Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [PrimeNumbers] Two large consecutive smooth numbers

Expand Messages
  • Phil Carmody
    ... Calling Doctor Broadhurst for suggestion of the best metric by which to evaluate such records. A simple log doesn t necessarily tell the whole tale at all.
    Message 1 of 17 , Mar 3, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- On Sat, 3/3/12, WarrenS <warren.wds@...> wrote:
      > N=43623575184339996059537425773119366447006380455838\
      > 696504055889999185302903791148393125043181272726633463298672436846034128
      >
      > and N+1, both are "smooth", i.e both factor entirely into
      > primes<=9168769.

      Calling Doctor Broadhurst for suggestion of the best metric by which to evaluate such records. A simple log doesn't necessarily tell the whole tale at all.

      Be warned, Warren - Dr. B is sitting on a corpus of algebraic formulae such that p(x) and p(x)+1 have algebraic factorisations, which makes smoothness measurably (I was going to say immeasurably, and then realised the stupidity of such a word choice) more likely.

      I'll not play this game, as I have an appointment with 21 farmers in Lithuania (otherwise known as the biggest brewery crawl yet...)

      Phil
    • djbroadhurst
      ... Those don t seem to be of immediate help, Phil. Warren knows about Prouhet-Tarry-Escott and has set a puzzle that goes deeper than that. I pass. David
      Message 2 of 17 , Mar 3, 2012
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,
        Phil Carmody <thefatphil@...> wrote:

        > B is sitting on a corpus of algebraic formulae such that p(x)
        > and p(x)+1 have algebraic factorisations

        Those don't seem to be of immediate help, Phil.
        Warren knows about Prouhet-Tarry-Escott and
        has set a puzzle that goes deeper than that.

        I pass.

        David
      • djbroadhurst
        ... Oh well, I guess that, having been set up by Phil, I ought not to pass. A quick coding of my favourite PTE identity seemed to leave a significant
        Message 3 of 17 , Mar 3, 2012
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,
          "djbroadhurst" <d.broadhurst@...> wrote:

          > Warren knows about Prouhet-Tarry-Escott and
          > has set a puzzle that goes deeper than that.
          >
          > I pass.

          Oh well, I guess that, having been set up by Phil,
          I ought not to pass. A quick coding of my favourite
          PTE identity seemed to leave a significant computational
          load for Pari-GP. I am willing to let that code run
          for a few hours, without taking the effort to tune it.

          David
        • djbroadhurst
          ... but might, less coyly and more helpfully, have written {m=67440294559676054016000;y=1094090867210^2;
          Message 4 of 17 , Mar 3, 2012
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,
            "WarrenS" <warren.wds@...> wrote:

            > N=43623575184339996059537425773119366447006380455838\
            > 696504055889999185302903791148393125043181272726633463298672436846034128

            but might, less coyly and more helpfully, have written

            {m=67440294559676054016000;y=1094090867210^2;
            N=(y-11^4)*(y-35^2)*(y-47^2)*(y-94^2)*(y-146^2)*(y-148^2)/m-1;}

            in the more explicit manner of
            http://physics.open.ac.uk/~dbroadhu/cpte.pdf

            David
          • Kermit Rose
            ... e = limit(n-- infinity) (1+1/n)^n ln((n+1)/n) = ln(1 + 1/n) ln( (1+1/n)^n) is, for large n, approximately equal to 1. ln((1+1/n)^n) = n ln(1+1/n)
            Message 5 of 17 , Mar 4, 2012
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              On 3/4/2012 7:59 AM, primenumbers@yahoogroups.com wrote:
              > 1a. Two large consecutive smooth numbers
              > Posted by: "WarrenS"warren.wds@... warren_d_smith31
              > Date: Sat Mar 3, 2012 9:19 am ((PST))
              >
              > N=43623575184339996059537425773119366447006380455838\
              > 696504055889999185302903791148393125043181272726633463298672436846034128
              >
              > and N+1, both are "smooth", i.e both factor entirely into primes<=9168769.
              >
              > Can you do better (i.e. make N larger, and the max prime smaller)?
              >

              e = limit(n--> infinity) (1+1/n)^n


              ln((n+1)/n) = ln(1 + 1/n)

              ln( (1+1/n)^n) is, for large n, approximately equal to 1.


              ln((1+1/n)^n) = n ln(1+1/n)

              ln(1+1/n) = approximately (1/n) for large n.


              Find solutions to k1 ln(2) + k2 ln(3) + k3 ln(5) + .... < 1/n for
              target large values of n.


