Except for the last page, the previous thread became a bit long.

[storflyt32]

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001193771330


A new one here perhaps, and here the classic example of a second last factor, where it becomes stuck, for that of running, except for having both the P24, and the following P40 here already.


This makes for a C207 at the end, when first flipping around from a P313, so not too bad here, for that of a secrecy which could end up being lost.




Needed a restart of the computer here, so perhaps it actually did happen?




http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001194468106


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001194468351




So, if perhaps not any sad, for just only a snort either, what if I built on this list, only in order to see it through, except not any starting point either?


If you do not mind, we could make it a million digits here as well, for only a decent prime, except for not any worth either, for only such a point.


Yes, screw it up if you will, except for not absolutely making it any primality either, for only a wish or will, except for still the Method, for only getting at such a thing.


Adding just 1, for also subtracting as well, perhaps does not help in any way either.


So, if rather starting to build instead, we could be able to see that it just becomes 2 for just only 3, except for not thinking that it could be any primality around either,
when only just multiplying.


1238926361552897 (prime)
1256132134125569 (prime)
59649589127497217 (prime)
2663848877152141313 (prime)
3603109844542291969 (prime)
167988556341760475137 (prime)
3560841906445833920513 (prime)
5704689200685129054721 (prime)
188981757975021318420037633 (prime)
319546020820551643220672513 (prime)
4659775785220018543264560743076778192897 (prime)
7455602825647884208337395736200454918783366342657 (prime)
7751061099802522589358967058392886922693580423169 (prime)
17353230210429594579133099699123162989482444520899 (prime)
116928085873074369829035993834596371340386703423373313 (prime)
568630647535356955169033410940867804839360742060818433 (prime)
93461639715357977769163558199606896584051237541638188580280321 (prime)
741640062627530801524787141901937474059940781097519023905821316144415759504705008092818711693940737 (prime)


- - -


***factors found***
P45 = 157158242173843007143035378684833126801726167
P55 = 1841489846742664508151902004195151970273798095193729693



Hope you catch the meaning here, except for only the business of just factoring instead, when perhaps hoping for the better.


Round a table perhaps, but did it perhaps became such a question about primality, when also knowing, for perhaps not any guessing either?


Take the ratio of factors, for also prime numbers, when next also composite numbers as well, and you get that of "comparativeness", when only such numbers unable,
or impossible to factorize, but next you also could know that there could be factors in between, for only their own importance, if not any significance either.


Next, count on me, for just making it science, because here it became the C94, for perhaps the slightly more difficult, except for not the prime number we could get at either,
for just only on the spot.


Am I perhaps questioning the algorithm here for such a thing, except for "still" such a thing, when we also could be knowing the answer at times?


Perhaps it becomes only a waste of time, for also energy as well, when knowing that a factorization is perhaps not for any better, but only the thing we already could know.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001194468351


So it goes, for also adding here as well, except for just the little smile, when only just adding or subtracting 1, of course.

[storflyt32]

On the loose again, with just a mobile phone and laptop connected to each other.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001347006722


Apparently just a lucky strike, but the three factors in the middle settled down in the second attempt, only making for a surprise at the end.

Here the P9 was not listed at the start, because of only being composite at first.

[storflyt32]

I will skip the greetings and phrases, except for ticking the little square for staying logged in, and for now not getting to the large edit window either.

So while not hearing any much complaint from you over time, your friendliness and hospitality is always appreciated, so returning back to you now.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001354048698

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001353330498


Or should I flip the two above around, for that of opposite order for just size?

If the first one took some two and a half day to get at, why not make it some five days for making the same thing for the other?

So why not just key in the C77 we already have the two factors for, and think it all should be so easy?

Size still matters of course, but next also order of factors for just the same, when also for just a comparison.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001354973575

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001354973603


How many such do we have, if we could choose to pick numbers from a list, which subsequently also are factors?

Here I do have the individual numbers for the first one, but if you are interesting, you could give it a try.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001354978038

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001354979153


Here someone finished it up before me, but if you could try out with
C100 = 3252066684835382078675183029465863150415513141502371759835036776973614803328141721305318548058114553

for the second one, it still could be unofficial, but at least slightly better off, and returning back to finish the editing above.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001354973575


P39 = 328116832768050526084945571688513787657

P51 = 416200886399944585188673420213065490981133202897683


But really only a multiplication of numbers here, for only two factors known, because this one I can not do, and the C100 could be even harder.

Also should tell that I am used to having the factors being found listed at the end of the output, so here that of getting the message about factoring composite base,
or the similar, apparently slipped away, from only the lights during the day, and next the numbers not that much different, for only a single line or two.

It should be better having the complete summary at the end of the result output instead, or as well.

