Re: q | L(2^n * p^m)?
- L2738 (2,74) 70531186979083.P543
settles the matter, in my mind.
I cannot believe that Blair Kelly
missed a p18*p544 split at a smaller index.
And you have *no* composite to appeal to
larger than these
L2692 (4) C562
as far as I can tell.
- "David Broadhurst" wrote:
> L2738 (2,74) 70531186979083.P543>Then I agree, any of these composites, would not have a prime larger
> settles the matter, in my mind.
> I cannot believe that Blair Kelly>
> missed a p18*p544 split at a smaller index.
> L2687 C562
> L2692 (4) C562
> L2731 3371665291.C562
Hats off to David!
I will be silent now, while I try and redeem myself.
> Then I agree, any of these composites,Yes, but that *idiot* Broadhurst overlooked the fact
> would not have a prime larger than p543.
and you had cunningly included this type of
"limited cyclotomic disadvantage"
when the two odd primes are not distinct!
So you can survive the p19 squeeze from
because of your get-out clause "p^m" in the title.
However there are at least three
"severely cyclotomically disadvantaged"
aspiring largest-yet record holders:
needing some ECM work to rule out
already highly implausible splits
of a few nearby composites with no
more than 31 extra digits
P.C. warning : Anyone found to be running extra ECM on
a few carefully selected composites 30 digits larger
than one of these putative paraplegic record holders,
in the *very* remote hope of extracting a W.A.S.P.
prime that might displace it, will be reported to
the suitable authorities for politically incorrect
persecution of a severely disadvantaged minority :-)
> q | L(0)If you omit the requirement that the index
be a natural number, then a much funnier
thing than that happens:
2|L(0) is not a record because 3|L(-2)
3|L(-2) is not a record because 7|L(-4):
and so on, showing that *no* record exists :-)
> lolloss of logic?