              Minimize k1 ln(2) + k2 ln(3) + k3 ln(5) + .... where some of the k's
              are required to be positive, and some negative.


              k1 ln(2) + k2 ln(3) is approximately 0

              k1 ln(2) = approximately - k2 ln(3)

              -k1/k2 = approximately ln(3)/ln(2)

              One of k1, k2 is positive. The other is negative.

              It seems straight forward to calculate the coefficients k1, k2, ,k3, etc
              which minimizes this sum for given sets of primes,
              2,3,5,etc.

              From that minimum value of the sum for given sets of primes,
              calculate n = int(1/minimum) as an upper bound for the n which applies.



              Kermit Rose
            • Kermit Rose
              ... To construct quadratics, x^2 - b x + c and x^2 - b x + c + 1 which are both factorisable, we look for integers b, k1, k2 such that c = k1 * (b-k1) and c+1
              Message 6 of 17 , Mar 4, 2012
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                On 3/4/2012 7:59 AM, primenumbers@yahoogroups.com wrote:
                > 1c. Re: Two large consecutive smooth numbers
                > Posted by: "Phil Carmody"thefatphil@... thefatphil
                > Date: Sat Mar 3, 2012 3:03 pm ((PST))
                >
                > Calling Doctor Broadhurst for suggestion of the best metric by which to evaluate such records. A simple log doesn't necessarily tell the whole tale at all.
                >
                > Be warned, Warren - Dr. B is sitting on a corpus of algebraic formulae such that p(x) and p(x)+1 have algebraic factorisations, which makes smoothness measurably (I was going to say immeasurably, and then realised the stupidity of such a word choice) more likely.
                >
                > I'll not play this game, as I have an appointment with 21 farmers in Lithuania (otherwise known as the biggest brewery crawl yet...)
                >
                > Phil

                To construct quadratics,

                x^2 - b x + c and x^2 - b x + c + 1 which are both factorisable,

                we look for integers b, k1, k2 such that

                c = k1 * (b-k1)
                and
                c+1 = k2 * (b-k2)

                1*3 = 3; 2 * 2 = 4

                x^2 - 4 x + 3 = (x-1)*(x-3)
                x^2 - 4 x + 4 = (x-2)^2

                2 * 4 = 8; 3 * 3 = 9

                x^2 - 6 x + 8 = (x-2)*(x-4)
                x^2 - 6 x + 9 = (x-3)^2 which is really the same as the first example
                translated by 1.

                I will guess that maybe the only quadratic polynomial solutions are
                translations of the first example.

                Cubic polynomial solutions should be more prolific.

                Kermit
              • Jim White
                  Hi kermit,   The quadratic case simply corresponds to a 3-tuple of smooth {Q, Q+1, Q+2} inferring a pair at {(Q+1)^2 - 1, (Q+1)^2}   We are aiming for
                Message 7 of 17 , Mar 4, 2012
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                   
                  Hi kermit,
                   
                  The quadratic case simply corresponds to a 3-tuple
                  of smooth {Q, Q+1, Q+2} inferring a pair at
                  {(Q+1)^2 - 1, (Q+1)^2}
                   
                  We are aiming for more massive "power boosting".
                   
                  cf: Prouhet-Tarry-Escott problem.
                   
                  Warrens SMODA II document has a good list of
                  known cases for polynomials to orders up to 10,
                  and I believe he has found pairs using a 12-th degree
                  poly.
                   
                  Cheers!


                  ________________________________
                  From: Kermit Rose <kermit@...>
                  To: primenumbers@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Monday, 5 March 2012, 1:59
                  Subject: [PrimeNumbers] Re: Two large consecutive smooth numbers

                  > I will guess that maybe the only quadratic polynomial solutions are
                  > translations of the first example.

                  Cubic polynomial solutions should be more prolific.

                  Kermit




                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • WarrenS
                  Jim White & I have been trying to construct these things because they are grist for my new factoring algorithm SMODA. That was one example of our output.
                  Message 8 of 17 , Mar 4, 2012
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Jim White & I have been trying to construct these things because they are grist for my
                    new factoring algorithm SMODA. That was one example of our output. Although we can break (and have broken) that record, I could only make N have about 30% more digits before
                    my current program would get very slow or self destruct.

                    If you have new approaches, and can break that record using them, great.
                    The PTE approach Broadhurst & Carmody were hinting at, is what I am using now for the
                    largest ones, so that's not a new idea unless you know something I do not about it.

                    If you are interested in donating computer time to this effort, intel last 10 years,
                    unix variant, ok to run weeks at a time in background, then
                    email warren.wds AT gmail.com.

