--- On Thu, 5/28/09, Bob Hillegas <bobhillegas@...> wrote:
> 11^(p-1) = (1+0w), maxerr=0.136734 => is Fermat 11-PRP.
> 11^(p-1)/2 :(-1+0w), maxerr=0.098267 => 2^8192 divides
> order, 1.24%
> 11^(p-1)/796619 :(-115073251261+-278157581894w),
> maxerr=0.082775 => 634601831161^8192 divides order, 48.76%
> 50.00% attained for Pocklington (contingent on maxerr=0.136734)
> Time=1557.070 => is prime.
Woo woo! Glad to see the range is still bearing fruit.
Phil
--- In pies_project@yahoogroups.com,
Phil Carmody <thefatphil@...> wrote:
> > Quite Evidently Delusional in other forums (fora?).
> David - drink a fine for even questioning that perfectly
> traditional (and I think predominant when the word first
> came into English) plural!
Duly drunken. Sorry for my offence, Boss.
What is even more shameful is that I now recall
that the dreadful Thatcher fell into the same trap,
when she said she would legislate about safety
in "football stadia".
David (shamed by deed and by association)
--- In pies_project@yahoogroups.com,
Phil Carmody <thefatphil@...> wrote:
> He steps over the 'politically correct' line all the time.
> This is a positive feature and is to be encouraged.
Thanks for the encouragement.
David
--- On Thu, 4/16/09, leavemsg1@... <leavemsg1@...> wrote:
> you're a little too bold for me, DB
You've not seen him in his neon green jogging pants yet!
> I'm not sure if you would accept anyone's proof...
> (really).
> I put my pants on one leg at a time, don't drink or do
> drugs, haven't
> committed a crime, ever, and knock on wood, never had a car
> accident.
> for someone who has the word 'open' in their url; you
> certainly aren't
> very... I've never been accused of being delusional; I
> work, have a nice
> family, and a nice home, car, etc.
None of which is pertinent to mathematical rigour.
> --- On Thu, 4/16/09, David Broadhurst <d.broadhurst@...>
> wrote:
>
> From: David Broadhurst <d.broadhurst@...>
> Subject: [pies_project] Re: I want others to enjoy it!
> sorry, Phil
> To: pies_project@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009, 11:22 AM
>
> --- In pies_project@ yahoogroups. com,
> "leavemsg1" <leavemsg1@. ..> wrote:
>
> > sorry for posting here,
> > but it's just too good to pass up!
>
> Sorry, Bill, but you were already shown to be
> Quite Evidently Delusional in other forums (fora?).
David - drink a fine for even questioning that perfectly traditional (and I
think predominant when the word first came into English) plural! The fine should
be fitting and therefore end '-ra', so perhaps a Madeira? Any non-ironic mention
of rum will be harshly punished.
> who died and made you boss... ??? I've never heard of or
> seen any of
> your proofs or any other works for that matter!
[SNIP - frothing and ranting]
Well you're quite wrong about DB. The only reason you've not seen any of his
multitude of proofs, many quite groundbreaking, is because you've simply clicked
'delete' when encountering something you didn't understand.
> sorry, Phil, seriously... David steps over-the-line all the
> time and with-
> out regards to other people's feelings, and I had to
> address this one.
He steps over the 'politically correct' line all the time. This is a positive
feature and is to be encouraged.
Cheerio,
Phil
you're a little too bold for me, DB
I'm not sure if you would accept anyone's proof... (really).
I put my pants on one leg at a time, don't drink or do drugs, haven't
committed a crime, ever, and knock on wood, never had a car accident.
for someone who has the word 'open' in their url; you certainly aren't
very... I've never been accused of being delusional; I work, have a nice
family, and a nice home, car, etc.
--- On Thu, 4/16/09, David Broadhurst <d.broadhurst@...> wrote:
From: David Broadhurst <d.broadhurst@...>
Subject: [pies_project] Re: I want others to enjoy it! sorry, Phil
To: pies_project@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009, 11:22 AM
--- In pies_project@ yahoogroups. com,
"leavemsg1" <leavemsg1@. ..> wrote:
> sorry for posting here,
> but it's just too good to pass up!
Sorry, Bill, but you were already shown to be
Quite Evidently Delusional in other forums (fora?).
who died and made you boss... ??? I've never heard of or seen any of
your proofs or any other works for that matter! besides, this isn't some
pissing contest where you're the king-pisser; I say, you got nothin'
David (THE I-gotta-be-right-every-time... spammer!); did I mention rude?
you're like the Enigma machine... it would take two British gals to break
you... and discover your real purpose.
sorry, Phil, seriously... David steps over-the-line all the time and with-
out regards to other people's feelings, and I had to address this one.
--- In pies_project@yahoogroups.com,
"leavemsg1" <leavemsg1@...> wrote:
> sorry for posting here,
> but it's just too good to pass up!
