mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Blogorrhea > storflyt32

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2020-01-24, 03:17   #111
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

6538 Posts
Default

Perhaps a blank line too much in the previous, and could be thinking of that.

Here a couple of good ones during the week, and I have not looked at the summary.

Always the few or single ones you could make for only primes for such, when still only a bunch for that of the rest, when only making it composite numbers.

Just a thanks instead, for not any big thanks either, but I happened to see it just occasionally, for only a distant past.

Here that of end factor, or factors for such, when only ending up in a prime, or PRP for such, when also small factors just preceding, being part of a scheme.

For that, a P346 during the week, which I chose to "divide" from a C1133, except not any factoring I could make it instead.

The little grin here, is that I absolutely have to make it "999..." for just an ending, except still only a "positive" number, for only that of a sign.

More simple, and yes we perhaps could know, for only the size we could make it, when still Mersenne primes just ahead for that of any else, when only still size.

Only just the 3*3*111 you could make it, for the same 999, and still not any 001 for just Genefer either, when only looking at it from a positive side or angle.

Here it became a restart of the computer waiting for me when back from the shop, so here still a C212 just unknown, for also a bit of interest.

Only just a C356 instead, for that of a P14 being reported, and next the rest of it perhaps only trial division for only attempted, except not any "interesting" you could make it either.

Some could end up just saying "enough", when not any stomach for just more, except others rather saying "Don't do it", for just stating or expressing.

We know that Sophie Germain primes could be only "dirty" for such, except still not any thing we could quantize for just magnitude or manifold either.

Just being that of Proportionality instead, and perhaps not any attitude you could make it, but rather a relation with that of Sets, for only what you could make it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality

We could define objects, for only the Cardinality you could make it, except still only Sets, for that of objects.

But only just all for everything, for only being included, and still the thing we could define, for only objects for that of the same, except not any Sets instead, for also the structures we could make it.

Here just fine music we could end up listening at, except not any granular we could make it for that of a shape, because still only nature for such.

Just more or less, for not any little or least, and perhaps still the most significant we could make it just for attribute, except not any lesson for just a story, when it could be still only telling.

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001438727759

Edit: Flips around here for only the same factor, with still a C136 left or remaining to go, so here that word for only such, and the rest I do not have either.

Yes, those big sizes we could make it for nature, for next not any cake or even pizza either.

Here I was wondering what could be the flipping point of sorts, for perhaps know versus know, when it comes to only the Magic number alone (RSA-1024).

For that, just the valid factorizations we sometimes could make, except not any "beat me" on just a number either, only because perhaps not any valid.

Here a P45 multiplied with a P57, should return a C102 or C103, and we next know that it could be a difficult one to handle, except not any flipover still, for the rest.

Not tried here yet, but could be getting at the P57 a little down the list, for only doing so.

Always the brag I could make it, for not any proud either, but many good numbers could be hidden in the sleeves, for only part of a structure, but still prime numbers.

Add them, for rather multiplying instead, and it becomes quite a good sequence at times, except not any remainder you could make it for the rest.

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001439536829

Here the last three are not that bad, and took quite some time to get at.

The problem is just knowing, for not any knowing, and next it also needs to be reported, in a more or less valid fashion.

Here the stumbling wall of sorts I also could make it for just pretending, because here the remainder could be still composite, when just dividing, and here the number for our secrecy.

The problem here is that it could become almost everything, except not any RSA number still meant for just secrecy, when only factoring a little.

Does a P153 and a P57 make it for a C210 perhaps, and if so, what is this number a part of, for only the next you could make it?

Here many examples only for such, except still just faking at times, for only pretending, when only just numbers.

WYSIWYG is still what you could get, except sometimes starting with the larger factors, for which no simple factorization exists, and next breaking it up in smaller numbers,
for only parts, in order to be reported.

