[QUOTE=LiquidNitrogen;265570]Can someone multiply this guy by (1 + i^2) already?[/QUOTE]

he's as valid as you multiplied by that expression (1+i^2) (r.d silverman) =(1+(-1))(r.d silverman) = (1-1)(r.d silverman) = 0(r.d silverman) assuming he's an integer ( or real which is higher up) if I remember correctly) then it evaluates to 0 the same as you would however he's about 100 times the use of most of the people he's complaining about. I always knew liquid nitrogen had a cold heart but you have made a new definition for cold.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;265567]The factors of 2^p + 1 are [B]also[/B] of the form 2kp+1.
The "-1" in 2^p-1 is irrelevant.

The "-1" in P-1 has almost [B]nothing[/B] to do with the "-1" in 2^p-1.
[/QUOTE]

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kA5-hZ73Tiw"]Please Mr Siverman, Mr Silverman Please[/URL]

Re-read my post.
Did I suggest anything other than the above??

David

PS You even quoted it verbatim:
"The "-1" has got a lot to do with factors of 2[SUP]p[/SUP]-1
being 2kp+1 as William explained."

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;265512]Or don't you know how to use Google?[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=p-1+factoring[/url]

[QUOTE=Mini-Geek;265580][url]http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=p-1+factoring[/url][/QUOTE]

My question was aimed not at you, but rather at someone exhibiting a
great deal of willful ignorance.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;264884]

In order to [I]guarantee[/I] finding factors up to 2^71 with P-1 alone, we'd have to use B2 = 2^71 / 2p = 21465290096243, over 70,000 times as large as currently-chosen P2. Which P-1 routines can handle B2 ~ 2^45?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=davieddy;265023]TF limit = 2^70 (say).
As you pointed out, there is enough data to get an accurate distribution,
but factors found by P-1 can easily exceed 2^70 by 6 digits (20 bits)
P-1 "hit rate" ~6%
4 more bits of TF hit rate ~6%

Overlap not too much.

I would like to think Einstein would consider this as an "argument"
or at least a "thought experiment"

David[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;265567]Another bit of nonsense from someone who refuses to study this
subject.
snip

Too many ignorant posters who prattle about mathematics and fail to
understand that math is all about nitpicking. Getting the minute details
right is fundamental to the subject. Too many people who have spewed nonsense for years and who refuse to read.[/QUOTE]

If reading and nitpicking enables you to get an answer 5 orders
of magnitude wide of the mark, I suggest you try to accompany
these admirable habits with a much larger dose of thinking for yourself,
doing and teaching.

Has the art of arriving at sensible "order of magnitude" estimates
been lost completely?

The first question on the Oxbridge entrance physics exam invariably asked
for such estimates.
My Head of Department (no fool himself, but a bit of a pedant) thought
that memorizing the number of protons in the earth etc would help candidates with this acid test of "nous".
"What if they are asked to estimate the number of protons in the
earth?" I replied.
He thought "What is the capacitance of a thundercloud?" to be an unfair
question.
"How big/high is a thundercloud?"
"Between 1 and 10 km?"

"So what is your order of magnitude estimate?" say I.

David

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;265586]My question was aimed not at you, but rather at someone exhibiting a
great deal of willful ignorance.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, and you were butting into the middle of a real-time conversation. My question was not posted @ the group, my question was posted to an individual who was online at the same time as me.

[QUOTE=LiquidNitrogen;265332]Nope, I am working on M46789177 which has no prime factors below 2^68th.[/QUOTE]


[QUOTE=davieddy;265333]Me M45xxxxxx. No factors < 2^74. And some P-1 done.

David[/QUOTE]

If you could have used your "math powers" you would have observed these posts were a mere 8 minutes apart. Someone with non-retarded socializing skills that was used to interacting with people in "real life" would understand something of this nature.

I saw him online, so I tossed out the question.

If you want to accuse me of something, then why don't you "nitpick" and accuse me of the correct thing: being too lazy to send him a personal message on the forum.

[QUOTE=davieddy;265589]If reading and nitpicking enables you to get an answer 5 orders of magnitude wide of the mark,[/QUOTE]I see nothing in Silverman's proposal that is 5 orders of magnitude out. His suggestion of substituting more P-1 for TF makes good sense (my desire to see more numbers notwithstanding) from the standpoint of eliminating the possibility of Mersenne primality as efficiently as possible.

I was simply pointing out an aspect that Mr. Silverman did not mention (and is probably not concerned with), the difference adopting his scheme would make to one minor side goal of GIMPS: exhaustively eliminating the possibility of factors up to certain sizes. That side goal has no particular bearing on the finding of Mersenne primes, and was simply a byproduct of the procedures GIMPS has employed.

That there happen to be numbers of magnitude near 10^5 in my analysis of a certain aspect does not imply that Silverman made any mistake or oversight in his analysis [I]of the aspects to which his proposal was addressed[/I].

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;265586]My question was aimed not at you, but rather at someone exhibiting a
great deal of willful ignorance.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqdSl2jFjlE]Brute Force and Ignorance[/url]

I think it was Flatlander turned me on to this one.
Scour the "Music thread":smile:

David

[QUOTE=cheesehead;265592]I see nothing in Silverman's proposal that is 5 orders of magnitude out. His suggestion of substituting more P-1 for TF makes good sense (my desire to see more numbers notwithstanding) from the standpoint of eliminating the possibility of Mersenne primality as efficiently as possible.

I was simply pointing out an aspect that Mr. Silverman did not mention (and is probably not concerned with), the difference adopting his scheme would make to one minor side goal of GIMPS: exhaustively eliminating the possibility of factors up to certain sizes. That side goal has no particular bearing on the finding of Mersenne primes, and was simply a byproduct of the procedures GIMPS has employed.

That there happen to be numbers of magnitude near 10^5 in my analysis of a certain aspect does not imply that Silverman made any mistake or oversight in his analysis [I]of the aspects to which his proposal was addressed[/I].[/QUOTE]

If you are suggesting that dropping the "certainly no factors less than 70 bits" criterion would speed up GIMPS, then then I am all for it, and
welcome Bob's suggestion from the [strike]arse[/strike]bottom of my heart.

David

[QUOTE=LiquidNitrogen;265590]Yeah, and you were butting into the middle of a real-time conversation. My question was not posted @ the group, my question was posted to an individual who was online at the same time as me.






If you could have used your "math powers" you would have observed these posts were a mere 8 minutes apart. Someone with non-retarded socializing skills that was used to interacting with people in "real life" would understand something of this nature.

I saw him online, so I tossed out the question.

If you want to accuse me of something, then why don't you "nitpick" and accuse me of the correct thing: being too lazy to send him a personal message on the forum.[/QUOTE]
Que?
Who He?
And anyway, [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NztfOSyCCFM"]What DID Della wear?[/URL]

David

PS I don't need encouragement:smile:

Cool It!
 

LN2, you don't *have* to prove your statement about being a very early employee of google...but we don't have to believe it, either. Right now, the evidence is very ambiguous, and the worst of us is out, not the best. Time for me to worry about how to get a bond line below .010" on a 1 meter scale without spending weeks polishing a mirror, and go argue with the mfaktc code.
:smile::drama::batalov::never again::deadhorse::explode: