Re: Surrogate factoring ideas to ponder
From: Lynn Kurtz (kurtzDELETE-THIS_at_asu.edu)
Date: 03/22/05
- Next message: Allan C Cybulskie: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Allan C Cybulskie: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: John Smith: "Re: Surrogate factoring ideas to ponder"
- Next in thread: gerard46: "Re: Surrogate factoring ideas to ponder"
- Reply: gerard46: "Re: Surrogate factoring ideas to ponder"
- Reply: John Smith: "Re: Surrogate factoring ideas to ponder"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 00:25:14 GMT
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 00:11:18 GMT, John Smith <JSmith@mail.net> wrote:
>Jumbie wrote:
>> Factor this:
>>
>> 8473865710237493723946198263649821976398469181345623
>>
>>
>2360209087377863 * 23196547792409844187
I don't think so, since the least significant digit of the product is
wrong.
--Lynn
- Next message: Allan C Cybulskie: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Allan C Cybulskie: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: John Smith: "Re: Surrogate factoring ideas to ponder"
- Next in thread: gerard46: "Re: Surrogate factoring ideas to ponder"
- Reply: gerard46: "Re: Surrogate factoring ideas to ponder"
- Reply: John Smith: "Re: Surrogate factoring ideas to ponder"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