Not looking good here, so I will try fixing that in due time.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2020-02-01 at 04:00
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-02-01, 03:57   #112
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

7·61 Posts
Default

Not reading everything here, as you perhaps know, but appreciate much your gratitude and politeness.

So therefore always your friend. except the one thing being the major question, for also that of task, namely those numbers we could seek to find, for also answer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_theory

Are numbers readily doable, for also factorable, in that they could be fractions of a given part, for only "splintered" of sorts?

Pardon my expression, but I could be still having Notepad here at my disposal, for making it X*Y for only an expression, if not any Mathematical concept it rather could be as well.

Next Z for only the product, if not any P for any answer or starting point it could be either, because such a thing could end up being a factorization leading nowhere, for just astray.

Sorry, for only making it PXX * PYY for just the same, and next flipping it over, for still the remaining part of the whole thing.

Think I could be silly or stupid, but once getting the message that I should not be doing that, when only the Factor Database being concerned.

As an example, here a P62 and P63 made for a pair, when still a C184 or so at the other end, and you could be left guessing for at least one or the other.

For only that reason, I perhaps should not add either, only because it could not be any valid factorization, when only range and capabilities given for such.

They do not like the word "stupid" at a couple of projects, so here also asking about just the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisor

Keying in "divisibility" here at first, for only searching on the term.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2020-02-01 at 04:10
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-02-07, 02:37   #113
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

7·61 Posts
Default

I know that the word "stupid" is just a silly word, and therefore is not any favored for only among or amongst a couple of projects for such.

Here keying in wrong, for only back with my laptop, and should rather be people instead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism

And not this project, for only a thing you already should know.

But here having too much to eat, and therefore logging off locally, for also a bit more successful regarding the so-called "Magic number".

Here I know that an election could be "rigged" of sorts, for only the Politics, or political structure it might be,
except suddenly discovering, for only a fact, that we could be still doing only 2^n-1 here, for only such a thing.

Oh, what a mess it could be, for not any shy or modest, for also bashful it might be, except also set goals, for only stated facts instead.

Just seeking Susan, and next it also could be the thing I also could know, for only curiosity on my part, for also inquisitive as well,
because here needing to translate a bit, for only getting it correct.

I think that the starting pair for only factors once again was reported separately, but next not my job or business reverting back for doing only something quite impossible,
if not almost so either.

A given number could be secrecy for just the web, and therefore is not supposed to be any "hacked", because it could be still impossible.

Ending up with "1" for that of an end digit for that that of yet another pair of factors, and it still does not divide, but for rather the Magic number, I could be still trying out the whole thing.

Here my fingers blew as well, and does not even work at 03:30 AM in the morning, for just other people in bed, while still a bit of drizzle outside.

The end or final factor became a P304 here, so the question becomes whether it flips back to the product of the two ones previously reported, or rather could divide on the spot.

And it does not, however, for only adding a P10, and ending up with a P283, but still thinking that these are pretty good ones.

Could have the links for some of this later on, but except my fingers, still not any hacking meant to be here either, for just in the middle.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001446396489

Not the same as above, because I have to get back at that, but here a P30 and P36, for also a P247 at the end, and not too hard either this time.

Flipping it around, at least a P19, for also a P311 and a P284, and the latter one not checked yet, for only testing out.

Only just looking at the P311 here, and it stands out a little for only visual appearance, so here perhaps a tight one.

Sing a song for perhaps "It's a long way to Tipperary", and next not any meant, for just secrecy on the web for just good, but next I could stumble on fact, for just being lucky.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_numbers

We know where it ends, for also could be starting, when still the "Magic number", for only RSA-1024 for such, still unsolved, leaving only a bit of puzzle for just a mystery.


The strange thing is that if I gave it a try, perhaps the larger one could break, while the one above could still remain, for just intact.

Continuing on with the P284, and it could end up being so, for only a bad taste coming back, when perhaps secrecy being broken.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2020-02-08 at 16:23
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-02-10, 13:14   #114
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

7×61 Posts
Default

Here keying in a small one that was perhaps not needed, so apologies for that.

