On my laptop those C76s take at most 5 minutes to factor using YAFU and are not worth reporting.

Thanks for reminding me about that.

Working on a C83 right now.

I posted here because there was an upload problem of the results.

Thanks for giving me a hand!

But the important thing is really the assumption that all numbers in fact are linked to each other, regardless of size or composition.

Factoring numbers more or less in sequence may partly solve the given problem, but also we know that there are some unanswered questions.

I earlier mentioned the composite factor of 2^4096+1. Am I perhaps wrong, but is not such a problem being attempted solved by means of an "approximation"?

Being able to factorize a number makes the remaining part of the problem a little bit smaller, of course. In the end you may go through all the numbers that you have and may be able to "pick" the missing number(s) from the list that you are having.

Most likely you may be able to solve the problem this hard way, but it may take a long time to do just that.

[QUOTE=storflyt32;385237]Thanks for reminding me about that.

Working on a C83 right now.

I posted here because there was an upload problem of the results.

Thanks for giving me a hand!

But the important thing is really the assumption that all numbers in fact are linked to each other, regardless of size or composition.

Factoring numbers more or less in sequence may partly solve the given problem, but also we know that there are some unanswered questions.

I earlier mentioned the composite factor of 2^4096+1. Am I perhaps wrong, but is not such a problem being attempted solved by means of an "approximation"?

Being able to factorize a number makes the remaining part of the problem a little bit smaller, of course. In the end you may go through all the numbers that you have and may be able to "pick" the missing number(s) from the list that you are having.

Most likely you may be able to solve the problem this hard way, but it may take a long time to do just that.[/QUOTE]

Word Salad. Meaningless gibberish.

Exactly.

[URL]http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000716601856[/URL]

One more problem solved. One less to go.

But are you still getting the whole picture?

Yes, I do know that this web-page are all about Mersenne numbers.

I do a little bit a prime number cracking. My account data for this is found here:

[URL]http://www.primegrid.com/show_user.php?userid=170706[/URL]


We happen to know about the largest prime number being a Mersenne number, because of an assumption that those numbers having a -1 is a little bit easier to "crack" than a similar +1 number, like a Proth number or a Genefer number for that matter.

So what is the "probability" of finding a prime number when comparing a Mersenne number against a Genefer number? Am I standing a better chance of finding a prime by means of using the Prime95 client.

I shall be looking around and see if a can find this application once more.

Unfortunately I have not had the opportunity at using this client for a little while because of both hard disc problems as well as a couple of other things as well.

[URL]http://factordb.com/index.php?query=%282%5E67303*101%2B1%29%2F7[/URL]

The remaining number is a composite, C20250, but apparently not working here. Tried using both Yafu-win32 as well as Yafu-x64.

Just added a PRP1080 to our current knowledge.

The web-link is for now a little long when it comes to syntax, so please let me know if you are interested.

[QUOTE=storflyt32;385244][URL]http://factordb.com/index.php?query=%282%5E67303*101%2B1%29%2F7[/URL]

The remaining number is a composite, C20250, but apparently not working here. Tried using both Yafu-win32 as well as Yafu-x64.[/QUOTE]

You should try reading the documentation that comes with yafu, ecm, and the other factorization software (msieve in particular has a good readme). Your observation that YAFU does not work on a 20k digit number is a little like remarking that you are disappointed that a hand axe failed to split the earth's crust. msieve readme will explain what size problems can be factored with each factorization method, hopefully preventing you from trying to split the Earth next time.

You say you like to crack prime numbers- that's usually quite difficult, per the definition of "prime".

The numbers that you are describing as new knowledge are just like water sloshing back and forth at an ocean beach. Now look at the vastness of the whole ocean. Think for a moment. And stop posting things that are being posted by thousands of other people silently to factordb.com at a speed of ten per second. Does each of them deserve a posting? Ten postings to mersenneforum per second with just bare numbers?
[QUOTE]ans = 5687625641025641025641025641025641025641025641025641025641025641025641025641

P33 = 213843479182611070647190753814939

P44 = 26597143213184949293331777384754973697286219[/QUOTE]
That's what factordb.com is for, not the mersenneforum!

Post a few more and you will get a day ban for posting, then a week, then a month. this already happened to the user "[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]cmd[/COLOR]", so you will be in a good company.

Which factors are there for 2^48853-1, if I may ask?

Also, why not give a try on 2^(2^20)+1 ( or 2^(2^20)-1 ) for that matter?

Definitely you should be able to find a decent prime in such a number.

Have you tried checking [url]http://factordb.com/index.php?query=2%5E48853-1[/url]? I hear it's a good source of information.

Apparently the P(RP)1764 in that number was pulled out again :(