After 340 tests
- Hi Hans and All,
There are Aleph-Null Primes out there and enough Forms to keep us all
I'm an official, paid-up "Factor Freak". I like tailoring my PFGW
searches by balancing the size of the integer N against the Cyclotomic
"shape" of N-1. I also like it that, when PFGW says Phi(p,x) is PrP,
that is when the real work starts: spreading my available CPU resources
* Size of PrP
* Digits lacking for proof
* Factors found already
* Count and size of composite factors remaining
* Hours of work already done
... success in this involves theory, judgment, experience and (most
importantly) luck. You "Trivia Freaks" determine ranges for your PFGW
and Proth searches. What determines a successful range? I would suggest:
theory, judgment, experience and (most importantly) luck.
This is just the way I like to amuse myself. I am sure that I speak for
all Factor Freaks when I say: "Congratulations on proving an enormous
prime". None of us _really_ consider such work "trivial". (You do
realise that David enjoys trolling?)
- I seem to be getting grumpy.
Perhaps it comes from having a Williams-Lenstra
candidate with N^2-1 at 33.331%
Neither of the standard methods
(extra square tests or rigorous bounds)
for the extra bit are compatible with the final Lenstra
test, as far as I can see.
So I guess I'll just have to initiate new code: APR-CL-WL.
Maybe my humour will then improve.
Apologies in the interrim.
- Andy Steward wrote:
> There are Aleph-Null Primes out there and enough Forms to keep us allYes, and every Aleph-Null prime means an Aleph-Null *prime factor* for
all the factor freaks out there :)
Does this make you (the prime factor freaks faction) happier?