Quote:
Originally Posted by kriesel
Maybe read through this too.

kriesel, it sounds like they do something similar to what i found, just not the same starting point maybe, does that sound correct? I jump the bit_level for each next factor so if i'm starting out:
Like this :
Quote:
In [17]: getfactorsfromoffset2(2**291)
count, jump, formula to generate prime, and
0 56 117 Factor Not Found
0 86 175 Factor Not Found
1 114 233 Factor Found
1 144 291 Factor Not Found
2 172 349 Factor Not Found
2 202 407 Factor Not Found
3 230 465 Factor Not Found
3 260 523 Factor Not Found
4 288 581 Factor Not Found
4 318 639 Factor Not Found
5 346 697 Factor Not Found
5 376 755 Factor Not Found
6 404 813 Factor Not Found
6 434 871 Factor Not Found
7 462 929 Factor Not Found
7 492 987 Factor Not Found
8 520 1045 Factor Not Found
8 550 1103 Factor Found
9 578 1161 Factor Not Found
9 608 1219 Factor Not Found
10 636 1277 Factor Not Found
10 666 1335 Factor Not Found
11 694 1393 Factor Not Found
11 724 1451 Factor Not Found
12 752 1509 Factor Not Found
12 782 1567 Factor Not Found
13 810 1625 Factor Not Found
13 840 1683 Factor Not Found
14 868 1741 Factor Not Found
14 898 1799 Factor Not Found
15 926 1857 Factor Not Found
15 956 1915 Factor Not Found
16 984 1973 Factor Not Found
16 1014 2031 Factor Not Found
17 1042 2089 Factor Found
So our 17th iteration is already at 1042.
...

Sorry if i posted something well known, i discovered this without knowing it, so thought it was useful. Also, would mine not be twice as fast due to the equation i use to get the larger number prime quicker, i'm actually ahead of the jump by the exponent by a factor of 2, lol
Just go with me on this, if you look at the right column, i'm jumping by twice the exponent and arriving at correct answers, that second column moves up by twice the bit_length or exponent which are the same. Maybe thats different? I wish i knew how to do emoticons, i'd put one here, that seems cool. I'm really not trying to sound like i've found anything revolutionary here, its just fun to point out ( which probably means my math is wrong, i'll look into that ( which it is i just verified, i should be looking at twice the bit_length and i'm looking at double it )