[QUOTE=3.14159;228461]I'm practically a comp. illiterate. I can't help it![/QUOTE]

That's probably why it's so insulting that you feel the need and ability to write things like this:

[QUOTE=3.14159;228459]Only executables can be run as apps outside of the Internet. If it's Internet-based, JavaScript rules.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Charles]That's probably why it's so insulting that you feel the need and ability to write things like this:
[/QUOTE]

Insulting to you, lack of knowledge to me.

Take your high horse elsewhere.

[QUOTE=3.14159;228465]The app time for the p10 was <1 second.[/QUOTE]

...And? A 3 GHz processor does 3e9 cycles per second. But I was speaking to your 2.5 second time:
[QUOTE=3.14159;228459]I would hardly call trial division to 10[sup]6[/sup] in about 2.5 seconds slow.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=3.14159;228465]Caught, red-handed![/QUOTE]

I have no idea what you're talking about. You're (apparently) choosing not to believe my claim that I'm a computer programmer. That's fine with me, I'm not about to give you evidence to show that I am. I don't need to defend myself.

It's bizzarre (to me) that you would even question that, given our relative programming abilities.

[QUOTE=3.14159;228467]Take your high horse elsewhere.[/QUOTE]

No thanks.

[QUOTE=Charles]I have no idea what you're talking about. You're (apparently) choosing not to believe my claim that I'm a computer programmer. That's fine with me, I'm not about to give you evidence to show that I am. I don't need to defend myself.

It's bizzarre (to me) that you would even question that, given our relative programming abilities.[/QUOTE]

Fine. You win.

And, one does not need to be a programmer to know something about programming. Anyone with a keen interest in programming does not necessarily have an occupation as a programmer.

[QUOTE=3.14159;228470]Whatever you say. I base it on the odds. And, one does not need to be a programmer to know something about programming. Anyone with a keen interest in programming does not necessarily have an occupation as a programmer.[/QUOTE]

Ah yes, because I have so much reason to lie about a thing like that.

How about you? What's your occuparion?

[QUOTE=Charles]Ah yes, because I have so much reason to lie about a thing like that.
[/QUOTE]

It would have been as simple as showing me your website, and I would let it be.

[QUOTE=Charles]How about you? What's your occuparion?
[/QUOTE]

Yes, because I was accusing you of being jobless. :smile:

Anyway:

My comp measures up at 2.4GHz, if I remember correctly.

(It alternates between 2.37 and 2.4, too lazy to get an exact measure.)

[QUOTE=3.14159;228473]It would have been as simple as showing me your website, and I would let it be.[/QUOTE]

How would that prove anything? Anyone can have a website that claims that they are a computer programmer.

[QUOTE=3.14159;228473]Yes, because I was accusing you of being jobless.[/QUOTE]

I don't deny the possibility that while I claim to be a programmer, I am in fact a hobo deceiving you (unsuccessfully?) into believing that I'm a computer programmer.

But this doesn't address my question. What do [i]you[/i] do? If you're going to pester me about what I do, disbelieve my answer, and accuse me of being jobless,* I think I can at least ask you what you do, even if you're not willing to "prove it".

* Why in the world wouldn't I tell you if I was jobless? It would be to my advantage to say, "I'm an out-of-work programmer" if I was out of work, in hopes that eventually I would say this to someone who might hire me (or who knew someone who would hire me).

[QUOTE=3.14159;228473]My comp measures up at 2.4GHz, if I remember correctly.

(It alternates between 2.37 and 2.4, too lazy to get an exact measure.)[/QUOTE]

OK. So if trial-dividing up to a million takes 2.5 seconds, that's 12,000 to 13,000 cycles per prime. This is about 200 times less work per cycle than this computer. But this computer uses an old architechture, meaning that it's able to do less work per cycle than newer computers. If yours is a Core or a Core 2, the program ("applet") is actually 300 times worse than my Pari script.

This is surprising, since this is not really the kind of work that Pari is good at.

[QUOTE=Charles]I don't deny the possibility that while I claim to be a programmer, I am in fact a hobo deceiving you (unsuccessfully?) into believing that I'm a computer programmer.
[/QUOTE]

Nah, that's out of the question. My skepticism isn't [B]that[/B] harsh.

[QUOTE=Charles]OK. So if trial-dividing up to a million takes 2.5 seconds, that's 12,000 to 13,000 cycles per prime. This is about 200 times less work per cycle than this computer.But this computer uses an old architechture, meaning that it's able to do less work per cycle than newer computers. If yours is a Core or a Core 2, the program ("applet") is actually 300 times worse than my Pari script.[/QUOTE]

Is your PARI script:

trialdivide(n) = {
forprime(p=2,(<insert primelimit here>),
if(n%p==0, return(p))
);
}
??

And, yes, the processor is a Core 2.

[QUOTE=Charles]But this doesn't address my question. What do you do? If you're going to pester me about what I do, disbelieve my answer, and accuse me of being jobless,* I think I can at least ask you what you do, even if you're not willing to "prove it".
[/QUOTE]

I'm the average high schooler.

I wonder what the largest primes for each category are:

For the designated categories:
1. Proths: 22147 * 2[sup]256720[/sup] + 1 (3.14159) (77285 digits)
2. Generalized Proths: 4*17[sup]178438[/sup] + 1 (Batalov) (219561 digits)
3. Factorial-based Proths: 2634 * 2480![sup]2[/sup] + 1 (3.14159) (14690 digits)
4. Primorial-based Proths: 703 * p(125)[sup]66[/sup] + 1 (3.14159) (19104 digits)
5. Prime-based Proths: 28380*1999[sup]8560[/sup] + 1 (3.14159) (28260 digits)
6. Primorial: 466*7297#+1 (3.14159) (3124 digits)
7. Factorial: 1364 * 4200! + 1 (3.14159) (13399 digits)
8. Generalized Cullen-Woodall: 4034 * 1500[sup]1534[/sup] + 1 (3.14159) (12816 digits)
9. Factorial-based Cullen-Woodall: (No submissions)
10. Primorial-based Cullen-Woodall: (No submissions)
11. Prime-based Cullen-Woodall: (No submissions)
12. k-b-b's: (No submissions)
13. Factorial-based k-b-b's: (No submissions)
14. Primorial-based k-b-b's: (No submissions)
15. Prime-based k-b-b's: 240790*4861[sup]4861[/sup] + 1 (3.14159) (17927 digits)
16. Number, square, and fourth: [code]1546750398064958524633425292455441988676752527730835687139862311217981986247572619886186890734016949799686352443760408934653066300968034776190705901570570913201114184380563243205276690363368824249952639567750758594330067937015662345505149388718977581056000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001[/code]
(3.14159) (301 digits)
17. Special Cofactor: (No submissions)
18. General Cofactor: (64177156568540609146951155341 * 6[sup]7600[/sup] + 1)/500312594495474956967917511 (3.14159) (5917 digits)
19. General arithmetic progressions: 2304*2[sup]7980[/sup] + 19 (3.14159) (2406 digits)
20. Obsolete-tech proven primes: 570331 * 2[sup]93560[/sup] + 1 is prime! (3.14159) (28171 digits) (Proth.exe)

A submission for #2 on the -1 side:

2778*211^47085-1 is prime!

Again, found in an effort to prove the Riesel base 211 conjecture as part of the Conjectures 'R Us project. Found and proven by PFGW via PRPnet.