mersenneforum.org

mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   Aliquot Sequences (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=90)
-   -   Sequence terminations and merges (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=11837)

Raman 2011-05-07 12:50

[QUOTE=schickel;260732]Just reported to me by Clifford: [URL="http://factordb.com/aliquot.php?type=1&aq=649248&big=1"]649248[/URL] terminates in 281.[/QUOTE]

Within another few weeks, sequence 1134 is going to be terminated
that being followed up by using that sequence 4788 as well?
These are in run of downdrivers right at this moment, then.

Thus, sequences 1920, 1992 right now currently are not at possession of
drivers or guides at all, they are being stable at their present heights
respectively. By the way, they are classic sequences,
being that way up...

Longest length sequences are that 389508, 8760, 1578, 195528
that are being running up right now... [COLOR=White]only actually indeed really[/COLOR]

fivemack 2011-05-08 15:33

Raman: The problem with downdrivers is that you can escape them by means other than running down and hitting a prime; for example on 80244 (which I've been running for the better part of a year), one of the downdrivers ends with

[code]1662 331450237931703434054834110<27> = 2 · 5 · 317 · 325292423 · 321429050558521<15>
1663 267042244009442369003631362<27> = 2 · 133521122004721184501815681<27>
1664 133521122004721184501815684<27> = 2^2 · 7 · 13 · 313 · 125423 · 9343876023058469<16>
[/code]

So the fact that a sequence has the downdriver at the moment doesn't mean you can expect it to finish any time soon.

Raman 2011-05-08 16:32

I know that. It was just a joke.
If in any case that simply the number is
Twice prime of form 1 (mod 4), only this case
then downdriver comes to end. But still
there is chance for sequence to terminate
until some driver carries that sequence through
long way.

Anyway, if however if there is some sort of luck atleast,
then that sequences 1134, 4788 (314718) could
terminate up. Through this run itself? Let's
see how long that downdriver progresses up.

I looked up at that FactorDB - right now that
sequence 1134 is making up with some rapid
progress, right at this moment, thus

That's why that type of sequence is being already classical
enough.
1. Sum of proper factors can be greater, lesser, or
equal to number, according to whether that number
is being abundant, deficient, or perfect. Otherwise
compare up with that Totient function, which is always
being lesser than that original number itself
2. Different prime families
3. Powered by using that structure of guides, drivers, downdrivers
with that final even to odd number transition itself
4. Powered by terminations in cycles such as perfect
numbers, amicable or sociable, along with that prime
endings, open end sequences, or that side sequence confluences

bchaffin 2011-05-08 19:54

1 Attachment(s)
The workers score! 683730 terminates in a nearly straight run down from 105 digits.

bsquared 2011-05-09 01:10

[QUOTE=bchaffin;260851]The workers score! 683730 terminates in a nearly straight run down from 105 digits.[/QUOTE]

Very cool, congrats!

schickel 2011-05-13 05:06

Man, I guess I need to get different sequences.....Clifford just emailed me about another termination.

This time he reports that 930306 bites the dust (although it looks like he hasn't uploaded yet....)

unconnected 2011-05-14 17:21

[URL="http://factordb.com/aliquot.php?type=1&aq=767296&big=1"]767296[/URL] terminates.

bchaffin 2011-05-17 06:29

1 Attachment(s)
959916 terminates, from a maximum height of 108 digits.

schickel 2011-05-25 02:32

Clifford strikes again!
 
Just got this via email:[quote=Clifford]Yesterday I began working on 659160 which Forum members
had extended to 1506. 2^2 * 3 * c104 sz 105. ECM found a
27-digit factor for the c104, and things were off and running.
After reaching a maximum of 106 digits, it merged this morning
with 44988:

659160:i2307 = 44988:i20 = 305864[/quote]So scratch another one!

fivemack 2011-06-16 18:29

752976 terminates (I suppose 'merge with 470794', but it's then only 33 steps from completing)

schickel 2011-06-16 22:53

[QUOTE=schickel;263335]Just did a complete status update for the first post. Unfortunately, just one active downdriver showing this time. :sad:[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=fivemack;263850]752976 now has an active downdriver[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=fivemack;263941]752976 terminates (I suppose 'merge with 470794', but it's then only 33 steps from completing)[/QUOTE]You sly dog, you....nice one!

bchaffin 2011-06-18 21:53

1 Attachment(s)
The Aliquot workers bagged another one! 877240 terminates at 41 after 3054 steps, after reaching a maximum size of 109 digits.

bchaffin 2011-06-27 18:00

1 Attachment(s)
Got one! 477750 terminates at term 2780, from a max height of 106 digits.

Batalov 2011-07-01 06:35

1 Attachment(s)
671916 merges with 6348. Max height? 123, before merge (181, after... :max:).

schickel 2011-07-01 06:57

[QUOTE=Batalov;265126]671916 merges with [strike]6348[/strike]*. Max height? 123, before merge (181, after... :max:).[/QUOTE]Nice one! :cool:

*It's actually 660....

bchaffin 2011-07-07 16:58

1 Attachment(s)
532530.1986 merges with 10528.2. Max height before merge was 109 digits.

wolfcrey 2011-07-07 18:58

Congratulations
Wolfgang

Batalov 2011-07-09 06:58

1 Attachment(s)
And another one bit the dust.
306912 merged and then terminated. Max height 116.

schickel 2011-07-09 07:21

[QUOTE=Batalov;265914]And another one bit the dust.
306912 merged and then terminated. Max height 116.[/QUOTE]Funny, I was just updating the list for Project #3b and spotted that.

Great catch!

