Stefan Struiker writes:
When a requested factoring assignment is listed with, say, 52 in an
account log, does this mean it has been factored to 52 bits, but
_without_ success?
Yes, the number should have no factors less than 2^52.
Or could a factor have already been found in some ca
Jeff Woods wrote:
>>being found. Currently, all exponents thru Prime95's limit of
>>79.3M have been factored to at least 2^50... If a factor is
>>found for an exponent, it's eliminated from further testing
>>of any kind.
>
>Isn't the factor itself verified?
Yes, it is. However, at least in the
>From: Jeff Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Mersenne: Factoring Assignments: Are They Always
>"First-Time?"
>Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 17:14:00 -0400
>
>At 01:00 PM 6/17/00 -0700, you wrote:
(snip)
>>If a factor is
&g
At 01:00 PM 6/17/00 -0700, you wrote:
>being found. Currently, all exponents thru Prime95's limit of
>79.3M have been factored to at least 2^50... If a factor is
>found for an exponent, it's eliminated from further testing
>of any kind.
Isn't the factor itself verified?
___
Stefan Struiker wrote:
>When a requested factoring assignment is listed with, say, 52 in
>an account log, does this mean it has been factored to 52 bits,
>but _without_ success? Or could a factor have already been
>found in some cases, but less than 52 bits long?
If it's listed as 52 in the fa
TeamG:
When a requested factoring assignment is listed with, say, 52 in an account log,
does this mean it has been factored to 52 bits, but _without_ success?
Or could a factor have already been found in some cases, but less than
52 bits long?
My strategy in factoring 13.3 mill exponents and u
