PARI's commands - Page 91

CRGreathouse · 2010-08-28, 04:23

I can break or bend at least #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, and #19 on your newest list. (Not that you need to care about what trivialities I can dredge up, of course.) I'm still fundamentally opposed to #20: why encourage people to harm the environment by using more electricity than needed to prove a prime? And why wouldn't they just cheat and use a newer program?

For #18, I take it that this means that neither factor is one of #1-#15?

#16 looks cool.

CRGreathouse · 2010-08-28, 04:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3.14159

No patterns in any section of digits.
No predictable sequences.
Statistically likely.

Don't those stand out to you as the characteristics of a randomly-chosen number?

Is 4584747435685437658437 such a number? How do you know? What about

Code:

17935520800145983429475264219083132046283745750116734433889605552003293726651449435812688477850840442133972456012956887645193084972760632253129406

? What about 2665124305184977723311826852179758605262374940671173169012746835211677949?

CRGreathouse · 2010-08-28, 04:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3.14159

A demonstration of how easy it is to find a large special-form cofactor:

I think I showed that in #969 and #973 well enough.

CRGreathouse · 2010-08-28, 04:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3.14159

Yes, yes, fuse them into Generalized. But Generalized is not inclusive to factorial/primorial/prime numbers. Updating.
Same for the rest.

I can still bend/break #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, and #19. #8 isn't hard either; #2 is largely but not entirely fixed by the change. #19 has at least two trivial vulnerabilities, but it almost doesn't count since the worst vulnerability you already know about and have declined to change/fix.

3.14159 · 2010-08-28, 04:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

I can still bend/break #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, and #19. #8 isn't hard either; #2 is largely but not entirely fixed by the change. #19 has at least two trivial vulnerabilities, but it almost doesn't count since the worst vulnerability you already know about and have declined to change/fix.

3: Nothing wrong with it: The only thing you keep complaining about is fusing it into Generalized.
4: Same as 3.
5: Same as 4.
6: Yes, this does not stand to the true definition of primorial prime.
7: Same as 6.
19: 10^k + c and something else.

CRGreathouse · 2010-08-28, 04:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3.14159

3: Nothing wrong with it: The only thing you keep complaining about is fusing it into Generalized.

Actually, I've never complained about that or found it to be a vulnerability. I have a better break in mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3.14159

19: 10^k + c and something else.

Why would I want to use that?

Any response to #993?

3.14159 · 2010-08-28, 05:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

Actually, I've never complained about that or found it to be a vulnerability. I have a better break in mind.

Invalid, same restrictions apply to those as they do to proths, k < bⁿ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

Why would I want to use that?

Every number greater than 10^1999+100 can be expressed as such. Is this ever going to end?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

Any response to #993?

Nothing to respond to in Post 993.

3.14159 · 2010-08-28, 05:14

If there is any weird/distorted/strange crap, ask mods to remove it, please. The network is failing me, and my posts tend to be mangled when network failure occurs during me typing a post.

mdettweiler · 2010-08-28, 05:14

Here's one for categories #2 and #19:

Start: For n=18778 to 18778, For k=494 to 494 step 2, k*288^n+1.
494*288^18778 + 1 may be prime. (a = 2)
494*288^18778 + 1 is prime! (a = 5) [46186 digits]

Found with PFGW as a PRP, proved with Proth.exe. (Actually, it was proved first with PFGW...it was found by a script for searching generalized Sieprinski/Riesel conjectures that we use at the Conjectures 'R Us project. The script automatically proves PRPs upon finding them as such, so I didn't have the opportunity to first prove it with Proth.exe. Does it still count?

)

Edit: sorry, was composing this before you posted your latest requirements for the various categories; scratch #19 and make it #20.

3.14159 · 2010-08-28, 05:16

Great. Now that the previous issue has been cleared up.. Post 1000 of the thread!

3.14159 · 2010-08-28, 05:28

Quote:

Found with PFGW as a PRP, proved with Proth.exe. (Actually, it was proved first with PFGW...it was found by a script for searching generalized Sieprinski/Riesel conjectures that we use at the Conjectures 'R Us project. The script automatically proves PRPs upon finding them as such, so I didn't have the opportunity to first prove it with Proth.exe. Does it still count?

)

Edit: sorry, was composing this before you posted your latest requirements for the various categories; scratch #19 and make it #20.

Obsolete tech: No, because the proof was already done by PFGW. You techically used newer tech to do it first. The proof is to be done as follows: Grab the PRP, and have Proth.exe prove it prime. No #20 award for you, but you still get a spot for #2.

2010-08-28, 05:14	#998
3.14159 May 2010 Prime hunting commission. 2⁴×3×5×7 Posts	If there is any weird/distorted/strange crap, ask mods to remove it, please. The network is failing me, and my posts tend to be mangled when network failure occurs during me typing a post. Last fiddled with by 3.14159 on 2010-08-28 at 05:15

2010-08-28, 05:14	#999
mdettweiler A Sunny Moo Aug 2007 USA (GMT-5) 3×2,083 Posts	Here's one for categories #2 and #19: Start: For n=18778 to 18778, For k=494 to 494 step 2, k288^n+1.* 494288^18778 + 1 may be prime. (a = 2)* 494288^18778 + 1 is prime! (a = 5) [46186 digits]* Found with PFGW as a PRP, proved with Proth.exe. (Actually, it was proved first with PFGW...it was found by a script for searching generalized Sieprinski/Riesel conjectures that we use at the Conjectures 'R Us project. The script automatically proves PRPs upon finding them as such, so I didn't have the opportunity to first prove it with Proth.exe. Does it still count? ) Edit: sorry, was composing this before you posted your latest requirements for the various categories; scratch #19 and make it #20. Last fiddled with by mdettweiler on 2010-08-28 at 05:17

2010-08-28, 05:16	#1000
3.14159 May 2010 Prime hunting commission. 2⁴·3·5·7 Posts	Great. Now that the previous issue has been cleared up.. Post 1000 of the thread! Last fiddled with by 3.14159 on 2010-08-28 at 05:26

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Why do I sometimes see all the <> formatting commands when I quote or edit?	cheesehead	Forum Feedback	3	2013-05-25 12:56
Passing commands to PARI on Windows	James Heinrich	Software	2	2012-05-13 19:19
Ubiquity commands	Mini-Geek	Aliquot Sequences	1	2009-09-22 19:33
64-bit Pari?	CRGreathouse	Software	2	2009-03-13 04:22
Are these commands correct?	jasong	Linux	2	2007-10-18 23:40

2010-08-28, 04:23	#991
CRGreathouse Aug 2006 3·1,993 Posts	I can break or bend at least #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, and #19 on your newest list. (Not that you need to care about what trivialities I can dredge up, of course.) I'm still fundamentally opposed to #20: why encourage people to harm the environment by using more electricity than needed to prove a prime? And why wouldn't they just cheat and use a newer program? For #18, I take it that this means that neither factor is one of #1-#15? #16 looks cool.