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001445525985

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001447247700

For that, here flipping around with the same factor, by means of trial division only and ending up with a P104 at the other end, but next did not do that.

But it only goes to show that this did not come any free, and took a long time.

If you want to add it manually here, perhaps having no problem with that.

. . .

pm1: starting B1 = 150K, B2 = gmp-ecm default on C197
ecm: 30/30 curves on C197, B1=2K, B2=gmp-ecm default
ecm: 74/74 curves on C197, B1=11K, B2=gmp-ecm default
ecm: 214/214 curves on C197, B1=50K, B2=gmp-ecm default, ETA: 1 sec
pm1: starting B1 = 3750K, B2 = gmp-ecm default on C197
ecm: 430/430 curves on C197, B1=250K, B2=gmp-ecm default, ETA: 5 sec
pm1: starting B1 = 15M, B2 = gmp-ecm default on C197
ecm: 904/904 curves on C197, B1=1M, B2=gmp-ecm default, ETA: 21 sec
ecm: 2350/2350 curves on C197, B1=3M, B2=gmp-ecm default, ETA: 1.3 min
ecm: 232/4480 curves on C197, B1=11M, B2=gmp-ecm default, ETA: 305.30 hrs
ecm: 205/4247 curves on C157, B1=11M, B2=gmp-ecm default, ETA: 259.52 hrs
Aborting...
ecm: 206/4247 curves on C157, B1=11M, B2=gmp-ecm default, ETA: 260.00 hrs

***factors found***

P1 = 5
P1 = 5
P3 = 467
P5 = 10399
P41 = 17776912142425078383593733216568518008407

***co-factor***
C157 = 4017304991429010583926091933225470187492776380321283335359668075782367540533491770872455507705531408433379483377788748604675424704360669192082239730122877169


Anyway, so next I wait a little, for only a better one to show up, and next I flip around for just continuing, except not any reporting for just the moment.

If it takes a day or two, or perhaps longer, it becomes a waste of time if someone could read my lips for what I am doing, and next doing it on my behalf.

That becomes the thing of consideration here, because here not only a waste of time, but also electric power for that of consumption.

So therefore I ask, for rather request, that such a thing should be given a little time of its own, for just maturing, except not any totally forgotten either.

Here a P45 or so, from a C203, taking a very long time once again, and next thinking that I should have it in, before going to bed.


So, should tell, that I am having more than one page here for just scrolling down, next for my taskbar, and next going to individual processes, for that of tasks,
when only the Command prompt, or Processor for such.

Make it a bit of overcommitment perhaps, and I also know about multitasking or multithreading for only that of architecture, going with a processor for that of type.

Here two days or more in for just running, and next also Seti@home and PrimeGrid for projects I could be running, but next perhaps late.

Any abort, retry, continue you could make it for a couple of things, and next also give it a try here as well, for just continuing, or should I rather abort?

Such a thing becomes a dilemma, for still the question you also could be asking, and guess what, for only being unsure here.

Yes, bad stench, and also it could smell, except not any "election torment" or anguish you could make it, by just translating.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001456313520

What about that, for not the smallest one you could make it either, and here it took quite a lot of time getting at.


Have a cigar instead, because I know it could be still smelling (that word).


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001465185219

The P20 makes for less than a half minute of running, and next a bit of celebrating, for that of pretty good ones.

Total factoring time = 67310.9945 seconds

Coming up shortly, if not being visible.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001465401431

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001465402242

Here just way off, for that of target, but next a little surprise, for not expecting that.

P96 = 116978834453931204642350202167381440383298149577011223528518519971977570042620037323066555805093

P44 = 17587950637343116574463560929967921169123359

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2020-03-11 at 15:32
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-03-19, 02:14   #115
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

7×61 Posts
Default

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001466912143

This one is a "dang", for not any successful you could make it, but click "More information" here, when perhaps needed.

