![]() |
|
|
#23 |
|
Feb 2013
45810 Posts |
Thanks for the link.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
∂2ω=0
Sep 2002
República de California
103·113 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Feb 2013
7128 Posts |
@ ewmayer
I guess you certainly know this already. Here is the general syntax when it comes to the Fermat numbers and their possible factorization. 2^0 + 1 = 2 2^1 + 1 = 3 2^2 + 1 = 5 2^4 + 1 = 17 2^8 + 1 = 257 2^16 + 1 = 65537 These numbers are the six first and only known Fermat factors which are known to be prime. They are designated F(0) through F(5), respectively. Try using for example F(6) in the input box at factordb.com (and not the web-browser address bar) and press the "Factorize!"-button. 2^32 + 1, 2^64 + 1, 2^128 +1 and 2^256 + 1, 2^512 + 1, 2^1024 + 1 and 2^2048 +1 are known to be composite numbers as a whole, although they have now been completely factored. But when it comes to 2^4096 + 1, 2^8192 + 1, 2^16384 + 1 and 2^32768 + 1 and so on, these numbers are only partially factored for now, meaning that there is a mix or combination of prime factors and a remaining composite part which has yet to be factorized. Finding the remaining factors of these numbers apparently is not a trivial manner. First a factor which is somewhere between 54 digits (P54 = 568630647535356955169033410940867804839360742060818433) and less than about (2^4096+1)/25860116183332395113497853167940236083358054650286886725246241569916604094012679963198712829716480001 (which is the syntax for the C1133), has to be found and it needs to be divisable from both 2^4096+1 and the C1133 mentioned above in order to become a valid factor. The question becomes - in which way is this supposed to be working? For now I really don't know the answer to this question and I have tried it out a couple of times. Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2014-10-28 at 20:41 |
|
|
|
|
|
#26 |
|
Feb 2013
45810 Posts |
Here is another example:
http://factordb.com/index.php?query=...79514579840739 The factors are already individually known, but apparently some 76.5 hours more to go in order to possibly factorize this number: Here are the factors for this number: P46 = 7774289568841054467342907020273258993552032567 P171 = 39351869136828636825562309706971225245700129962404540849168691727314561178481864067 5586069862814412735711970194801864005631730155162613125109843290448727462456016513851317 Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2014-10-28 at 21:04 |
|
|
|
|
|
#27 | |
|
"Brian"
Jul 2007
The Netherlands
CC516 Posts |
Do you realise who you are talking to?
Quote:
The numbers in your list above, with the exception of the first one, are Fermat numbers (not Fermat factors). Remove the first one which does not belong in the list, then the remaining numbers are |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Feb 2013
2×229 Posts |
Sorry, should have skipped the 2.
BTW: Was replying to ewmayer. Should be readily visible. |
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Feb 2013
2×229 Posts |
Anyway, I now have the output here for the mentioned 7333*2^138560+1 .
If this number was a prime number, it should definitely be showing up, but it does not do so. What if I update the factordb with the most recent result and let you know? Edit: And this is something which I am apparently not able to do. Trust the numbers (meaning results). Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2014-10-28 at 22:27 |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 | |
|
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
486110 Posts |
Quote:
Your comments are so general that it's hard to figure out what you are talking about, trying to do, or not understanding from the lengthy advice you have been given in this thread. The number you refer to is prime, and has been known to be prime for a while- so there is nothing to update in factordb or anywhere else. You have discovered nothing new about this number, but you have surely discovered which tools don't work for numbers this size. Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 2014-10-28 at 22:54 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
"Mike"
Aug 2002
25·257 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Undefined
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair
22·1,549 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Feb 2013
1110010102 Posts |
Thank you very much!
Including http://factordb.com/index.php?query=...06725862850881 Reading the .pdf right now, by the way. You do not have to post or update this one if you wish not to do so, but this number: http://factordb.com/index.php?query=...92009040129237 has then the two factors http://factordb.com/index.php?query=...56016513851317 and http://factordb.com/index.php?query=...43089817881761 respectively. Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2014-10-29 at 00:16 |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Composite being Prime | kruoli | FactorDB | 5 | 2018-02-16 16:54 |
| How can I prove this PRP prime? | siegert81 | Math | 2 | 2014-11-19 10:24 |
| How do I prove a 4000 digit number is prime?? | VJS | Lounge | 4 | 2005-05-09 20:56 |
| How do you prove a number is prime? | Alien | Math | 12 | 2004-01-07 11:36 |
| why not stop when composite is prove? | mdjvz | Software | 4 | 2003-09-28 17:13 |