Non-ECM posts pulled from ECM question thread.
 

[QUOTE=lukerichards;511057]Hi ewmayer. I'm assuming you didn't mean to come across quite so brusquely, but your tone is a little off-putting here.[/QUOTE]

There is a reason ewmayer's avatar switches between a cute stuffed animal, a cool guy standing beside a car, and a cartoon of Calvin (of Hobbes) being held up by a bully about to be punched against the school lockers....

Moved from ECM thread
 

[QUOTE=kriesel;511094]Communication is hard.[/QUOTE]

[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Mathematical_Theory_of_Communication"]Shannon demonstrated this[/URL] in his seminal article.

Interestingly, it is more difficult for the receiver to correctly receive the message than it is for the sender. Thus, redundancy (e.g. ECC) can be useful.

A good friend of mine once gave me very good advice: "Be responsible for the listening into which you are speaking.

Moved from ECM thread
 

[QUOTE=chalsall;511103]
A good friend of mine once gave me very good advice: "Be responsible for the listening into which you are speaking.[/QUOTE]


Thanks to those who have been a bit more conciliatory. I think he point here is key, and I was trying to listen. If anyone goes back to my original post, I was asking questions and explaining why I was asking, not stating that I had actually broken a record.

I do think broadly the mathematical community (not specifically this forum) has a problem with talking down to people. Some, like R.D. Silverman are outright rude, superior and unwelcoming. Others probably do so unwittingly. Simply telling someone they "need to learn" about something is not really the way to involve people in your community.

Moved from ECM thread
 

Those of the forum that posted what seemed to be critical remarks did so to try to get the OP to think about things. Asking questions is well and good. But, giving the question some good deep thought before posting is even better.

"Enquiring minds want to know."
Engaged minds seek to answer the question.

Moved from ECM thread
 

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;511411][laughs] Oh, [i]that[/i] one again! The first go-round was 11 months ago. The cyclotomic factorization and linear forms were gone through. The unlikelihood of factoring the number was explained.

It had another recent go-round, so this is the third iteration. Lazarus got to come back from the dead once. Jesus is said to be due a [i]second[/i] coming. But a [i]third[/i]? I'm at a loss as to what to call it. The "bad penny" number?[/QUOTE]

There really is no need to be so rude/patronising/condascending about someone doing something that interests him.

I'm not asking you to do it for me or waste any of your time on it at all. In this thread I merely asked a question about ECM world records. The only help I've asked for has been on how to use/build various factoring software - information which is of general use to anyone interested in the topic.

You really don't have to be an a**hole to anyone who chooses to spend his or her time doing something that you wouldn't do.

Moved from ECM thread
 

[QUOTE=lukerichards;511498]There really is no need to be so rude/patronising/condascending about someone doing something that interests him.

I'm not asking you to do it for me or waste any of your time on it at all. In this thread I merely asked a question about ECM world records. The only help I've asked for has been on how to use/build various factoring software - information which is of general use to anyone interested in the topic.

You really don't have to be an a**hole to anyone who chooses to spend his or her time doing something that you wouldn't do.[/QUOTE]:tu:

Moved from ECM thread
 

[QUOTE=lukerichards;511046]A quick Google and a read of the Wikipedia page for ECM factoring list the all time record factor found by ECM at 83 decimal digits long, a 2013 record.

Is this 'fact' up to date?
[/QUOTE][QUOTE=lukerichards;511498]There really is no need to be so rude/patronising/condascending/an a**hole about ...[/QUOTE]
...facts e.g. by calling them 'fact's.

I think you will find that the attitude with which a question is asked frequently dictates the tone of the answers. Just re-read the first post with fresh eyes.

Moved from ECM thread
 

I'm sorry if you read it that way.

Sadly the reason I put that in quote marks was because I already have a fairly scorned experience of some people on this forum. I feared that if I just said "is this fact up to date?" somebody would come back with a withering "it's not a fact if its out of date, is it?"

Moved from ECM thread
 

[QUOTE=lukerichards;511538]I feared that if I just said "is this fact up to date?" somebody would come back with a withering "it's not a fact if its out of date, is it?"[/QUOTE]
People in math, logic, and programming tend to be pedantic and very focused on minutiae (with valid reasons). But that can come at a loss of "people skills".

Yes, it does seem odd that a record like this is that old.

There are some [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record"]aviation records[/URL] that seem very oddly old (like one from 1938 that still stands.)

Moved from ECM thread
 

[QUOTE=lukerichards;511513]At the very least it will remain here for future record, if anyone else is looking for similar queries.[/QUOTE]

You have demonstrated that you are a student based on your questions.

Perhaps be a little less sure of yourself on your ascertainons.

Moved from ECM thread
 

[QUOTE=chalsall;511542]You have demonstrated that you are a student based on your questions.

Perhaps be a little less sure of yourself on your ascertainons.[/QUOTE]

I'm not a student.

Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to judge.

As it happens I was clearly well aware of the algebraic and cyclotomic factors of the number and the method to discover them because, as others have pointed out, they were explained in great detail to me 11 months ago. So maybe we both could do with being a little bit less sure of ourselves in our assertions?