Here either the factor command, or perhaps siqs, but getting "Failure to equate relation" here, twice in a row, for only a bit unsuccessful.

Just on the spot, making it perhaps tight here, for only a couple of numbers, except not any adjacent pairs it could be either.

Tried it out on a larger number, for only just multiplying, and here success, for that of clean, for also straightforward, but noticing that this is not any easy one, for rather hard,
and should therefore be weighted only for such.

But next I have not tested any further, for just checking, but could be trying out later.

Also could try out with ecm here, using 2^22 curves, because 2^21 did not work here.

Here adding the P44 just above, for not having it already.

For only a bit of secrecy instead, here only a P17, and not worth adding either.

But next, flip-flop, for only the inverse you could make it, and perhaps not any "best" result either, when only that of numbers.

Keep your fingers crossed, because here losing the track of it, for only that of order, when perhaps also a sequence.

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001470338409

Just be a hero, for not any Linda Hamilton you could make it, because here adding the factors afterwards, or later.

Separate perhaps, like co-joined twins, except still not left in any dark for any questions we could ask, or explore in fuller detail.

That is, of course Mersenneforum.org is not part of BOINC, but for that you could make it betterment, still for science, when only choosing.


So here making it a P42 or so, versus another factor which was somewhat larger, and next knowing I could not do that either, because here adding the factors afterwards.

Such a thing therefore becomes a loose factor, and just from my head, perhaps a C121 here, next in total.

When I do a split at times, for only dividing a composite, for just a product, next from the "magical number", or RSA-1024, I give it five minutes at most,
just seeing that it could not be working, and next leaving it alone.

Because here it either flips back on itself, when perhaps a P140 for such, and next the same for not any worth reporting either, because of that mentioned above.

So here just the "easy" you could make it, for not any cheater either, and also making it "deceit", for just another product, except rather "poor' man's hobby",
when only numbers, when perhaps not any dream either.

Be my friend for just reading, but if still the other project, also that of qualitative and quantitative science for that of research, when also that of Objectivity.

Perhaps a grounds for any rationale could be still that of Objectivity, when only sticking to the subject, next for only point. except not any wilderness
you could make it instead, for only numbers that could not be factorized.

Just complain if such a thing ever happens, and perhaps it also did so one time, for only the results or achievements still being wished for,
when only strived or sought after.

Any secret in a number perhaps, and only that of RSA numbers for such, when also knowing that rep-digit numbers could be not any weighted, most of the time.

Just everything for science, when still only able to conclude, and perhaps not any wish we could make it, but rather a given Method, for only running those numbers at our disposal.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001468148595

Here copied directly from the FDB at first, for not having it directly.

ecm: 1339488/2097152 curves here, for only that of indicative, when the other method of doing it, for just ways and means, did not work.

But honestly, we already should know about sieving, for only a way of getting at it, when also LLR, for the FFT we also could make it.

We could be having a discussion at PrimeGrid about the SR5 tasks, which I do not follow, but rather that WinPFGW should be a general application, for only that of use.

Just thinking that I could be quite good, for only having 321 LLR Gold, for also Cullen LLR Gold, next for only a badge, should I next make my opinion on
just only a thing that could be quite clear, when also clean, for just meaning?

One of my 321 LLR tasks got invalid for that of result, but still some five lying around, for only being lazy, and doing a bit of factoring instead,
but also that we know that invalid results could be blamed on just overflow, when still the parent project of Genefer, for just PrimeGrid.

Here a sieving application being tried out or tested earlier on, for that of 64-bit, but still with its limits, for only returning small factors, if not wrong.

So therefore perhaps confusing WinPFGW with something else here, and could be getting back at that, when next only checking.

Just try it, and for that user Pepi (or Crun-chi), trying out with some numbers out of bounds, when only that of Proth numbers for such.

