Originally Posted by Loren Booda
Bravo! - but why the second-smallest in particular? Could you give me an example of this result?
|
I'm not sure how to explain; it's obvious to me.
Let's say you have n = p * q * ... * r * s. You find the factor s, but n/s is still composite. You find the factor r, but n/ (r * s) is still composite. Then you find a number of other factors, but the cofactor is still composite. Then you find the factor q, and n / (s * r * ... * q) is prime, so you stop factoring. The last prime you had to factor out is the second-smallest.
Originally Posted by Loren Booda
Thanks much for the computation also. I guess it is based on a prime approximation formula.
|
It was a very hairy calculation using numerical root-finding, table lookup, a complicated approximation function, and more. It used the extension of
Dickman's function from the paper I linked to.
There were so many steps in the process I'm not sure the result is correct! I may have made a mistake along the way. But it seems to be in about the right range, so I'm reasonably sure I have it.