Lucas Table

[R.D. Silverman]

Does anyone have the factorization of L1058?

Blair Kelly's web page says that L1061 is the first hole, yet the
actual table listing the factorizations lists L1058 as having a C195
cofactor.

Or is the assertion that L1061 is the first hole incorrect?

[firejuggler]

Perhaps Blair Kelly consider L1061 the first hole because the composite factor is slightly smaller (c184) than the composite factor of L1058 (c195)?

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by firejuggler

Perhaps Blair Kelly consider L1061 the first hole because the composite factor is slightly smaller (c184) than the composite factor of L1058 (c195)?

No. Blair would not make that mistake.

[rajula]

Originally Posted by firejuggler

Perhaps Blair Kelly consider L1061 the first hole because the composite factor is slightly smaller (c184) than the composite factor of L1058 (c195)?

That would be really strange concept of "first hole". Also, there are other composite factors of Lucas numbers that are smaller than the c184 of L1061.

[firejuggler]

Then, maybe a mistake. Everybody make mistake sometimes. Or he/(she?) has just finished the factorisation and hasn't uploaded the result.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by firejuggler

Then, maybe a mistake. Everybody make mistake sometimes. Or he/(she?) has just finished the factorisation and hasn't uploaded the result.

It is far more likely that the full factorization of L1058 was simply
not entered into the table.

Does anyone have it?

[LaurV]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Does anyone have the factorization of L1058?

Blair Kelly's web page says that L1061 is the first hole, yet the
actual table listing the factorizations lists L1058 as having a C195
cofactor.

Or is the assertion that L1061 is the first hole incorrect?

Oh, Mr Silverman, how about doing your homework before posting such ignorant questions here.... You were just a click away from the truth from Mr Kelly's web page....

(edit: gotcha! I will laugh 5 weeks in a row !!! ha ha ha ha ha ha...")

[axn]

Originally Posted by LaurV

Oh, Mr Silverman, how about doing your homework before posting such ignorant questions here.... You were just a click away from the truth from Mr Kelly's web page....

RDS was talking about the discrepancy between the web page (http://mersennus.net/fibonacci/index.html) and the data tables (what you posted).

[LaurV]

Originally Posted by axn

RDS was talking about the discrepancy between the web page (http://mersennus.net/fibonacci/index.html) and the data tables (what you posted).

Sorry, can't reply to that, I am still shaking from laugh and barely can find the keys

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by LaurV

Oh, Mr Silverman, how about doing your homework before posting such ignorant questions here.... You were just a click away from the truth from Mr Kelly's web page....

(edit: gotcha! I will laugh 5 weeks in a row !!! ha ha ha ha ha ha...")

The entry for L1058 is new. It was NOT there when I checked the very
list of composites that you pointed to.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

The entry for L1058 is new. It was NOT there when I checked the very
list of composites that you pointed to.

In particular, see:

http://mersennus.net/fibonacci/status2000.html

L1058 is still not listed.

and:

http://mersennus.net/fibonacci/

says quite explicitly that L1061 is the first hole.

It seems that there is inconsistency among the tables. Sean seems
misinformed as well. He is doing the Lucas numbers in order but skipped
over L1058.