp4.2.1 -Pp4423 -a0
a= 17693 factor=3

On Aug 30, 9:49 am, "James Wanless" <bear...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll have to see if I want to take it forward.
> I still think it's an incredible piece of kit, but it was starting to
> feel like a job, and an unpaid one at that.
> Also I was beginning to wonder if I was wasting people's time in terms
> of the algorithm.
> I am now conducting some more tests on that to reassure myself.
>

> On 8/29/07, zombie67 <zombi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > No work?

bearnol

unread,
Oct 8, 2007, 6:16:57 AM10/8/07
to Mersenneplustwo
On Aug 30, 9:49 am, "James Wanless" <bear...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll have to see if I want to take it forward.
> I still think it's an incredible piece of kit, but it was starting to
> feel like a job, and an unpaid one at that.
Mind you, the world would be a better place if money were illegal!
J

bearnol

unread,
Sep 22, 2008, 10:00:08 AM9/22/08
to bearnol, Mersenn...@googlegroups.com
D'oh!! I've just noticed/I think my indices in all the below are off
by one :( - but maybe you'd all worked that out already?! [so due to
this rather careless programming error, the exact values of a are all
one step of 2p too high] [so better to use factorize6 perhaps, where
I _did_ get this detail right] It's a fairly trivial point, but may
have caused some confusion if you were checking my results in other
math programs/packages...
J
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages