20101016, 18:34  #23  
Sep 2010
Scandinavia
3·5·41 Posts 
Quote:
I'll admit to this embarrassing mistake. 1=/=2 Next you are touching on some very interesting stuff. Some people might remember me and at least one other person on this forum asking about the precise algorithm for determining optimal bounds given certain conditions. I have no reason to doubt that they break down essentially the same way, but it would be nice to see it, or have proof. I should follow up on those references, and hope I know enough math to wrap my head around it. I love natural constants btw; memorized Pi to 1k decimal places... For Euler's I only know ~0.577215664901... which happens to be close to 3^0.5. 

20101019, 13:33  #24 
Sep 2010
Scandinavia
3·5·41 Posts 
Sweet, someone finished M937 less than 24hrs ago, by finding the factor:
46654722984595033623595915319018639089714063407438899506169 195bit monster. 
20101019, 15:01  #25 
Aug 2002
Buenos Aires, Argentina
2·17·43 Posts 
It appears that you did not read http://www.mersenne.org/report_facto...B1=Get+Factors . The 135digit prime number that completes the factorization of M919 is not shown there.

20101019, 15:39  #26  
Sep 2010
Scandinavia
3×5×41 Posts 
Quote:
The second largest prime factor of M937 was found yesterday. The largest prime factor is a 154digit number. M919 is also fully factored, I don't know when that happened. But that's nice too. 

20101019, 16:35  #27 
Aug 2002
Buenos Aires, Argentina
2·17·43 Posts 
The factor of M937 was not found by Primenet. I added it manually after copying it from http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpos...5&postcount=74 . The huge prime factor of M919 was found by Batalov and Dodson using the SNFS algorithm while the factor of M937 was found by Bos, Kleinjung, Lenstra and Montgomery using the ECM algorithm. This information was taken from the Cunningham project.

20101019, 16:46  #28  
Sep 2010
Scandinavia
615_{10} Posts 
Quote:
Congratulations to everyone who cares, and particularly the few who went the extra miles to find the factors! 

20101019, 16:53  #29 
"Vincent"
Apr 2010
Over the rainbow
2855_{10} Posts 
found a 'second' factor, this time for M77224373, 45'192'357'913'710'021'991
Last fiddled with by firejuggler on 20101019 at 16:55 
20101019, 20:12  #30 
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
29F3_{16} Posts 
M332207539 has a factor: 1078409779123917134183 (found that one about 20 months ago.)
M53256451 has a factor: 1369868342874346481711 (a P1 catch from this weekend) 
20101020, 15:40  #31 
Sep 2010
Scandinavia
1001100111_{2} Posts 
M2223187 has a factor: 99607667506275209464609
77bit k=2*2*2*2*3*101*4759*26717*36343 
20101107, 08:01  #32 
Sep 2010
Scandinavia
3·5·41 Posts 
M3087479 has a factor: 69499497293731448560038350569
96bit k=2*2*3*1783*5501*8273*47777*241931 P1, 5hrs ago. 
20101124, 20:02  #33 
Nov 2010
2 Posts 
M23355961 has a factor: 25246628074910152142119
k = 3^3 × 29^2 × 449 × 53011433 That was found by trial factoring. I guess the k value is about 171 times greater than the default GIMPS limit (at least when that number was first trial factored; according to the current bounds it's 684 times). So is that some kind of a record k value for trial factoring!? I was testing out mprime's ability to trial factor past the default limits and wasn't expecting it to work! The thing I don't understand is that back in 2006 I ran P1 on that number with B1=1e6 and B2=1e8. It should've found that factor, right? B1 is easily large enough and B2 almost twice necessary. The machine was reliable; it returned lots of verified LLs and no known bad ones. 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Factor found that should have been found by P1  tha  Data  65  20200805 21:11 
F12 factor found?  johnadam74  FermatSearch  16  20161103 12:10 
TF Factor Found CPU Credit  TheMawn  GPU Computing  3  20130617 06:21 
found this factor  tha  Factoring  4  20070618 19:56 
After a factor is found it keeps on going  jocelynl  Software  6  20040807 01:31 