[storflyt32]

I better make a new one, because the long lines in the previous are still not any perfect.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001355629353


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001355715305


Like dinner being served, also in the same order as well, for only the second link with my starting cup of coffee here, except for also the way it is supposed to be running up the stairs.


A fireman, like also someone only working at a place, could be bothering about the half floor stairs in front of him, if not a whole floor either, for only two sets of ladders, but if bad luck still happened to strike,
and it was the 82nd to the 83nd floor, up to the 120th floor at the top, and not the stairways down the front hall, could you next make it to the first or second floor, and think that it all could be easily done?


Here the first pair of factors could be more downstairs, while the second could be higher up in the building, except for the factors not that unequal in size, but only the remaining part still left to traverse or climb.


Funny enough, but traverse becomes just that word, when also using translate.google.com here.



Almost forgetting that a minus could come with even a prime number, except not working too hard doing precisely this thing.



http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001356081080


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001356132917



Here we do have one of those examples for almost a little beauty, when it comes to that of factors, because you may have noticed it yourself, for that of difficulty.


Returning back to the computer yesterday morning, I found the complete factorization waiting for me, and this time with no hassle, except for long running time.


This time a pair of P44 and P96 factors, initially a PRP96, which I think is slightly larger than a couple of other ones.


Total factoring time = 61700.7709 seconds


If finding the right moment just after the cake, I could add it before going to bed.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001357673283


Also this, for only a running example, but here you may notice the hat at times, for only squaring, or perhaps potentiation.


Either I should blame the original source for such a thing, because this is not really what I want, for rather only the factor itself.


Downsizing a little, by just dividing with the unnecessary factor or factors, it only becomes a new entry for that of the rest,
and here not really understanding what is happening, except for only taking what it becomes.


My apologies here, but apparently no other way out right now for the moment.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001358357442


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001358316029


P40 = 4659775785220018543264560743076778192897


P49 = 7751061099802522589358967058392886922693580423169


Money for nothing, at least when only time is being considered, because here only a waste of time, for only known factors.


Suddenly also the fact in front of me for just being the wrong forum here, for also wrong numbers as well,
but it could perhaps be mentioned that I also could be pushing it even harder at times, at least only for numbers.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000851908087


Here you have one for that of both, for each respective factorization type, for also personal interest as well.

[storflyt32]

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001358730385


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001358731831


Here needing to rewind a little, and hope it will get right, for that of a pair of P41 and P120 factors, initially a PRP120.


Apparently a quite big one here, for that of factorizations, and will have to edit it slightly.


Total factoring time = 115322.6045 seconds


I will add the whole thing a little later on, but it does not readily divide from here either.



http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001360212984


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001360213683


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001360215050


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001360214580



Maybe the first two in the wrong order of input for only that of size, but next taking the square root of the product here, for the third one,
making for the P123 and next the P179.


Doing the same with the number being used for our privacy, also a better one here as well in the same way, but not reported yet.

[storflyt32]

And right now I am not your friend, at least for only now.


http://www.prothsearch.com/fermat.html


This project has now been taken over, and also run, by neighboring PrimeGrid, for only that of project.


Next I happen to pick up only the smaller ones here, for just only factors, except for perhaps even three or so, for only the start, and next ending up in the wrong order as well, at least for only size of factors, for also reporting.


Am I having a couple of bars, for also rods, if not making it any ski poles either, but except for perhaps any similar being made or carried out here, at least we could be trying, for only making it a F(x) here,
when surprisingly, F could be just Fermat, rather than just a function.


Really so nice it could have been, by only making it just factors from the start, for also beginning, when at least knowing, except not any digging into the unknown, when rather being the slightly larger number instead.


Here a P56 ended up in the Factor Database at first, except not any P52, for just a bit smaller, when also the other mentioned factors, which next made for a complete picture.


So if only picking it up from just pieces, also from scratch as well, except not making it any better, for the thing which could perhaps be known, for also a more complete picture.


If perhaps not any project chosen, for sometimes also liked or preferred, in my opinion not any good thing either, for what we could both happen to know, for sometimes also expected as well.


Only just to tell that a couple of others just ran for 2 1/2 to 3 days, without bearing any fruit, for only unsuccessful, and therefore only wasting my time.


Therefore perhaps only trial division instead, for only a number which I happen to know, except for also having a dark side at times, for only that of its end.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001361214665


Here just tipping over, for not any lorry being oversized either, except that we perhaps only noticed for only such a fact.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(mathematical_constant)


Looking here for my last ones for that of factorizations, and here also knowing that 2.718 needs about 2.30, in order to get at 10, by means of such a thing,
for that of potentiation.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001363512077


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001363516638


In addition to another P154, which flips around for a pair of P42 and P43 factors, already known, here adding the P11, for making quite a good one,
between the P29 pair, for that of two such ones, and the P233 at the other end.

