Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: Estimating log (B^pi(B))

Expand Messages
• ... Thank ye, kind sir. ... Yep. I said you didn t need to bother, not that you didn t bother. ... begin{explanation} lcm{1,2,12}=3*4 We get the 3 from 4*x+3,
Message 1 of 19 , Feb 1, 2003
• 0 Attachment
Phil:

> That's a completely sideways way of looking at things!
> I like it!

Thank ye, kind sir.

> I think one of my results was a {1,4,6} wasn't it?

Yep. I said you didn't need to bother, not that you
didn't bother.

> I'm surprised it works, because the factors need to
> be of a particular residue in order to make the thing
> carmichael

\begin{explanation}

lcm{1,2,12}=3*4

We get the 3 from 4*x+3, since
x=0 mod 3, because of the primorial.

We get the 4 from (1+1/d).
All possible d's are odd.
So half of the combinations of ECM primes work.
But we double these using the 5 from 6*x+5,
since x=0 mod 5, because of the primorial.

So {1,2,12} is as rich as {1,2,3}.
Except that it's twice as fast
as {1,2,3} for ECMing.

\end{explanation}
• Given the 1,2,15 seed, or 1,2,12 seed etc Couldn t we check for a 4th element using ECM, and a 5th element (e) such that we can form a 5-carm of the form N
Message 2 of 19 , Feb 1, 2003
• 0 Attachment
Given the 1,2,15 seed, or 1,2,12 seed etc
Couldn't we check for a 4th element using ECM, and a 5th element (e) such
that we can form a 5-carm of the form N = e*1*2*15*ECMFactor

Carms of that form

5,7,13,193,439,9637697
5,7,13,193,499,2657,42829
5,19,37,547,1009,3211937
7,19,37,541,601,58741
7,79,157,2341,3541,9181
13,19,37,541,631,2689
13,19,37,541,739,811,1231
13,19,37,541,1009,2311
17,37,73,1093,2081,65521
17,37,73,1093,93809

With my dataset i will have 4 billion possible e values and 350 titanic
seeds of whatever 3 part seed that is picked. Is it possible to create a
carm by extending a "seed" at both ends. IE creating a custom formula for
each e*1*2*15 which is then ecm'd. to get a prime that
makes e*1*2*15*ECMFactor PRP

Markus

>But Markus is stuck with his NewPgen output and so
>can't use CRT. So I thought it would be useful
>to give {1,2,12} a proof in principle by beating the
>4-Carmichael 4th factor record.
>
>In fact I did it twice over:
>
>2763260532*((1591638066432*3061#+19)^2-1)*3061#/
>286610757607008951353515277095+1 3909 p44 03
>4-Carmichael factor (4)
>
>757849549*((72753556704*3061#+19)^2-1)*3061#/
>56731664597567983567442428202862519351615138+1 3891 p44 03
>4-Carmichael factor (4)
>
>finding ECM factors at about twice
>the rate for this seed as compared with
>the other seeds in my plantpot.
>
>OK, it's a trivial [and suspect] use of Dickman.
>
>But it was funny that you should mention him
>just after I had commented on another such seed
>{1,2,15}. But Markus can't use that
>Dickman-enhanced seed, since he
>can't get x=1 mod 5 in
>
>? print(factor((1+x)*(1+2*x)*(1+15*x)-1))
>[x, 1; 3*x + 2, 1; 10*x + 9, 1]
>
>because he used primorial mode in NewPgen.
>
>David
>
>
>Unsubscribe by an email to: primenumbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>The Prime Pages : http://www.primepages.org/
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
• ... Phil, I have been keeping such a list and was going to offer up all my findings once I have found my next brilliant number. The program I used to do the
Message 3 of 19 , Feb 1, 2003
• 0 Attachment
Phil Carmody wrote:
>
> ... brilliant numbers. If someone has kept a full record of all the numbers
> that were in the range they tested for brilliantness, then that would be a
> fair corpus, surely? I'm assuming they weren't sieved terribly deeply, and
> therefore only the medium sized factors would need to have been recorded, as
> the small ones can be reproduced easily (hey, I'll offer to find all the
> small factors to test my new factoring algorithm!). Sure they're smaller
> than 200 digits by a factor of 2, but they're about as unbiased as you can
> get, and there's a fair number of them.
>
> Anyone with such a collection?
>
> Phil
>
> =====
> Is that free as in Willy or as in bird?

Phil,

I have been keeping such a list and was going to offer up all my
findings once I have found my next brilliant number. The program I used
to do the "sieving" was Miracl's factor.exe (slightly modified by me)
and it does some ecm to remove up to 25 digit factors. So, would my
list be too sparse to be useful? I didn't keep any of the sieved
numbers, but everything that fell through that I have nfsx or ppsiqs
factorings of.

I was also thinking of giving the timings for the work thus far, and
maybe also giving a list of the primes that were found in this range.
Would either of the last two pieces of information be useful to anyone?
I'm still compiling the information and still waiting for the next
brilliant, but as soon as both are ready I'll e-mail the list.

-David C.
• ... I think that what you have so far cleaved/cleft/cloven is rather impressive and that the more you document it the better. Since the files are presumably
Message 4 of 19 , Feb 1, 2003
• 0 Attachment
David Cleaver asked:
> So, would my list be too sparse to be useful?
I think that what you have so far cleaved/cleft/cloven
is rather impressive and that the more you document it
the better. Since the files are presumably not huge,
I can't see that Phil is going to fret if you
create a "brilliant" folder in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/primenumbers/files/
and add whatever you think might be informative therein.
David
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.