Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming > #5718

Re: really? (lame question about primes)

Path csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>
Newsgroups comp.programming
Subject Re: really? (lame question about primes)
Date Wed, 02 Sep 2015 14:21:39 +0100
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Lines 37
Message-ID <87twrdhs7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink)
References <5e5de47a-7353-4ffc-9f5d-ec083d1d63ba@googlegroups.com> <kt4Fx.394338$3n4.170027@fx35.am4> <44a165dc-8447-4ae0-8695-557a7ddf00cf@googlegroups.com> <ms3peh$o5v$1@dont-email.me> <_RfFx.418341$bt.398932@fx32.am4> <d91bce8a-2655-4db6-8fc3-ce1df53e959b@googlegroups.com> <uLoFx.516161$Me5.63982@fx42.am4> <5954b4ea-b6af-4216-a288-66301d20c67a@googlegroups.com> <4xpFx.791070$sY7.495062@fx30.am4> <ms5bvc$n5n$2@speranza.aioe.org> <9991fe20-bfea-48e1-9c44-3e4ca2f822e7@googlegroups.com> <d8sFx.324164$tz.265438@fx02.am4> <XnsA509C8731C226jamesdowallen@178.63.61.175>
Mime-Version 1.0
Content-Type text/plain
Injection-Info mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="017616aa25f81ec581c44d76d61ba2f3"; logging-data="30031"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/gcI8UlpT/ToesaQbovYzq21ugdSgQoXE="
Cancel-Lock sha1:VPYpXXjaxrvXKnErNKLLX4WJ8Z4= sha1:nj1keeEQJ5jqb1bCjeaaO1cDrG0=
X-BSB-Auth 1.07dcae7d78d0cf1e6e74.20150902142139BST.87twrdhs7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk
Xref csiph.com comp.programming:5718

Show key headers only | View raw

James Dow Allen <gmail@jamesdowallen.nospam> writes:

> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> might have writ, in news:d8sFx.324164
> $tz.265438@fx02.am4:
>
>> Here's a product of two primes:
>> 
>> 58240024563391777851261291575917006595873586378340\
>> 06933501482037788347032155265963843106235363953614\
>> 49841148805852200248028532053742301130515851591046\
>> 09780764992214765245952615895162196506824080887010\
>> 84909798795532569027855897144990861217719976822376\
>> 60245183108382607111271438893289345453397044868767\
>> 74937653432105197140786655752847106640293149009133\
>> 49133637852917819933171853595092059610555346845194\
>> 20546782513079321228879093216436059864014065839170\
>> 63336369425428124884924467183572745778186732426767\
>> 31177226131629502125332694404335922836373000524949\
>> 96264733742856842752930777926209786527196791359153\
>> 71
>> 
>> Good luck factoring it.
>
> Now you're just being sadistic.  (And BTW how did you come up with that 
> number?)
>
> I'll be impressed by whoever is first to factor this number
> 6666666666666666666666666666666664295863450544367679162527001239842359

= 67499999992406250000094921874999003 x 98765432109876543210987654321098453

> (Please tell us how you did it.)

Too embarrassed!

-- 
Ben.

Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

really? (lame question about primes) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 12:07 -0700
  Re: really? (lame question about primes) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-08-31 23:23 +0100
    Re: really? (lame question about primes) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 01:18 -0700
      Re: really? (lame question about primes) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-01 11:01 +0200
        Re: really? (lame question about primes) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-01 12:20 +0100
          Re: really? (lame question about primes) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-01 15:48 +0100
            Re: really? (lame question about primes) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 13:26 -0700
              Re: really? (lame question about primes) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-02 02:12 -0500
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-02 08:38 +0100
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-02 14:03 +0200
          Re: really? (lame question about primes) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 13:24 -0700
            Re: really? (lame question about primes) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-01 22:27 +0100
              Re: really? (lame question about primes) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 15:02 -0700
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-01 23:20 +0100
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 01:22 +0200
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 17:18 -0700
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-02 02:19 +0100
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) James Dow Allen <gmail@jamesdowallen.nospam> - 2015-09-02 12:42 +0000
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-02 14:21 +0100
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2015-09-02 17:45 +0200
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-02 18:06 +0100
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-03 17:05 -0700
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 02:18 +0200
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 22:37 -0700
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 23:49 -0700
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 00:18 -0700
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-04 08:25 +0100
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-02 14:36 +0100
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-02 16:49 +0100
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-02 17:32 +0100
            Re: really? (lame question about primes) Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-09-01 22:55 +0000
              Re: really? (lame question about primes) bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 01:15 +0200
          Re: really? (lame question about primes) bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 03:19 +0200
            Re: really? (lame question about primes) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-02 02:37 +0100
              Re: really? (lame question about primes) bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 11:24 +0200
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-02 10:42 +0100
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 03:01 -0700
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 12:28 +0200
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-02 14:12 +0200
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-02 13:19 +0100
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 14:56 +0200
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-02 15:47 +0200
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 16:27 +0200
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-02 16:37 +0200
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 17:01 +0200
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-03 10:55 +0200
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-03 10:05 +0100
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-03 11:49 +0200
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-03 10:54 +0100
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-03 13:22 +0200
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 13:58 +0200
                Re: really? (lame question about primes) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-02 13:34 +0100
  Re: really? (lame question about primes) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-31 23:10 -0500

csiph-web