If not wrong, we could make it PPS LLR Mega here at best, for not any Prime Sierpinski or Seventeen or Bust instead, when still perhaps a Proth prime being sought.

For that, also the PSA, or Project Staging Area we could make it here when still PrimeGrid, for not any surprise, when perhaps not any sieving either.

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001471810778

But sadly it does not break up here, for only the SIQS you could make it, except perhaps a thing only being told, for next also a flipover.

End of tape, for just rolling the dice a little.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2020-03-20 at 20:36
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-03-22, 16:20   #116
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

7·61 Posts
Default

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001471810778

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001472121036

Did I perhaps know about the P105 here, or did it became added later, and next I do not know.

Here dividing with the P42, for only the composite number in my log, for just the C121 here, because really a bit too large here, but could be trying out with SIQS.

The P33 and P36 pair did make it using ecm, but took a while also here.

Just the four versus one we sometimes could make it, and perhaps not any 3+1 for only music, except only the thing looping back at itself, for not any else you could make it.

Here the overcommitment being experienced, for that of a restart needed, so continuing from the P105 here.

So next not any watching for just the numbers I could make it, when only looking instead.

Any RSA-2048 for such, and next still perhaps a secrecy, when also being left alone.

So here only with due respect, for not any complacency I could make it either, and next worth mentioning, for also the other project.

One thing is that I did not bother for just checking, except only the leftover or spillover, for perhaps other factors instead.

Next it becomes intermediate only for such, except not any "Effect" it could be, when rather science instead.

Make it, and next also get it, for still perhaps a show, except not any "translucent" I could make it, when only a scientific "Fact".

Hopelessly lost, and perhaps I could be an idiot as well, for also insane, except not any "comprehension" I could make it for science,
when only understandable Facts.

Read my lips for only PrimeGrid, and next I could only propose, for not any suggestion I could make it, when also given Facts,
because for just Seti@home as a project, we could be making it "Credible evidence", for not any conclusive Facts it could be either.

Getting back to the dots when having it, because it fell away, but editing, perhaps not the original sentence either, just for meaning.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2020-03-30 at 03:22
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-03-30, 03:20   #117
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

6538 Posts
Default

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001474524216

I could not resist, but here only a heavy one for such, for also a thing that could be divided, for next also weighted.

Continuing here, since I already made it the link, but except poor man's number for also the science you could make it,
what if I tried multiplying one of the small ones with one of the larger, for that of a pair, or maybe two?

Here not just the two larger, because apparently not working, but next I have not tried the other thing either, when perhaps also three out of four.

With due respect also here, but also making a laugh at Seti@home for not any two eyes for just seeing, when also just a given understanding we could make it.

Numbers could still quantify nature for only what it could be meant, for also its meaning, except not any absolutes, for just making it a comprehension of everything.

I made it a representation as well, for only just meaning, when the objects of space, for also the elementary particles of the small, for only minuscule,
could be distributed, for only placement or location, for where they only could belong.

But next only my face, for just knowing that a secrecy could be just the web, for also that of privacy.

Only roll the tape, for still not any numbers either, and perhaps I know how it could be working, except not the final result either, and for that, RSA-2048 here.

The strange thing, is that numbers could be still the hardest to get at, for not any characters or alphanumerical representation it could be instead,
and it reminds me of the fact that numbers could be just codes, for also cryptography, in order to hide possible secrets.

Maybe still two or four dozen of these quite good factors are needed, in their proper order or sequence, for next a prime number trailing, except that at the final end,
it possibly could divide, and next straight on, only for such, only because the algorithms makes it possible.

But for now the sad fact that these things only is leaving my computer stuck, when only trying, so here not seeing the wider perspective, for what it could only be.

The one thing noticed, is that I could be logging off the local user account here, but next returning back to factoring tasks still in progress.

Great, and big thanks here, except that the finishing touch should perhaps be still needed, for only the small adjusting left.