Really just thinking here that this should be a way of working for just much larger numbers as well, and will be getting back at that, for also the P154.

[storflyt32]

New one perhaps here, since it became a Friday, and I will not edit the thread title.


This because I perhaps should be asking first, before continuing, and here thinking about the following.


I now have a couple of files containing factors being found, on single lines, and because of both bad hands, and also working position, did not sort it any much for order.


The P40 for the Euler–Mascheroni constant, if you make it from binary into decimal, is a quite good example, but if next multiplying with a P56, you get a C96 as a result here.


Next flipping around, from the number we are seeking an answer to, and it "divides" into roughly a C213.


P40 = 5772156649015328606065120900824024310421


P56 = 23903180476843089952579062830939453091365029983134464841


The problem here is depending on which number you choose to use, it should be at least working at little, but if still composite at the other end, what could next be the starting point
for that of reference?


Here C96 = 137972902122023234636717348712712823201523220839427136510389320583812188358910643550723894408061


for that of at least one reference, for not any guessing either, but next I will have to key it in at the proper place, if not already done so.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001364184205


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001364160756


Here keying in the first one for not already being there, and also the fact that the second one does not appear to give in at first either.


If perhaps so, could this end up being unfinished business, for also a project of sorts, when not all details are readily available or present, because even only here, it needed a redo,
for only just checking.


Just guessing that except for not making it any P11, for only subtracting 1 instead, this could be the other alternative, for only a bit more simple.


Perhaps asking what could be the end of the road, could be a question better asked somewhere else, except for the similar also found also here, for that of numbers.


For now only guessing that it should be better working with known factors, rather than unknown ones, except for also a quite large list already, for which there seems to be no ultimate solution.


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001364259984


Again, perhaps my own inclination here, for only that of numbers, but if a project ended up perhaps lying dead, it could still be the Fermat prime search here.


Needs checking, but it should be the product of the two largest Fermat factors flipped around, for that of a C1133 for that of the same,
but next a bit ashamed, for only disappointed, in that I had to make it from already the P16 here, until the finish.


Could I next ask what perhaps is meant by a "conjecture", for only such numbers, if perhaps just the Riesel problem here?


Really it could go on forever, for only just filling in the gaps, except for still the lucky winner, who at times could be around.


For that, those Proth numbers, and at least the smaller ones here, for still that of +1 at the end, when also poor little Sophie Germain,
for only the endless chain of prime numbers, making at least a sequence here.


Just pick a number, for that of a P11, and simple as that, for only sieving a little, and next thinking the rest could be prime,
except for still not any assumed Method, for also a best guess, when it could even be a "Probabilistic" one for such, for next making it such a prime.


I better continue with the trial and error experiment instead, for still only a bit of division for just the same.

[storflyt32]

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001363980558



And here another thing as well, except perhaps not the precise link for just the original one, but perhaps the C76 a little hard or difficult here, for also the three largest ones in total, when also here flipping around, and ending up with much the same.


This one did not became one of myself this time, but for one thing, if I actually happened to know, I could be making it gcd() here, for just that of two numbers, except for still only just filling in, and rather wasting space, but next only forgetting that, of course.


So either just write, for that of grammar and syntax, when also correct language, when it also becomes that of polynomials for that of such numbers, which could involve possible complexity.


At least becoming two instances of much the same numbers here, for also the fact that both 2, 3, 5 and 7, could be "hidden" inside a number like a C309, except not any visible at all.


How many times could you "divide" that C309 with both 2, 3, 5, and 7, except for still the remainder which could be present or left?


I guess 2^20 could still be 1048576, because here not any Fermat numbers either,
but the same should also go for 3^20 as well, for only 3486784401


Here thinking wrong, but should be the one closest to the C309, from just behind, when only doing the multiplication above, or 2^n.


Adding to it 11, 13, 17, 19, and so on, for just excluding, and you do have the rest, except for still the possible remainder.


Therefore, 2^n, for just less than the C309, written in full, for having it explained.


So, if still a bit of mess, also the fact that my disk now became quite filled, for almost "choked" for much the same, except for perhaps still not any difference between prime numbers and factors, from what I am able to see.


Really, some four P40 through P60 factors, next multiplied, could be making for a quite decent number, except only a possible use for just flipping around, as usual, for either ending up nowhere, for sometimes getting a result.


We do get new numbers almost each day now, for only filling in the gaps, except still not any conjectures, for only being solved, like also the new record prime.


Again, unfinished business only means reporting out of fashion, for not being in any order or sequence, for also the other thing as well, but at least we are not supposed to make it any nextprime() for such a thing.


Here that of 321 LLR for just a good example, because it should be both + and - here, except only some nine known primes here.


As an example, 17*19 = 323, but also that both 321 and 325 are not any primes either.



