[QUOTE=akruppa;249338]So, did the people of this project ask for your opinion?[/QUOTE]

Indirectly.

They opined in public that certain computations were worth doing.

I am entitled to opine that there are better things to do.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;249368]Indirectly.

They opined in public that certain computations were worth doing.

I am entitled to opine that there are better things to do.[/QUOTE]But you did not only opine that there are better things to do; you claimed that the current computations were a waste of time. And you did so in a forum devoted entirely to those computations. That is called flaming.

Not to mention that the computations you suggested would be of no interest in any research papers, except the extensions of the Cunningham tables (one of whose main [only?] users are researchers on OPN's).

(Of course, you won't read this because you put me on ignore. :flyingpig: :-p)

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;249336][i]I[/i] get [b]asked[/b] for my opinion regarding computational projects.[/QUOTE]

Apparently that opinion has become much more valuable recently. You used to recommend that people ask Richard Brent, a famous mathematician that has actually published in this area. As you know, or should know because we discussed it here, Richard Brent said that he would not be particularly surprised if an odd perfect number popped up, and gave me permission to quote him. He further said that he was appreciative of the large quantity of factors we generated for the tables of factors he publishes on his web site.

On the matter of factors, a few days ago I sent him 24,000 new factors not previously existing in his tables. These are the new factors since my last update in October. Since March we have been using BOINC distributed computing projects (yoyo@home and RSALS) to ECM Prep then SNFS factor numbers that fit in his tables and have SNFS difficulty 200 to 250 digits. SNFS has factored 70 so far, and the ECM Prep factored another 16. Just today the mathematicians and I selected another batch of numbers from the Brent tables with no known factors.

But back to the value of your opinions. I see that you now feel confident in contradicting Richard Brent on the value of a search for odd perfect numbers. Congratulations on the increase in value. I think I'll stick with your earlier advice, though.

William

[QUOTE=wblipp;249376]

On the matter of factors, a few days ago I sent him 24,000 new factors not previously existing in his tables.
[/QUOTE]

Whoopee. How many of those results were achieved by software that
you wrote yourself? Have you ever implemented a non-trivial factoring
algorithm?

You ran software written by others. This takes very little intelligence.

[QUOTE]
These are the new factors since my last update in October. Since March we have been using BOINC distributed computing projects (yoyo@home and RSALS) to ECM Prep then SNFS factor numbersWilliam[/QUOTE]

You didn't write BOINC, you didn't write ECM and you didn't write SNFS.

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;249378]You didn't write BOINC, you didn't write ECM and you didn't write SNFS.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps I misunderstood you. When you suggested that I devote my time to sieving 2^1031-1 and 2^1061-1, I thought you were asking me to run software written by somebody else to help on something you are interested in. Instead of running software written by somebody else to help on something Richard Brent is interested in. Or is this just another example of your opinion being more valuable than Richard Brent's?

If verified, this proves that the 15th, 16th, and 17th smallest even perfect numbers are in fact the 15th, 16th, and 17th smallest perfect numbers. I look forward to taking a look at the paper myself tonight.

Why my previous message deleted :question:
I've written an explicit error in the draft.

Yes, I can understand not discussing the details of the paper here, but I think it would have been decidedly better to move the comments on the paper to another thread rather than to delete them.

[QUOTE=R. Gerbicz;249872]Why my previous message deleted :question:
I've written an explicit error in the draft.[/QUOTE]

All paper review posts were supposed to be moved to here:
[url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=249874#post249874[/url]

It is looking like they may not show up there even though they have left here.

I don’t say too much around these parts anymore… but at this point I’d say someone was officially trolling.

179^89-1 c121 = p50*p72
 

[QUOTE=jrk;249329]Sure, I'll give it a spin.[/QUOTE]

[code]prp50 factor: 25145018281796176856755621196791521448831702164367
prp72 factor: 381277633890727729452784896075631793191004748350022116778691722864717199
[/code]

Using these params:
[code]rlim: 8388607
alim: 16777215
lpbr: 27
lpba: 28
mfbr: 54
mfba: 56
rlambda: 2.4
alambda: 2.4
[/code]

Sieving specialQ on algebraic side from 125K to 205K and 375K to 540K with ggnfs siever 14e took 13.2 CPU hours (3.4GHz C2D), producing 17.6M raw and 15.1M unique relations. The siever source was modified to allow specialQ below the factor base bound. The matrix generated had sides of 1.20M and took 2 hours on 2 threads.

As for the usefulness of the factorization, during the polynomial search, I found and fixed a small, stupid bug I made earlier (msieve r539)... So it wasn't completely fruitless.

Logfile is attached.