And remember what I said, for not any suggested either, because either make it loose factors for only what you could get or receive,
or still make it only 2, 3, and 5, for such, making me think about the beard in the mailbox, for only such a thing.

Here a C119 being noticed, for just picked up, and checking with that one, before going to bed.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2020-03-30 at 05:44
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-03-30, 03:50   #118
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

10000010010102 Posts
Default

You are the Swedish Chef of mathematics,sir.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7UmUX68KtE

Thanks, but make it Norwegian instead, but not your fault for only the people of the world, for also community, bringing results back, for perhaps also a bit of hope and unity.

Here two new factors, quite big for just one, for also bigger when next the other, and next I flipped around towards the easier side, for next the same factor.

Total factoring time = 313339.3027 seconds

Here it should be the large one for that, for only a P39 versus P124, except that it perhaps could be made quicker, for only a missing processor fan.

But next comparing with the smaller one, for also running quite long, and guessing that at least it was a difficult one here.

Getting back to the links, for only up a couple of pages in my notes, for also a number of tabs open in the browser.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001478528484

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001479346407

But also that we could still exclude the small factors, for only the valid factorization it still could be, when also the long time it took here at first,
for only just the remainders you could make it for such, for perhaps also intermediate.

Except still only the thing in front of me for just making, that any RSA-768 should not be a thing we could be doing, and here only my opinion,
and for that, being the 1024 bit number we only could be attempting instead, for just bits and pieces it still could be made of, for just part.

Only a classic show, for rather a bit of skating instead, and it becomes "helter-skelter" only for such, when also making it (2^48853-1), for only its remaining part,
because here a similar way of approach for only being used, except just too big.

I will have the dinner and cake first, because here quite many tasks running.

At Seti@home, we could make it just laughter and ridicule, for not any purpose or meaning we could making either.

For that, it also could be, except not any "ain't" just for being either, when rather consciousness instead.

So for that, the C74 still running here, for that of ecm, and checking in the morning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candidate

And not any Cardinality here, for only the prosper you could make it instead, for only a loose factor instead, when perhaps not any meaning either.

Just fill up a bottle, and it should not be any empty half, for only just half-filled, except still only half-empty instead.

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001470338409

Mentioned before, for still not any unfair it should be, for also just validity for numbers we could make it, because still only loose factors here.

Running by means of SIQS here, which also could be picked up by means of a resumption, I guess it could be taking a week for still only such a longlasting thing.

I guess Number theory could still be for a purpose, when also meaning, for also the answer it could be, except still not any ugly, for only just meant to be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_theory

Some could make it just "Hahmm", or "Hrhmm", while others could make it "readily acceptance" for only the Proof it could be, except not any shift, for just deviating a little.

Only choose, for making a choice, and still only the best you could make it, when also a choice as well, for not any Delirium instead, when only being unconscious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Report

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopsy

Just trying here, except not for any starters either, because here in fact Post mortem only, and not any Autopsy.

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001481564230

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001481564653

Still (2^1024+1) for not any (2^48853-1) it could be either, except the other one still running, for that of a C185.

Any stone still left untouched, for only the nature we still could make it, except only a C95 instead.

Do we perhaps know, and we could still make it a falsely report, for not any "innings" either, when still not any validated, for just concluded.

The one just left behind, should not be any mirror either, for just forgot, except still only Truth for just meaning, when also Certainty.

Lost the factor here, for only a restart instead, and getting back at it later.

The splintered personality should not be any number we could answer, regardless of little or small, for also less and little.

"We will meet again", and perhaps a Truth for only a given Fact, except not any sentence either. so here adding the C97 just manually.

Just the other door, and still not any ugliness either, but only a result still waiting to happen, for only its valid meaning, when also conclusive as well.

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001481564230

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001481564653

If still not any beer in the meantime, continuing with the flipover here, for not going anywhere at first, because still loose factors here only.

But next also wondering if any "Idealism" should be for only just money, except not any beauty for just the queen, because here making it RSA for only
those numbers that could be in the middle, for also quite well hidden.

