Why is this not in Misc. Math yet?

Thread moved to Misc. Math.

Alex

[QUOTE=bsquared;175769]Maybe that helps you understand where some of the people here are coming from.[/QUOTE]However, you have seemed to be (far above many others that have made similar claims) reasonable in accepting advice, learning and begining to use standard terms, as things progress less secretive, and have given a plan on how you may reveal your number.

BTW, something better than a letter to self (more expensive though) is to have a statement with the expo and method notarized. A notarized statement or better an affidavit, is solid proof, accepted in courts.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;175799]However, you have seemed to be (far above many others that have made similar claims) reasonable in accepting advice, learning and begining to use standard terms, as things progress less secretive, and have given a plan on how you may reveal your number.[/QUOTE]

True. I'm pleased by these developments. I'll be happier when I see real information on the number.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;175799]BTW, something better than a letter to self (more expensive though) is to have a statement with the expo and method notarized. A notarized statement or better an affidavit, is solid proof, accepted in courts.[/QUOTE]

That doesn't even need to be expensive. My bank will notarize documents for any of their customers; yours might too. And if you have a notary (or lawyer...) in the family, it works just as well.

How far along is the trial factorization of the number now? A single core should already have a 100M - 1B number upto at least 67, if not 70 or higher.
Revealing that gives away [U]nothing[/U] about the number.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;175875]How far along is the trial factorization of the number now? A single core should already have a 100M - 1B number upto at least 67, if not 70 or higher.
Revealing that gives away [U]nothing[/U] about the number.[/QUOTE]

Its a 10digit exponent so 1B-10B.

[QUOTE=ATH;175876]Its a 10digit exponent so 1B-10B.[/QUOTE]Sure, I was just giving a range based upon my personal experience. Factor5 run dedicated on a single core should already have the number up to a point that at least 50% of prime exponent would have been factored out. From the time that CR24 indicated that Factor5 is what s/he needed, run on a fast quad should have the number up above 75.

[quote=Uncwilly;175875]How far along is the trial factorization of the number now? A single core should already have a 100M - 1B number upto at least 67, if not 70 or higher.
Revealing that gives away [U]nothing[/U] about the number.[/quote]

The number is running around 72 now; I have low memory on my computer and therefore it is running slow, I have Factor5 running at 71.239 bits, and I set it to run up to 72 bits because of my memory issues, although I am replacing my hard driver with one with more space (a terabyte) and will be able to much more easily and efficiently run Factor5.

[QUOTE=CR24;175538]rather a program that slowly scanned numbers in an elevating level continuously, slowly listing higher and higher prime numbers. I chose the specific exponent I am using because a.) It is NOT broken down using equations, such as the Mersenne prime formula b.) It has a pattern (just a way the numbers are arranged) that made it easier to remember, and therefore preferable because I have it memorized and can present it when I need to

...

I am skeptical of releasing it in case I have not seen a method of blatantly disproving it, and therefore ruining my already new reputation (I would lose a lot of credibility).[/QUOTE]

You should find comfort that the first statement absolutely obliterates any credibility you might have had, so there's no way to lose more.

[QUOTE=CR24;175899]The number is running around 72 now; I have low memory on my computer and therefore it is running slow, I have Factor5 running at 71.239 bits, and I set it to run up to 72 bits because of my memory issues, although I am replacing my hard driver with one with more space (a terabyte) and will be able to much more easily and efficiently run Factor5.[/QUOTE]

1. Maybe Factor5 is different from Prime95 in this regard, but TFing a single number takes a very small amount of memory and hard drive space. (other methods, like P-1, can take a lot of memory)
2. Memory is not the same thing as hard drive (not driver) space.

So, just so I make sure I've got things straight...

You listed a bunch of 10-digit primes and picked one that had a pretty pattern?

And then you decided that the associated mersenne with that exponent was prime? Because..........why?