|
2016-01-16, 04:39
|
#89 |
|
Feb 2013
1110010102 Posts |
Right now I do not have an example ready, but came across a random example.
If for some reason I should be factoring a number other than RSA-1024 or RSA-2048 using Yafu, I could be able to find that a number may be having a P15, P20 and P23 as its factors. Then, "dividing" the product of these three numbers from RSA-1024, I am able to get the following answer. http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000815105869 http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000815106238 For now limiting the factorization of the second link to ecm(ans,30) for the C209. Yes, I happen to know that four factors are better than three when it comes to this, but that is not about the question that I am asking. It should be a fact that a number less than 309 digits for RSA-1024 may be having factors or numbers which are either composite or may be prime factors. The total number of prime factors are the total amount of different numbers minus all numbers which are composite. The total number of prime factors should be very large, but then why am I able to find only 7 factors (including 3 * 3), in the second link when limiting the factorization to ecm(ans,30) for the C209 ? Is this because of the way factorization is supposed to be carried out by means of the software, or is it more because of the numbers in question themselves? Any answers welcome. Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2016-01-16 at 05:08 |
|
|
|
2016-01-16, 05:25
|
#90 | |
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
4,861 Posts |
Quote:
More specifically, you misuse the word divides, rending the rest of your post utterly useless gibberish. You have never found a factor of RSA1024, nor has any number you have ever mentioned divided it without remainder. YAFU will not factor RSA1024. I invite you to try, and further to not post about it until it finishes. |
|
|
|
|
2016-01-16, 05:37
|
#91 |
|
Feb 2013
2×229 Posts |
Notice that I put the word "dividing" in apostrophes (" ").
Is it possible to "prove" in advance that the possible factors of the C209 will not be a factor or factors of RSA-1024? Edit: Another example, slightly better. http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000815112868 http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000815112893 For the first link I do have the factors for. Therefore it should not be wasted time on. For the second link the C129 still remains to be factored. Which one would be the better here? Is it possible to say or predict in advance? Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2016-01-16 at 06:12 |
|
|
|
|
2016-01-16, 06:39
|
#92 |
|
Feb 2013
2·229 Posts |
Too late to edit the previous.
http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000815113546 http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000815113618 Would adding the factors in the second link be regarded as being "unfair"? By, the way, a P114 and a P148 in the second link, found separately and possibly already known. Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2016-01-16 at 06:40 |
|
|
|
|
2016-01-16, 09:26
|
#93 |
|
Feb 2013
1CA16 Posts |
Should read "quotes" above, not "apostrophes".
|
|
|
|
|
2016-01-16, 10:02
|
#94 |
|
Basketry That Evening!
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88
722110 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
2016-01-16, 13:45
|
#95 |
|
Feb 2013
2×229 Posts |
A question for you about the FDB right now.
Right now getting PRP rather than P for even smaller numbers being reported. I have seen this before and since reporting of factors is being made "on the fly", no interaction is supposed to be carried out for at least the smaller numbers. Why is this happening? Is it a separate or specific mechanism being used to make a separation or distinction between those numbers which are supposed to be composite and those numbers which turn up being P or PRP and such a thing might possibly be turned off at certain times? Any answers welcome. Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2016-01-16 at 13:48 |
|
|
|
|
2016-01-16, 17:36
|
#96 |
Sep 2009
40368 Posts |
The FDB has had a lot of new probable primes added to it and it's taking it a while to check if they are all really prime. Once that backlog has been cleared new primes will be proved quickly (if below 300 digits).
I don't know where they came from. It's annoying when it happens though. Chris |
|
|
|
|
2016-01-16, 22:47
|
#97 |
|
Feb 2013
1110010102 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
2016-01-17, 00:02
|
#98 | |
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
100101000001012 Posts |
Quote:
Post your nonsense here or nowhere. You've been warned. |
|
|
|
|
|
2016-01-18, 14:40
|
#99 | |
"William"
May 2003
New Haven
2×7×132 Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Can Pollard Rho cycles be used to find a factor? | wwf | Factoring | 26 | 2013-09-30 04:24 |
| PFGW can't find a small factor. | Arkadiusz | Software | 7 | 2013-02-18 12:43 |
| Chance to find an n-digit factor with ECM | RedGolpe | Factoring | 4 | 2007-03-23 15:24 |
| How much ECM does it take to find a given factor? | geoff | Factoring | 5 | 2004-09-29 20:14 |
| Where I find the best program to it factor keys? I use AMD. | chrow | Factoring | 5 | 2004-02-19 10:15 |
