mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Blogorrhea > Dobri

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2022-04-13, 16:14   #12
a1call
 
a1call's Avatar
 
"Rashid Naimi"
Oct 2015
Remote to Here/There

2·11·109 Posts
Default

In case you do find a factor, you might want to read this tread before publishing the factors:

https://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=24775

Good luck.
a1call is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-04-13, 16:25   #13
charybdis
 
charybdis's Avatar
 
Apr 2020

3×353 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dobri View Post
Code:
p = 1249; Mn = 2^p - 1;
Mbl = p; Fbl = 26;
FindInstance[
 Mod[Mn, FromDigits[Boole[Reverse[Join[{True}, 
 {Sequence @@ Array[ca, {Fbl - 2}, {1}]}, {True}]]], 2]] == 0, 
 {Sequence @@ Array[ca, {Fbl - 2}, {1}]}, Booleans]
This looks like extremely inefficient trial division. If there is some clever way to find factors by optimization - which I highly doubt - FindInstance isn't going to magically discover it.
charybdis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-04-13, 19:30   #14
Dobri
 
"ม้าไฟ"
May 2018

10268 Posts
Default

The Wolfram function FindInstance is used merely as an illustration.
The intended discussion in this thread is on the framework for prospective utilization of additional empirical constraints.
Let's consider the illustration in post #1 in some more detail.
If the numerical values of the convolution sums for each polynomial term were known, the problem could be reduced to finding the solution of a system of equations.
Code:
Solve[ca3 + cb5 == 0 &&
  cb4 + ca3*cb5 + ca2 == 2 &&
  cb3 + ca3*cb4 + ca2*cb5 + ca1 == 2 && 
  cb2 + ca3*cb3 + ca2*cb4 + ca1*cb5 + 1 == 2 && 
  cb1 + ca3*cb2 + ca2*cb3 + ca1*cb4 + cb5 == 2 && 
  1 + ca3*cb1 + ca2*cb2 + ca1*cb3 + cb4 == 3 && 
  ca3 + ca2*cb1 + ca1*cb2 + cb3 == 1 &&
  ca2 + ca1*cb1 + cb2 == 1 &&
  ca1 + cb1 == 1,
 {ca3, ca2, ca1, cb5, cb4, cb3, cb2, cb1}, NonNegativeIntegers]
Code:
{{ca3 -> 0, ca2 -> 1, ca1 -> 1, cb5 -> 0, cb4 -> 1, cb3 -> 1, cb2 -> 0, cb1 -> 0}}
Apparently, said numerical values are unknown but one could use empirical constraints to narrow the scope of work one way or another in an attempt to reduce the computation time.
Code:
Reduce[2^10 + (ca3 + cb5)*2^9 + (cb4 + ca3*cb5 + ca2)*2^8 + (cb3 + ca3*cb4 + ca2*cb5 + ca1)*2^7 + (cb2 + ca3*cb3 + ca2*cb4 + a1*cb5 + 1)*2^6 + (cb1 + ca3*cb2 + ca2*cb3 + ca1*cb4 + cb5)*2^5 + (1 + ca3*cb1 + ca2*cb2 + ca1*cb3 + cb4)*2^4 + (ca3 + ca2*cb1 + ca1*cb2 + cb3)*2^3 + (ca2 + ca1*cb1 + cb2)*2^2 + (ca1 + cb1)*2 + 1 == 2^11 - 1 && 
  ca3 + cb5 <= 1 &&
  cb4 + ca3*cb5 + ca2 <= 2 &&
  cb3 + ca3*cb4 + ca2*cb5 + ca1 <= 2 &&
  b2 + ca3*cb3 + ca2*cb4 + ca1*cb5 + 1 <= 3 && 
  cb1 + ca3*cb2 + ca2*cb3 + ca1*cb4 + cb5 <= 3 && 
  1 + ca3*cb1 + ca2*cb2 + ca1*cb3 + cb4 <= 3 && 
  ca3 + ca2*cb1 + ca1*cb2 + cb3 <= 2 && 
  ca2 + ca1*cb1 + cb2 <= 2 && 
  ca1 + cb1 == 1 && 
  ca1 <= 1 && ca2 <= 1 && ca3 <= 1 && cb1 <= 1 && cb2 <= 1 && cb3 <= 1 && cb4 <= 1 && cb5 <= 1,
 {ca3, ca2, ca1, cb5, cb4, cb3, cb2, cb1}, NonNegativeIntegers]
Code:
ca3 == 0 && ca2 == 1 && ca1 == 1 && cb5 == 0 && cb4 == 1 && cb3 == 1 && cb2 == 0 && cb1 == 0
Therefore, the introduction of the vector b is not a simplification of the factorization problem but an extension of the standard framework to allow for additional numerical techniques from other fields to be tested.
Dobri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-04-13, 20:03   #15
charybdis
 
charybdis's Avatar
 
Apr 2020

3×353 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dobri View Post
Let's consider the illustration in post #1 in some more detail.
If the numerical values of the convolution sums for each polynomial term were known, the problem could be reduced to finding the solution of a system of equations.
I can reduce the problem to finding the solution to a system of one equation: x*y = N. Why overcomplicate things?

Last fiddled with by charybdis on 2022-04-13 at 20:03
charybdis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-04-13, 20:51   #16
Dr Sardonicus
 
Dr Sardonicus's Avatar
 
Feb 2017
Nowhere

13·17·29 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dobri View Post
<snip>
The increase of the bit length increases the computation time exponentially if no additional constraints are stated.
Exponentially? Uh-oh, trouble!
Quote:
For example, one could put constraints on the number of consecutive zeros and ones, add empirical bit patterns, etc., in order to reduce the computation time for a prospective factor.


I have absolutely no idea what "empirical bit patterns" for an unknown factor could possibly mean.

One thing I can guarantee: the last three bits of any factor of Mp, p prime > 2, are either 111 or 001.
Dr Sardonicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-04-13, 20:57   #17
Batalov
 
Batalov's Avatar
 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
San Diego, Calif.

32·7·163 Posts
Default

The OP is trying to drink whiskey from a bottle of wine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by E.John
You better get back, honky cat
Living in the city ain't where it's at
It's like trying to find gold in a silver mine
It's like trying to drink whiskey from a bottle of wine
Batalov is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mersenne factorization by (nxy+x+y) baih Miscellaneous Math 7 2020-08-25 07:55
Optimization Mersenne search Kube Prims GPU Computing 1 2019-11-05 15:40
Transforming the factorization problem into a game Alberico Lepore Alberico Lepore 1 2017-09-28 10:14
An equivalent problem for factorization of large numbers HellGauss Math 5 2012-04-12 14:01
Fermat numbers factorization ET_ Factoring 15 2008-03-12 21:24

All times are UTC. The time now is 04:20.


Fri Jul 7 04:20:37 UTC 2023 up 323 days, 1:49, 0 users, load averages: 1.22, 1.59, 1.51

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