20140110, 11:38  #12 
"Bill Staffen"
Jan 2013
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
2^{2}·89 Posts 
I don't understand the problem. If he's adding legitimate factors to the database, wouldn't that be a good thing? Hopefully at least some of those numbers hadn't already had one.

20140110, 12:13  #13 
Jun 2003
1218_{16} Posts 
The factors are currently at 44.x bits. All of GIMPS surviving exponents have been factored up to at least 61 bits. Therefore all these exponents should have a known (smaller) factor already in the db. Nonetheless, it is mathematically useful to have new factors for these (already factored) exponents... I guess. Especially if these are being systematically generated.

20140111, 16:57  #14 
May 2013
East. Always East.
11×157 Posts 
Well I honestly don't know if what this user is doing is harming the server in any way or not. I don't know how taxing a hundred thousand factors plus time stamp, username, and whatever else comes with, etc, is on the server.
Just bringing it up in case someone else knows. 
20140112, 06:43  #15 
Jun 2003
4632_{10} Posts 
I think they've stopped at 2^45. Just when it was getting interesting...

20140516, 13:00  #16 
Apr 2014
2^{7} Posts 
He just finished 2^50 this morning. If he keeps this pace, probably impossible, he'll get to around 2^61 in 810 months.
560841 factors found up to this point. 
20140527, 23:25  #17 
Apr 2014
7·17 Posts 
Does he only test already factored numbers?

20140528, 01:21  #18 
May 2013
East. Always East.
11×157 Posts 
All these factors are, of course, new. The user is testing numbers which are already factored but he is finding new ones beyond the first known factor.
For the purposes of GIMPS, there is no value in finding a number's second factor. You might have stopped looking after 42 bits but he's gone and looked for more. 
20140528, 05:12  #19  
"Graham uses ISO 8601"
Mar 2014
AU, Sydney
241 Posts 
Quote:
In which case a smaller factor might be available? 

20140528, 06:00  #21 
Romulan Interpreter
Jun 2011
Thailand
2187_{16} Posts 
Yes, it is possible. In this case, the "smaller" factor will be over 2^61 (the lowest TF limit for smallest exponents). That is because all the exponents had TF to some point, before trying P1.

20140528, 07:19  #22 
"Graham uses ISO 8601"
Mar 2014
AU, Sydney
241_{10} Posts 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Old User  Unregistered  Information & Answers  1  20121018 23:31 
The user CP has gone :(  retina  Forum Feedback  5  20061205 16:47 
Changing My User ID  endless mike  NFSNET Discussion  1  20041031 19:38 
OSX yet? new user here  KevinLee  Hardware  6  20031212 17:06 
help for a Mac user  drakkar67  Software  3  20030211 10:55 