Prev: Typography: Choosing Century Expanded?
Next: Considering the forces of computation: questions for the group, I have three:
From: Pubkeybreaker on 1 Nov 2009 17:35
On Nov 1, 11:26�am, master1729 <tommy1...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Plz factor the following 4 numbers :
>
> (46^46 - 1) /( (46+1)*(46-1))
>
> (58^58 - 1) /( (58+1)*(58-1))
>
> (82^82 - 1) /( (82+1)*(82-1))
>
> (106^106 - 1) /( (106+1)*(106-1))

(1) Each of the numerators is the difference of two
squares.
Their factorization is trivial.

(2) You can find the full facorizations at Richard
Brent's website.
From: master1729 on 1 Nov 2009 08:19
pubkeybreaker wrote :

> On Nov 1, 11:26�am, master1729 <tommy1...(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Plz factor the following 4 numbers :
> >
> > (46^46 - 1) /( (46+1)*(46-1))
> >
> > (58^58 - 1) /( (58+1)*(58-1))
> >
> > (82^82 - 1) /( (82+1)*(82-1))
> >
> > (106^106 - 1) /( (106+1)*(106-1))
>
> (1) Each of the numerators is the difference of two
> squares.
> Their factorization is trivial.
>
> (2) You can find the full facorizations at Richard
> Brent's website.

thanks.

i will look at R Brents website.

i already factored 3 out of 4.

but that last one is tricky , better use his website.

maybe it will lead to a nice conjecture.


regards

tommy1729
From: master1729 on 1 Nov 2009 08:48
> pubkeybreaker wrote :
>
> > On Nov 1, 11:26�am, master1729
> <tommy1...(a)gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Plz factor the following 4 numbers :
> > >
> > > (46^46 - 1) /( (46+1)*(46-1))
> > >
> > > (58^58 - 1) /( (58+1)*(58-1))
> > >
> > > (82^82 - 1) /( (82+1)*(82-1))
> > >
> > > (106^106 - 1) /( (106+1)*(106-1))
> >
> > (1) Each of the numerators is the difference of
> two
> > squares.
> > Their factorization is trivial.
> >
> > (2) You can find the full facorizations at Richard
> > Brent's website.
>
> thanks.
>
> i will look at R Brents website.
>
> i already factored 3 out of 4.
>
> but that last one is tricky , better use his
> website.
>
> maybe it will lead to a nice conjecture.
>
>
> regards
>
> tommy1729

i have trouble with .gz files for some reason.

didnt find an online program to factor , did i overlook ?
From: master1729 on 1 Nov 2009 08:52
http://www.alpertron.com.ar/ECM.HTM

did it :)
From: Virgil on 1 Nov 2009 18:22
In article
<968439331.150126.1257112893522.JavaMail.root(a)gallium.mathforum.org>,
master1729 <tommy1729(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> Virgil wrote :
>
> > In article
> > <1699063352.149909.1257108152590.JavaMail.root(a)gallium
> > .mathforum.org>,
> > master1729 <tommy1729(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Plz factor the following 4 numbers :
> > > >
> > > > (46^46 - 1) /( (46+1)*(46-1))
> > > >
> > > > (58^58 - 1) /( (58+1)*(58-1))
> > > >
> > > > (82^82 - 1) /( (82+1)*(82-1))
> > > >
> > > > (106^106 - 1) /( (106+1)*(106-1))
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > thank you.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > regards
> > > >
> > > > tommy1729
> > >
> > > I said PLZ.
> >
> > (46^46 - 1) /( (46+1)*(46-1)) factors into
> >
> > [(46^46 - 1) / (46-1)] * [(46^23 + 1) / (46^23 +
> > 3 + 1)]
> >
> > And similarly for the others.
>
> sigh.
>
> im tired of these jokes.
>
> you people know darn well that
>
> 1) i was aware of the above trivial factorization
>
> or should i say : " what is intended " since the above is actually wrong :
>
> quote :
>
> (46^46 - 1) /( (46+1)*(46-1)) factors into
>
> [(46^46 - 1) / (46-1)] * [(46^23 + 1) / (46^23 + 1)]
>
My poor proof reading, sorry.
Should have been
[(46^46 - 1) / (46-1)] * [(46^23 + 1) / (46+ 1)]

Which is a factorization. though apparently not the COMPLETE
factorization that OP did not actually specify he wanted.
>
> wow a number factors into a smaller number !!??!!
>
> yes smaller because (46^23 + 1) / (46^23 + 1) = 1
>
> so that joke is even wrong and pathetic.
>
> 2) im not a beginner at factoring , otherwise i could not have known that
> (46^46 - 1) /( (46+1)*(46-1)) is actually an integer.
>
> 3) thus i wanted - as you darn well know - a full factorization. and a
> correct one !

If you want a FULL (or more properly, a complete) factorization, it is
not that much more difficult to say so.
>
> 4) if you will reply with jokes , mistakes , nonsense and irrelevant stuff ,
> i will too and say here : axiom of choice is wrong.
>
>
> regards - assuming and hoping you will give a better reply now -
>
> tommy1729
>
>
> since this reply of virgil was rediculous ( didnt say virgil is ) , i feel
> the urge to quote an idiot :)
>
> " sd354fq35f13e4f115fsd search the people " musatov.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Prev: Typography: Choosing Century Expanded?
Next: Considering the forces of computation: questions for the group, I have three: