Quote:
Originally Posted by ONeil
My code is very fast for some numbers its true, yet for 8 digits you might have to edit the range if you want a long time search. I'm going to try it with the existing code on some 8 digit searches to see if there are any with small 9 digit factors. As you can see I think this beats most if all factoring codes out there with some factoring coding techniques on some numbers.
|
If you are amazed by this, you'd be completely flabbergasted by learning what is actually possible these days.
Code:
? p=1741;m=2^p-1;q=2*p+1;while(m%q,q+=2*p);print(q)
1002817
*** last result computed in 0 ms.
? p=16273;m=2^p-1;q=2*p+1;while(m%q,q+=2*p);print(q)
390553
*** last result computed in 0 ms.
? p=67;m=2^p-1;q=2*p+1;while(m%q,q+=2*p);print(q)
193707721
*** last result computed in 318 ms.
Note that "ms" = millliseconds. if the PC would be bothered to measure the time it took to find the factors of the first two examples, it would probably have been less than 0.0001 seconds.
Edit: Meh, LaurV is faster than me in posting things... and I even messed up the quote tags now...*
Edit2: and Paul too... I should really consider posting my prime gap stuff in MiscMath!
*Edit3: Thanks, LaurV!