Sorry, Bill, but you were already shown to be
Quite Evidently Delusional in other forums (fora?).
David (troll-watcher)
sorry for posting here, but it's just too good to pass up!
even, quasi-, & odd perfect numbers all have a great deal in common!
the convention sigma(n) = n for the even perfect numbers must stand
as I'm only concerned with the 'proper' divisors of 'n'.
they all have to pass this test, or their cover is blown!:
IS sigma(x) > (y) -2 ???, followed by some adjustment until both the
positive and negative counterparts are on opposing sides, and sigma
can be taken AGAIN on both sides; 'x' and 'y' can be different; it
doesn't matter.
three definitions...
if sigma(n) = n, then 'n' is considered to be an even perfect number
some 'evens' slip through the test as you already know...
if sigma(n^2) = n^2 +1, then 'n^2' is to be a quasi-perfect number;
n^2 has to be an odd perfect square, and 'n'>3 to see the result.
finally, if sigma(2n+1) = 2n+1, then '2n+1' is an odd perfect number
I'll show you that odd perfect numbers CAN'T exist!
watch... how the test applies to each case to achieve some results:
for evens...
if sigma(n)= n, then 'n' is considered to be an even perfect number.
some of them squeak through!
if sigma(n)= n, then sigma(n) > (n) -2 ???; adding 1 TBS & sigma AGAIN
leads to... sigma(sigma(n)+1) > sigma(n -1); which reduces to...
sigma(n +1) > sigma(n -1) by substitution of definition again.
without any hesitation, n = 5, 27, etc. pass the test, and Euler saw
their true formula; these examples can be easily exposed & verified.
for quasi's...
if sigma(n^2)= n^2 +1 for an odd 'n'>3, then 'n^2' is considered to
be a quasi-perfect number! (please excuse the early substitution...
it reads better, later).
if sigma(n^2)= n^2 +1, then sigma(n^2) > (n^2 +1) -2 ???; along with
sigma AGAIN leads to... sigma(sigma(n^2)) > sigma(n^2 -1); which re-
duces to sigma(n^2 +1) > sigma(n^2 -1) by subst. of definition again.
with some hesitation, (n^2 -1) has the form '8m' and (n^2 +1) has
the form '8m +2' for the same 'm'; clearly, sigma(n^2 -1) is more a-
bundant than sigma(n^2 +1), --- but only when an odd 'n'> 3 ---
hence, by contradiction, a quasi-perfect number cannot exist.
for odds...
if sigma(2n+1)= 2n +1 for some 'n', then '2n+1' is considered to be
an odd perfect number! I'll show you why there aren't any...
if sigma(2n +1)= 2n +1, then sigma(2n+1) > (2n+1) -2 ???; and sigma
AGAIN leads to... sigma(sigma(2n+1)) > sigma(2n-1); which reduces to
sigma(2n +1) > sigma(2n -1) by substitution of definition again.
clearly, sigma(2n+1) is ALWAYS more abundant than sigma(2n -1) which
means that for every 'n', sigma(2n+1) = 2n+1; if you evaluate it, you
quickly realize that the original definition cannot possibly be right
for every 'n' and we have a false-positive answer! (tricky?)
hence, by contradiction, an odd perfect number CAN'T exist.
enjoy!
--- On Tue, 11/11/08, Chris Caldwell <caldwell@...> wrote:
> > Got ONE!!
>
> Congratulations!
Seconded!
> I cannot even get connected :-)
Argh, lots of admin work on that machine, I keep forgetting to restart the
server. I'd better check that Paul's ECM server's also running...
Phil
> Got ONE!!
Congratulations!
I cannot even get connected :-)
connect: Connection refused at .//maximeisclient.pl line 62.
(Hint Phil... <grin>)
Congratulations again!
CC
... to start my own P.I.E.S. search ???
I have a stand alone eMachines computer w/an Intel Celeron(R) 2.
(something) GHz CPU... not superior in any way.
Also, do you help me with a pre-described search range ???
can you be specific in your description of how I should start ???
I already explored the Files section and don't have an elaborate
unzip program; I've got WinXP only.
Also, is there another version of the PFGW coming out in the near
future ???
Bill, from a planet opposing the ZOG-olites! j/k
> We aim to please. My talisman is
> NOT Phi(3, OR 1$ OR 1)^2
> at http://primes.utm.edu/primes/search.php
I like that clever search David.
Phil,
How do I overcome this error:
connect: Connection refused at .//maximeisclient.pl line 62.
CC
--- On Tue, 6/10/08, Bob Hillegas <bobhillegas@...> wrote:
> Dry hole.
> 49152_k2_1449999-1480000
1.5 expected, so nothing particularly untoward. Hopefully the next one will have
something.
