math programs/packages...
> This is the current state-of-play regarding those extra tests I
> mentioned. I am currently pursuing P4253 in the hope of finding its 14-
> digit factor(s), ideally fairly soon. But anyway, here are the results
> I have so far (and on which I base/d my promising outlook). If anyone
> wants to repeat them/extend them, I'm posting the source of the C file
> I used (as a file) (factorize2.c). It needs to be compiled with -lgmp
> tiggatoo:~/math/wec james$ ./factorize2.gmp4.2.1 -Pp89 -a0
> a= 357 factor=537
> a= 199539 factor=62020897
> tiggatoo:~/math/wec james$ ./factorize2.gmp4.2.1 -Pp107 -a0
> a= 429 factor=3
> a= 643 factor=643
> tiggatoo:~/math/wec james$ ./factorize2.gmp4.2.1 -Pp127 -a0
> a= 509 factor=3
> tiggatoo:~/math/wec james$ ./factorize2.gmp4.2.1 -Pp521 -a0
> a= 2085 factor=3
> a= 164637 factor=501203
> a= 15643514741 factor=443418473521
> tiggatoo:~/math/wec james$ ./factorize2.gmp4.2.1 -Pp607 -a0
> a= 2429 factor=3
> a= 30351 factor=115331
> a= 1947729461 factor=202769117249
> a= 5185906000000
> tiggatoo:~/math/wec james$ ./factorize2.gmp4.2.1 -Pp1279 -a0
> a= 5117 factor=3
> a= 28139 factor=706009
> a= 383701 factor=3107971
> a= 1279001
> tiggatoo:~/math/wec james$ ./factorize2.gmp4.2.1 -Pp2203 -a0
> a= 8813 factor=3
> a= 13219 factor=13219
> a= 2742871587 factor=208613913329
> a= 50000000000
> tiggatoo:~/math/wec james$ ./factorize2.gmp4.2.1 -Pp2281 -a0
> a= 9125 factor=3
> a= 13687 factor=2185362233
> a= 2281001
> tiggatoo:~/math/wec james$ ./factorize2.gmp4.2.1 -Pp3217 -a0
> a= 12869 factor=3
> a= 19303 factor=7489177
> a= 800000000
> tiggatoo:~/math/wec james$ ./factorize2.gmp4.2.1 -Pp4253 -a0
> a= 17013 factor=3
> a= 58512775 factor=118071787
> a= 2777209001
> tiggatoo:~/math/wec james$ ./factorize2.gmp4.2.1 -Pp4423 -a0
> a= 17693 factor=3
> On Aug 30, 9:49 am, "James Wanless" <bear...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'll have to see if I want to take it forward.
> > I still think it's an incredible piece of kit, but it was starting to
> > feel like a job, and an unpaid one at that.
> > Also I was beginning to wonder if I was wasting people's time in terms
> > of the algorithm.
> > I am now conducting some more tests on that to reassure myself.
> > On 8/29/07, zombie67 <zombi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > No work?
