Occasional detours

[wblipp]

Originally Posted by frmky

I have reserved all base-2 odd below 900 bits. Following that, we're taking a brief detour to do EM43

You're doing occasional detours? Might you consider sigma(2801^78)? 894 bits, no known factors, ECM above 1.5 t55. yoyo@home will probably take it to 2 t55 in January.

William
____

S.B.: well, it will be 11-bits more with denominator going nowhere. More like 905 bits. Not impossible, though.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by wblipp

You're doing occasional detours? Might you consider sigma(2801^78)? 894 bits, no known factors, ECM above 1.5 t55. yoyo@home will probably take it to 2 t55 in January.

William
____

S.B.: well, it will be 11-bits more with denominator going nowhere. More like 905 bits. Not impossible, though.

I hope not. Pursuing odd perfect numbers is a waste of time.

[wblipp]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

I hope not. Pursuing odd perfect numbers is a waste of time.

<Chuckle> I knew you would pop in to push your beliefs.

I can point to several published papers using the odd perfect factorizations. How many can you claim for Homogenous Cunninghams?

This particular factorization would be a line in the table Richard Brent maintains and updates regularly. Who is publishing the HC factorizations?

If you are really concerned about factorizations that are a waste of time, shouldn't you worry about the wastes you promote first?

[frmky]

More like 905 bits. Not impossible, though.

If it were a bit smaller... But at that size, it will require the 16e sieve. 16e resources are smaller than 15e and there is a lot of work queued up already. Perhaps eventually, but not soon.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by wblipp

<Chuckle> I knew you would pop in to push your beliefs.

I can point to several published papers using the odd perfect factorizations. How many can you claim for Homogenous Cunninghams?

This particular factorization would be a line in the table Richard Brent maintains and updates regularly. Who is publishing the HC factorizations?

If you are really concerned about factorizations that are a waste of time, shouldn't you worry about the wastes you promote first?

The HC tables are maintained online by xilman.

As I have said before (and which you would know if you knew how to read)

They were created not because their factorizations were useful, but
rather as an alternate source of useful numbers for testing NFS code,
since the Cunninhgams, Fibonacci/Lucas, and others were getting too
big to make good code test cases.

I have also said that people should NOT spend much time on them. I do
NOT promote working on them.

As for chasing odd perfect numbers, you seem to think that it has value.
I will have respect for your mathematical opinion about what is and isn't
valuable (especially in computational number theory) after you have
published your first half-dozen refereed research papers. Or even ONE!
Until then, I will continue to treat your ideas about what computations
are worthwhile with the contempt it deserves.

MY earlier remarks only expressed an opinion about whether a certain
computation had value. You had to respond with PERSONAL comments.

And people call me rude.

[wblipp]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

MY earlier remarks only expressed an opinion about whether a certain computation had value. You had to respond with PERSONAL comments.

Point to Bob. I apologize.

I was inclined to delete my own posts as off topic nuisances, but now fear it will be seen a self serving.