![]() |
|
|
#12 |
|
Feb 2006
Denmark
23010 Posts |
I have just created a page with another type of records for complete factorizations:
Largest Consecutive Factorizations "This page lists the largest known case of k consecutive numbers for which the complete prime factorization is known. Only records with at least 500 digits are listed." There are no restrictions on constructed numbers or factor sizes - but k=1 is not included! |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 | |
|
∂2ω=0
Sep 2002
Repรบblica de California
22·2,939 Posts |
Quote:
Your page confuses me - I see a bunch of large primes. Primes aren't "factorizations" any more than 1 is (nontrivially) "prime." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 | |
|
Feb 2006
Denmark
23010 Posts |
Quote:
This is the definition I'm used to and I thought it was standard. Are you saying that a prime has no prime factorization? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
∂2ω=0
Sep 2002
Repรบblica de California
22×2,939 Posts |
In the sense of which we normally speak of factoring records and complete factorizations, no it does not -- a prime is a trivial complete factorization, in that it has just one proper factor.
The fact that the computational complexities of primality proving [proved to be in P] and factoring [believed NP] are radically different also makes it inappropriate to treat the 2 tasks as somehow being interchangeable. |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Feb 2006
Denmark
2×5×23 Posts |
I did say "another type of records for complete factorizations". For the purpose of my page, consecutive numbers which all have completely known prime factorization, I don't think it would make sense to disallow primes. And some of the factorizations are n = 2*p which is about as trivial as n = n. But it's hard to find several large consecutive numbers with simple factorizations, for example the record for k=7 where no second largest factor is above 12 digits:
n = 21247003564*2411#-1 = c1037 n+0 = 12906420959*p1027 n+1 = 2^2*103*51570397*2411#, where 2411# = 2*3*5*7*...*2411 n+2 = 2524541*p1031 n+3 = 2*5002841*6245491249*p1020 n+4 = 3*485475518243*p1025 n+5 = 2^2*(5311750891*2411#+1) n+6 = 5*3691*23063^2*2961991*19076087*3778442561*p1001 (n+5)/4 = 5311750891*2411#+1 is one of millions of probable primes found by Markus Frind and Paul Underwood during an AP8 search. They kindly gave me access to them so I could go for 7 consecutive titanic factorizations with limited computing power. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 | |
|
"Bob Silverman"
Nov 2003
North of Boston
166158 Posts |
Quote:
I also do not believe that primes should be included. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
"William"
May 2003
Near Grandkid
53×19 Posts |
It seems obvious to me that primes fit the definition of the page, which is "largest known case of k consecutive numbers for which the complete prime factorization is known." I agree that limiting it to composites would make it harder, but also makes the definition of the page awkward.
You could try "largest known case of k consecutive composite numbers for which the complete prime factorization is known," but then a stretch of 7 numbers with a prime in the middle would qualify as a stretch of 6 consecutive composite numbers. So you would need "largest known case of k consecutive numbers which are all composite and for which the complete prime factorizations are all known." Uhg. I say stick with the simple, clear definition. If somebody else want to make a site restricted to non-primes, offer to provide a link. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 | |
|
Feb 2006
Denmark
2×5×23 Posts |
Quote:
People who dislike primes being their own prime factorization can think of the records as the largest known n for which I have announced the record with 7 numbers (not including primes!) in more detail at [primeform] Re: Update on search for consecutive factored titanics. The record page is actually a response to a 5 year old question by Jack Brennen (who allowed primes): Consecutive numbers all factored. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Bamboozled!
"๐บ๐๐ท๐ท๐ญ"
May 2003
Down not across
1179810 Posts |
Observation: finding Brilliant numbers generally requires rather a lot of factorization of consecutive numbers.
Paul |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 | |
|
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
144668 Posts |
Quote:
I'm not sure how to estimate the number of numbers between 10^500 and 2*10^500 whose second-largest prime factor is less than 10^10; I can write down an enormous inclusion-exclusion-principle sum sum_{N not coprime to (10^10)!} (-1)^{number of divisors of N} pi(2*10^500/N)-pi(10^500/N) , and I can observe that the number of numbers 2^a*p is going to be a nice collapsing sequence pi(N)-pi(N/2) [2*p] +pi(N/2)-pi(N/4) [4*p] +pi(N/4)-pi(N/8) [8*p] ... = pi(N) but I'm not sure how to turn anything into an integral that can actually be used to estimate a probability. So I'm estimating it by running ecm on [10^500, 10^500+10^4] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
"Bob Silverman"
Nov 2003
North of Boston
1D8D16 Posts |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| factorisation | devarajkandadai | Factoring | 7 | 2013-07-06 03:44 |
| Being coy about a factorisation | fivemack | Math | 7 | 2007-11-17 01:27 |
| gmp-ecm records page question | yqiang | GMP-ECM | 6 | 2007-05-18 12:23 |
| Kraitchik's factorisation method | Robertcop | Math | 2 | 2006-02-06 21:03 |
| Records in January | wblipp | ElevenSmooth | 10 | 2004-03-22 01:26 |