Only just looking, and we also could be seeking, except not any Normalization it could be, for also effectiveness, when not any "perfect" number it should be either.

These could be still the better numbers only for such, except the other things for just mentioning, when just the loose factors could be those we still could be seeking.

I guess you still could not be any grabbing for just being a thief, but that it ended up in the FDB for the thing only just knowing.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2020-04-05 at 04:49
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-04-18, 02:19   #119
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

7×61 Posts
Default

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001487622723

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001487622982

Only loose factors here at first, for already known, because here not doing it with SIQS, and I could be left with ecm, for only 2^21 curves instead.

Here flipping around, for adding a P30, when just a P14 for only a start.

My laptop got a new keyboard, and I chose a couple of numbers at random, ending up prime at times.

But next not any Remote Desktop connection, for only Windows home, and here not down on the floor for just connecting with the main computer, using a USB cable.

We know that any Genefer, for also Fermat, is still not this project for any making, but only just in the middle, for only opening the door, perhaps a divisor at times, for only such.

Here PrimeGrid is making it Fermat Divisor, in that it supposedly could divide for only being in the middle, and next also the best number for only being picked by just choice.

If I knew, perhaps I only could be guessing, except not any factors of the magical number having any divisors, when still 2^n+1 for such, for not any 4096 either.

Here some researchers, for still only scientists, could be making it "betterment" for just doing it so, except not any believing for only a reason either.

The RSA method, for only protocol for such, could still be just a way of giving for only obtaining a specific result, for also a goal being met, except still perhaps impossible.

But next perhaps algorithm instead, for not any flipping of the coin it should be either, and next also a traceback to where it came from, or just started.

Only just knowing, and perhaps also result as well, except still not any final result for just being delivered, when not any "dire" it should be for such a thing either.

Here I tried making it Consequence for only final result instead, except not any outcome it could be either, and for that only a project being just part of.

Give me a laugh instead, and perhaps smileface only, except not any flip of the coin, for just making it "double" for only result, when rather composite instead.

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001488600331

Here just 82 digits, and we still can not make it out, for only the individual numbers.

Any weighted, and you are welcome, except only making it bit depth just on the spot.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2020-04-18 at 02:34
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-04-30, 04:29   #120
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

7·61 Posts
Default

A new one here perhaps.

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001497646482

Loose factors here, and the P86 showing up in red, for just new, being added.

What about that, because here did not check any further either.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001504166862

Should tell that this one blew in the middle of the week, for only midweek for such, and here a P47 and a P110, for that of almost "insanely" run time length.

Here getting to the factors of RSA-768, for just multiplying together, and next flipping it around.

Next it takes a couple of minutes here, for perhaps two for such, but in one instance, it became a P105, from just memory, while the other just short of that.

But only a question of where it belongs, and still only context for such, when not any closer for just nearer we could be, for only just an answer.

Here it still should be the answer we could wish for, when also a dream, for only the outcome it could be, when also result, because only still flipping, here that of the "magic number" for such.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym

Perhaps rather an Acronym it could be for such, when also a link, for only suffice to say that it should be RSA-1024 here.

The problem here is that just "set" for only meaning, could also be what we could make as well, for also produce.

Only just "given thoughts" it could be, and I leave it to another project for such, when not any "tempting" it should be either.

Perhaps only the "better" it could be for such when still only numbers, because any "magic number" here still, and next also the thing we could come up with.

Just wondering if I could be flipping around from the wrong end it could be, for not any right either, it should not be any answer we could come up with either.

Here very close to actually make it the P47 here for only showing up, but also it reminds me of a factorization of just old age, where someone gave me a little bit of help,
for that of a P47 versus P46, out of a C93, or roughly so.

If I could have these numbers for only a reference, it could be fine, for not any superb either, because for only a combined context, it could be just "heck" of a thing.