Phil
Dry hole.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Cron Daemon <bobhillegas@...>
Date: Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 6:02 AM
Subject: Cron <bobh@north> /etc/cron.often/monitor_overseis.sh
To: bobhillegas@...
49152_k2_1449999-1480000
(5447/5446 100%) No process running
49152_k2_1449999-1480000.abc has been completed. Please move to archive
directory.
Nothing new Mon Jun 9 06:02:02 CDT 2008
--
BobH
bobhillegas@...
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Not me - but the dear Prof!
http://83.143.57.194:8080/res
That region has been exceptionally dry - I almost felt like pulling the plug on
it. If we don't step up to the next range up, that might well be not just our
largest PIES prime and so largest Generalised Eisenstein Prime, but also
probably largest non-Proth/Reisel-prime (I.e. one with <50% factorisation of
+/-1) ever found for quite a while. The 'supersized' ranges can't reach
anywhere near that far.
The funny thing is that I was just about to add a new service to my webserver,
and chose port 8080 to hang it off, and when I loaded up the browser, I got the
PIES range server rather than my web-server. Imagine my surprise to see a new
apple!
Of course, it's still pending a primality check (I think OversEis can now cope
with non-super candidates too, but PFGW will always cope), but it's not of the
form 2^s*3^t, so is not likely to be a PRP at all.
Phil
() ASCII ribbon campaign () Hopeless ribbon campaign
/\ against HTML mail /\ against gratuitous bloodshed
[stolen with permission from Daniel B. Cristofani]
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
--- Bob Hillegas <bobhillegas@...> wrote:
> Got ONE!!
That's 10 big ones you've got now (and a couple of 170000-digiters too) -
excellent!
Phil
() ASCII ribbon campaign () Hopeless ribbon campaign
/\ against HTML mail /\ against gratuitous bloodshed
[stolen with permission from Daniel B. Cristofani]
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.
http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
--- Bob Hillegas <bobhillegas@...> wrote:
> Got ONE!!
> 50.00% attained for Pocklington (contingent on maxerr=0.403870)
Excellent! Those maxerrs are beginning to look daunting though. Still good for
a while I'm sure.
Phil
() ASCII ribbon campaign () Hopeless ribbon campaign
/\ against HTML mail /\ against gratuitous bloodshed
[stolen with permission from Daniel B. Cristofani]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- Bob Hillegas <bobhillegas@...> wrote:
> 49152_k2_1350000-1379999_2of2.abc
> (3622/5473 66%) Running 17034:01 minutes
> 2341:Phi(49152,3757143544200) b=(2*1)*1370610^2 (684406bits) res=(-1+0w) at
> bit 17. maxerr=0.375732. Time=1445.130 => is 2-SPRP.
> 3587:Phi(49152,3775889401250) b=(2*1)*1374025^2 (684523bits) res=(-1+0w) at
> bit 20. maxerr=0.378357. Time=1424.860 => is 2-SPRP.
>
> Got ONE!!
> /usr/local/bin/overseis.p4 -t -q 49152 3775889401250
> OversEis version:0.92F Weighting:0.2o/c=s+r/s=r/l=sB/^2 Transform:DJB+PC
> Phi(49152,3775889401250) Form Phi(2^14*3^1,b) uses 16384 type-1 limbs
> (size="14")
> : base 3775889401250 has 5 factors.
> 29^((p-1)/549610) =(-18344630869+-885321711837w), maxerr=0.384644. not '1',
good.
> 29^(p-1) = (1+0w), maxerr=0.384644 => is Fermat 29-PRP.
> 29^(p-1)/2 :(-1+0w), maxerr=0.242218 => 2^8192 divides order, 1.20%
> 29^(p-1)/5 :(1090399771130+-465661693290w), maxerr=0.238129 => 625^8192
> divides order, 11.12%
> 29^(p-1)/17 :(1+0w), maxerr=0.233383, NOT a witness
> 29^(p-1)/53 :(-1399229505132+631249752552w), maxerr=0.240601 => 2809^8192
> divides order, 13.71%
> 29^(p-1)/61 :(1414331511612+460420466715w), maxerr=0.287384 => 3721^8192
> divides order, 14.20%
> N=(b=3775889401250)^16384-b^8192+1. F=13065361250^8192, U=289^8192. b^8192=
> F.U
> N=(U^2-1)F^2+(F-U)F+1. Discriminant=(F-U)^2-4*(U^2-1).
> Discriminant is nonsquare as it's 2 mod 13, a QNR.
> 40.22% attained for BLS (contingent on maxerr=0.384644) Time=1747.580 => is
> prime.
Excellent. It's nice to see the occasional <50% proof. Of course, it could just
try another witness, but it's much quicker to just perform the non-square test.
Phil
() ASCII ribbon campaign () Hopeless ribbon campaign
/\ against HTML mail /\ against gratuitous bloodshed
[stolen with permission from Daniel B. Cristofani]
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!
http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7