P40 = 5772156649015328606065120900824024310421


P56 = 23903180476843089952579062830939453091365029983134464841



http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001364184205


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001364160756



Here noticed that the second one appeared quite difficult, for not giving in any much, but here could add a P39, for a bit of success.


Of course could also end up with the same factors if not any careful, but in case it could be quite similar here as well.


For one thing it could still slip and fall, for only one handle for that of grip, except also not knowing which side of the tree any such factor should favor,
for only Fermat versus Mersenne, if possibly not any else.


Could have it later here, but need the cup of coffee first, but apparently a better one here.

[storflyt32]

Oki doki, not be just any unfair right now, because you told me so, and next you could be my friend.


Bump, but really, during the week, I just slipped on the mouse, for making it one 7, for that of a digit, when it perhaps should be two, for that of '77 at the end instead, and here a factor as well, for that of a P23.


Still the other factor could be just 7, but next laughter in the audience.


Mistress, for perhaps rather masters instead, but at least only a failure here, for that of being self-inflicted.


Just pick it up, for perhaps not any Dogma either, but perhaps I still could swear.


But honestly, just in the middle of the night, I could be able to pick up the slight, but also subtle difference, if perhaps not you any so either, for just a meaning.


If perhaps still only confusing, it could still go for that of project itself here, for only making it clear.


So, what is the rule, namely that I hereby ask, for also what you could be able to offer.


Read my lips, for not any straightforward myself, namely that of project management, and its own way of handling, for only dealing with a couple of things.


Yes, any idiots, for also Pragmatism, and perhaps not the same either.


Here just my thoughts, for that of the night, and actually had something else on my mind.




Hmm, really, or should it be the broken glass here, for next only my eyes?


Just hang on a little (P23).


So, what did I do, for only multiplying a P40 with a P100 here, and next thinking it could be a P23, for just in reverse?


Is it just, or OR, or could it rather be only just fact?


Does it perhaps count, for also "is", or is it just still only silly me?


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


Here for that of a start, except not making it any relational table here either.


(Just) silly - enough, does it perhaps translate, for also enough?


Part versus whole, and next also "transcendental", and here the best I could get at, for just the moment, except not any music either.


Carry flag - warning flag, what the heck else?


Sorry about wording here, but perhaps could be discussed.



Yes, that P92 of recent, had the little warning, should tell (failure to equate relation), just on the spot here, for not any easy.



http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001365123379


A previous C92, having P37 and P56 factors, got the failure to equate relation error, for only a possible difficulty.



http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001364287970


http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000001364293492



Either just alone, or perhaps the second one here, for only smaller ones in the first, but like a hurricane also brewing in the Atlantic,
perhaps no-one really guessed that most of these factors could end up being broken.

[storflyt32]

Perhaps I was a little impolite just a moment ago, but would have to go back for such a thing.


Even more of it, or perhaps to it, namely that I chose to pay Photobucket some 53,90 in US dollars, for letting them keep my uploaded photos for only that of storage, except for them also noticing it being used for
3rd party hosting as well.


Always the login, for also logout, except for also that of Terms as well, for just Terms of service, and I should next also read that, of course.


So just walking to the shop today, for both the milk and dinner, for also the beer as usual, it became that of a small gift for my mother, only because she is 82 years old tomorrow.


Late as usual, because of only a couple of habits, the two women behind the desk took my suggestion for that of a small gift, and it became a box of soap at the cost of 50 in my national current.
Maybe just a plastic box here, but at least nice colors, with a couple of drawings on it, so at least looking quite nice.


But next that this only amounts to roughly 1/6 of what I paid Photobucket, and if perhaps not forgetting my mother having surgery for cancer, should it perhaps be any better, or is it only just me to blame?


I do the shopping where some two stores almost the same size, are covering up for some 30,000 inhabitants of a whole city.


So therefore maybe sometimes the pawnbroker in a shop for such a thing, for also a bargain being made at times, but returning back home, at least being a little ashamed of myself, for only letting such a thing happen.


Really, my mother could have deserved a little better, in my opinion.

[LaurV]

Originally Posted by storflyt32

Really, my mother could have deserved a little better, in my opinion.

I didn't read the rest, but at least with this, we all agree…


Thanks for that, appreciated, but I guess someone could be making it "enough said", for only just science, except not making it any nonsense either.


I sometimes make a visit at Seti@home, for perhaps not the word being used for such, except not any "vacant" either,
but rather just contribute, and for that, also a friend of sorts, with the name of OzzFan, where we just agreed to perhaps more could also mean better,
for only just meaning so.


Therefore, just quantize, for only sticking to the point, except not any fantasy either, for just a delirium, when only a sense of disappointment instead.


For you, when next only keen of sorts, except not any asserting either.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)


Wipe a couple of tears instead, for only the thing being postulated, except not making it any thing such a science either, when only just formulated.


Aargh!