Here lost both of these, for only lost in time, for still not any "bump up" it should be, for only the surface.

Only just the gray hair it should be, for only my shoulders, it rather should be carrying some weight instead, for not any "bitwise" it could be either.

Just for starters it could be, for not any in the middle of a sentence either, and next only where to start, for also the better off we could make it.

If still perhaps only the hidden answer, next does the factors of RSA-1024 "divide" anything that could be even larger, for perhaps also better?

Back to sieving perhaps, for only the "better" it could be still, for also the factors it could be, when it could be that of excluding for the same.

Here it comes to me that it also should be a P124 as well, for not only the P105 it could be instead, for still not any reported for both.

Only just the prior he could be for his time, also the "in advance" we could make it for only a sentence, for not any scientist it could be instead.

It also reminds me of scheduling here, for just a word, for still only the ahead we could make it, when still not any thinking either.

But only sour note instead, for still that of PXXX * PYYY * PZZZ, for only the composite factor we could make it, and for that, just the finding it still could be.

Oh, way off, for only the editing it still should be here, for not any result either.

Just in time instead, and perhaps not any later I should be either, for only those numbers that could be in between.

One thing I could be doing here, is just adding those factors that could be in the middle, for only mentioning that above.

So, continuing with that, for also the context where it should go.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2020-05-17 at 04:10
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-05-18, 03:03   #121
storflyt32
 
Feb 2013

7·61 Posts
Default

Thanks for being so nice with me, except you also know that I could not be any prime finder here, for only a number for such.

Here the Prime95 application which I could perhaps use, only blows my computer for just "cooked", except that a 64-bit sieving application, could just spit out the same old numbers,
for just the throw-out it could be instead.

Anyway, so still my preference here only, for having a couple of numbers stored for that of a sequence, but only wrong for such, when still only factors.

Here I was asking for a factorization of the past, but apparently not here for just checking, so here only waiting with that, for not any disappointment it could be either.

Here keying in a couple of factors for only the result I found, or perhaps found instead, for only the factorization being made, and next a quite large one here, for still not any reported.

So, here perhaps not any "sneak preview" I could make for just looking inside, because the other alternative could still be only the outer edges for such, and not any in the middle.

For just the factors it could be still, also the "better" ones it could be as well, for perhaps only loose factors for such, when not any computed either.

Only for just a bit sad, next it also goes as well, for still only the 2^n+1 we could make it, for not any 2^n-1 instead.

Here n should be just a power of 2, by the way, for also the n=12, for only such.

Just happy and glad only for the same, and I could be still just alive, except not any given thought about any RSA numbers instead, for also what it could mean.

Here the P47 it could be, for also a P116 or two as well, could be "weighted" of sorts, for only their combined value.

Meaning here that it should be these two factors multiplied here, for only the flip-over it still could be, for that of the rest.

But just knowing that it could be still only two factors here, for not any one or single either, next not the result we could wish for, when only a magic number for such.

Only up the chain, for still just the factors it could be, and next only unknown for such, when still belonging to something, for that of part of the rest.

For that, still perhaps only such that any factors it could be, next not any "divide" it could be, for only the larger number we still could seek or wish to factorize.

Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2020-05-18 at 03:03
storflyt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A Previous Miss? R.D. Silverman GMP-ECM 4 2009-11-14 19:57
Using long long's in Mingw with 32-bit Windows XP grandpascorpion Programming 7 2009-10-04 12:13
I think it's gonna be a long, long time panic Hardware 9 2009-09-11 05:11
UPDATED: The current pre-sieved range reservation thread and stats page gribozavr Twin Prime Search 10 2007-01-19 21:06
Ram allocation (in Re: previous thread) JuanTutors Marin's Mersenne-aries 1 2004-08-29 17:23

All times are UTC. The time now is 02:49.

Mon May 25 02:49:48 UTC 2020 up 61 days, 22 mins, 0 users, load averages: 1.53, 1.50, 1.35

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.