                    Thank you.
                  • djbroadhurst
                    ... Yes. Let {f(y)= (y^2-11^4)*(y^2-35^2)*(y^2-47^2)* (y^2-94^2)*(y^2-146^2)*(y^2-148^2)/ 67440294559676054016000 - 1;} With N = f(1210851834572), we find that
                    Message 9 of 17 , Mar 4, 2012
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,
                      "WarrenS" <warren.wds@...> wrote:

                      > N=43623575184339996059537425773119366447006380455838\
                      > 696504055889999185302903791148393125043181272726633463298672436846034128
                      > and N+1, both are "smooth", i.e both factor entirely into
                      > primes <= 9168769.
                      > Can you do better (i.e. make N larger, and the max prime smaller)?

                      Yes. Let
                      {f(y)=
                      (y^2-11^4)*(y^2-35^2)*(y^2-47^2)*
                      (y^2-94^2)*(y^2-146^2)*(y^2-148^2)/
                      67440294559676054016000 - 1;}

                      With N = f(1210851834572),
                      we find that N*(N+1) is 5205793-smooth.

                      With N = f(1606741747790),
                      we find that N*(N+1) is 8686687-smooth.

                      David
                    • djbroadhurst
                      ... I have not been following this in detail, but I gained the impression that Warren s original advert was far too optimistic and that now his heuristic for
                      Message 10 of 17 , Mar 4, 2012
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,
                        "WarrenS" <warren.wds@...> wrote:

                        > Jim White & I have been trying to construct these things
                        > because they are grist for my new factoring algorithm SMODA.

                        I have not been following this in detail, but I gained the impression
                        that Warren's original advert was far too optimistic and that now
                        his heuristic for oracular factorization has escalated from
                        exp(log(N)^(1/3+o(1))) to the far less encouraging
                        exp(log(N)^(2/3+o(1))) as the time to construct a database.

                        Is this a fair summary of the setback?

                        David
                      • WarrenS
                        ... --well, yes and no. (And it wasn t a setback since I knew it all along.) (1) My factorization algorithm SMODA as far as I know still works and still
                        Message 11 of 17 , Mar 4, 2012
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "djbroadhurst" <d.broadhurst@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,
                          > "WarrenS" <warren.wds@> wrote:
                          >
                          > > Jim White & I have been trying to construct these things
                          > > because they are grist for my new factoring algorithm SMODA.
                          >
                          > I have not been following this in detail, but I gained the impression
                          > that Warren's original advert was far too optimistic and that now
                          > his heuristic for oracular factorization has escalated from
                          > exp(log(N)^(1/3+o(1))) to the far less encouraging
                          > exp(log(N)^(2/3+o(1))) as the time to construct a database.
                          >
                          > Is this a fair summary of the setback?

                          --well, yes and no. (And it wasn't a "setback" since I knew it all along.)

                          (1) My factorization algorithm SMODA as far as I know still works and still runs in
                          exp(log(N)^(1/3+-o(1))) time PROVIDED database ("oracle") is available for its use.
                          It is plausibly better under this proviso than quadratic sieve and number field sieve,
                          but that at present is unconfirmed.

                          (2) For the problem of computing the database, however, I only have
                          exp(log(N)^(2/3+-o(1))) time algorithms for. However as we just saw, the o(1)
                          is fairly beneficial, since we can reach at least 400-bit-long database entries on a single computer, indeed Broadhurst just found some database entries of that size
                          in a matter of a few hours -- pretty fast turnaround! (His weren't as large as my
                          best records, but obviously Broadhurst has already built a search code comparable to or better than mine.) In fact I hope to release a preliminary database by me & Jim White, going up to 400-bits, in a few more days to interested parties.

                          (3) You might say that (2) sort of demolishes (1), but that is debatable. The thing is,
                          the database-build is something that all factorers worldwide can do collaboratively and do only once. Therefore, it is not fair to judge this runtime on the same footing as the other runtime. I admit I'm not quite sure how to judge it, because it has been a fairly rare thing
                          in the world so far, to have oracle-algorithms that actually are useful.

                          It is conceivable that (2)'s theoretical runtime can be sped up, but at present, I haven't been able to. Furthermore, few or no experts have carefully examined either (1) or (2) yet so it remains possible I'm crazy and the whole thing is broken. I doubt that -- I think any remaining errors are minor -- I'm just giving you fair warning.

                          --Warren D Smith
                        • Jim White
                          Hard puzzle, really hard puzzle   We know also that, while max N might exist with ~5000 digits, his nearest p-smooth neighbour pair might well be hundreds of
                          Message 12 of 17 , Mar 5, 2012
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hard puzzle, really hard puzzle
                             
                            We know also that, while max N might exist with ~5000
                            digits, his nearest p-smooth neighbour pair might
                            well be hundreds of digits smaller.  
                             
                            What we don't know is which pairs N are "PTE-compatible",
                            ie can be found via some factoring
                            polynomial whose roots are all p-smooth.
                             
