[Doctor Stochastic]

I don't know where. I could give an upper bound that would guarantee the you would find it before that, but it's a big bound.

Another interesting thing is that you could concatenate the primes (for example) and divide by 13 (treating the string as a big number). The resulting quotient also generates Shakespeare.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

Another interesting thing is that you could concatenate the primes (for example) and divide by 13 (treating the string as a big number). The resulting quotient also generates Shakespeare.

Again, this formulation is more appealing because I do not see a high autocorrelation on first blush!

I don't know where. I could give an upper bound that would guarantee the you would find it before that, but it's a big bound.

Wouldn't that guarantee finding it by using a particular bit offset? IOW, the bit offset of the beginning bit of the number which is Shakespeare would obviously work - but can it be reduced?