                            Any ideas on that issue would be useful
                             
                            Jim White
                             

                            ________________________________
                            From: Andrey Kulsha <Andrey_601@...>
                            To: PrimeNumbers@...
                            Sent: Sunday, 4 March 2012, 9:53
                            Subject: Re: [PrimeNumbers] Two large consecutive smooth numbers


                             

                            Heuristically, log(max_N) is nearly proportional to sqrt(max_prime).

                            So, with p < 9168769, one can find N with more than 5000 digits.

                            But that's a hard puzzle, really.

                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Jim White
                            Andrey s chain puzzle is interesting.  Could it be he already has found the maximum possible result for chain length 13?   It s hard to see how that result
                            Message 13 of 17 , Mar 5, 2012
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Andrey's chain puzzle is interesting.  Could it be
                              he already has found the maximum possible result
                              for chain length 13?
                               
                              It's hard to see how that result can be beaten.
                               
                              Some results with weights of 2.2 or more:
                               
                                  28246112570058, weight = 2.2053 (P =  1257251)
                                  18911412089528, weight = 2.2077 (P =  1032307)
                                 218381019281507, weight = 2.2410 (P =  2504167)
                                   9288363679368, weight = 2.2480 (P =   587149)
                                3393509932556102, weight = 2.2536 (P =  7788997)
                                4532039198639948, weight = 2.2536 (P =  8856259)
                                4532039198639949, weight = 2.2536 (P =  8856259)
                               12469670986534198, weight = 2.2547 (P = 13762769)
                               10160468895884110, weight = 2.2592 (P = 12163843)
                                 461881571558141, weight = 2.2615 (P =  3050603)
                                7909529450841510, weight = 2.2621 (P = 10669823)
                                 211814723372355, weight = 2.2918 (P =  1782043)
                                 430753934627814, weight = 2.4217 (P =  1103933)

                              Perhaps the 14-chain at N = 4532039198639948 might
                              be a good result? What are the best known results
                              for 14 or longer chains?


                              ________________________________
                              From: Andrey Kulsha <Andrey_601@...>
                              To: PrimeNumbers@...
                              Sent: Sunday, 4 March 2012, 9:53
                              Subject: Re: [PrimeNumbers] Two large consecutive smooth numbers


                               

                              > Puzzle: find a chain of 13 consecutive p-smooth integers,
                              > starting at N, with log(N)/log(p) greater than
                              >
                              > log(8559986129664)/log(58393) = 2.71328

                              Best regards,

                              Andrey




                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Andrey Kulsha
                              ... No, I think that log/log ratio has no limit. ... Brute force search yielded: N = 505756884840 for 14-chain N = 285377140980 for 15-chain N = 32290958458
                              Message 14 of 17 , Mar 5, 2012
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                > Andrey's chain puzzle is interesting. Could it
                                > be he already has found the maximum possible
                                > result for chain length 13?

                                No, I think that log/log ratio has no limit.

                                > Perhaps the 14-chain at N = 4532039198639948
                                > might be a good result? What are the best known
                                > results for 14 or longer chains?

                                Brute force search yielded:
                                N = 505756884840 for 14-chain
                                N = 285377140980 for 15-chain
                                N = 32290958458 for 16-chain
                                as listed in http://www.primefan.ru/stuff/math/maxs.xls
                                (there k+1 is chain length)

                                Best regards,

                                Andrey
                              • Jim White
                                Andrey,   I can t use that file, I don t have XL.  Any chance of a text export? eg comma-separated fields     ________________________________ From:
                                Message 15 of 17 , Mar 5, 2012
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Andrey,
                                   
                                  I can't use that file, I don't have XL.  Any chance
                                  of a text export? eg comma-separated fields
                                   
                                   

                                  ________________________________
                                  From: Andrey Kulsha <Andrey_601@...>
                                  To: PrimeNumbers@...
                                  Sent: Tuesday, 6 March 2012, 6:28
                                  Subject: [PrimeNumbers] Re: 13-chains of consecutive smooth numbers



                                   

                                  > Andrey's chain puzzle is interesting. Could it
                                  > be he already has found the maximum possible
                                  > result for chain length 13?

                                  No, I think that log/log ratio has no limit.

                                  > Perhaps the 14-chain at N = 4532039198639948
                                  > might be a good result? What are the best known
                                  > results for 14 or longer chains?

                                  Brute force search yielded:
                                  N = 505756884840 for 14-chain
                                  N = 285377140980 for 15-chain
                                  N = 32290958458 for 16-chain
                                  as listed in http://www.primefan.ru/stuff/math/maxs.xls
                                  (there k+1 is chain length)

                                  Best regards,

                                  Andrey



                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.