Man, I should have kept the short ones to myself......I didn't think there would be so many gems in the shortest sequences!

wolfcrey 2011-07-09 08:16

A great result
Wolfgang

unconnected 2011-07-14 20:23

[URL="http://factordb.com/aliquot.php?type=1&aq=368712&big=1"]368712[/URL] terminates. Max height 112.

wolfcrey 2011-07-15 01:26

congratulations
Wolfgang

bchaffin 2011-07-18 17:33

1 Attachment(s)
The workers picked off another one! 673140 terminates at term 2221, from a max height of 110 digits.

unconnected 2011-07-24 19:03

585600 terminates.

bchaffin 2011-08-22 21:47

1 Attachment(s)
266224 terminates at term 1715, from a maximum height 113 digits.

schickel 2011-08-22 22:00

[QUOTE=bchaffin;269840]266224 terminates at term 1715, from a maximum height 113 digits.[/QUOTE]Nice one! It's been almost exactly a month since our last termination....I was starting to get worried.

schickel 2011-08-24 07:11

Due to the size of the top post in this thread, I had to split it to stay under the forum limit. I split the post along size lines: sequences that reached more than 100 digits are in the top post, the others are in the 2nd post. (Sorry, smh, I had to hijack your post to catch the spillover....)

Looks like we'll have to move some things around again after we get ~90 more terminations.....

Andi47 2011-08-24 09:45

[QUOTE=schickel;269983]Due to the size of the top post in this thread, I had to split it to stay under the forum limit. I split the post along size lines: sequences that reached more than 100 digits are in the top post, the others are in the 2nd post. (Sorry, smh, I had to hijack your post to catch the spillover....)

Looks like we'll have to move some things around again after we get ~90 more terminations.....[/QUOTE]

Is it technically possible to open a new thread (with 4 or 5 posts from start to catch eventual spillover, copying the first two posts from here to the new thread), and then cut everything in this thread (starting from post #3) and attach it to the new thread?

schickel 2011-08-24 10:50

[QUOTE=Andi47;269995]Is it technically possible to open a new thread (with 4 or 5 posts from start to catch eventual spillover, copying the first two posts from here to the new thread), and then cut everything in this thread (starting from post #3) and attach it to the new thread?[/QUOTE]Something like that would be possible, but I just moved the second post (by smh) to the third post (also by smh) and split the first post into the second post. As I said, we're good for almost another 100 terminations; I don't think we'll have to worry about that for a long while.

Besides, the only reason not to delete the whole thread is just sentimentality. If we get truly squozen for space, the whole thread could be deleted except for the top post. But I figure newcomers might like to browse the thread to see the early progress....maybe they'll catch some of the excitement!

smh 2011-08-25 13:38

[QUOTE=schickel;269983](Sorry, smh, I had to hijack your post to catch the spillover....)

Looks like we'll have to move some things around again after we get ~90 more terminations.....[/QUOTE]No hard feelings ;-)
When time comes, go ahead and hijack the 3rd post.

10metreh 2011-08-25 17:42

Or just use an attachment...

mdettweiler 2011-08-27 22:08

[QUOTE=Andi47;269995]Is it technically possible to open a new thread (with 4 or 5 posts from start to catch eventual spillover, copying the first two posts from here to the new thread), and then cut everything in this thread (starting from post #3) and attach it to the new thread?[/QUOTE]
The tricky part is that posts are sorted entirely by chronological order within a thread--which means if you copy older posts into a new thread, they will push the first post down accordingly.

There is a little trick, though, that you can use (most of the time) to create a new second post (or actually anywhere in the thread you want) with whoever's name you want on it. What you need to do is find another post by that person somewhere else (anywhere in any subforum you have mod privileges for) in the appropriate time range--that is, after the first post but before the second post. Then, use the "Copy Post" feature to make a copy of it and merge the copy into the desired thread. You can then edit the copy, delete its original content (which is likely totally irrelevant to the thread you just put it in), and replace it with whatever you want.

This procedure doesn't always work, for instance if a post by the right person in the right time frame doesn't exist (this might happen particularly if someone replied to the thread within just a minute or two after it was created); but in such a case, you may still be able to use "Copy Post" on the original second post in the thread, thus making two of it, one of which you can edit as needed while still retaining the other. I haven't tried this particular version myself, so I don't know if you can indeed copy a post to the same thread, but I would imagine a good chance that it would work.

schickel 2011-08-29 03:42

[Nope, false alarm again!]

Actually, all I did was take over the second post in the thread and move the original contents to the third post, since in this thread, smh made the first two replies after I opened the thread.....and as I said, we're good for almost 100 more terminations. (Actually, we could squeeze a few more in if we drop some of the explanatory text in the footnotes....)

bchaffin 2011-09-25 01:01

1 Attachment(s)
734184 terminates at step 3473, a long time after its maximum of 111 digits at term 852.
[LEFT]
[/LEFT]

schickel 2011-09-25 03:48

[QUOTE=bchaffin;272661]734184 terminates at step 3473, a long time after its maximum of 111 digits at term 852.[/QUOTE]Wow! Almost a month exactly since the last one, and it was you the last time, too!

bchaffin 2011-09-25 15:35

1 Attachment(s)
A lucky couple days for me: 774360 terminates in 1838 steps, from a peak of 110 digits.

schickel 2011-09-26 02:46

[quote=bchaffin]A lucky couple days for me: 774360 terminates in 1838 steps, from a peak of 110 digits. [/quote][Obligatory davieddy reference]
:sad: WMG says "No Music For You!"

Nice catch.....can you leave some for the rest of us?

[SIZE="1"]I probably shouldn't admit that I remember hearing this on the radio the first time around, huh? [/SIZE]

RobertS 2011-10-01 18:03

[URL="http://www.factordb.com/sequences.php?se=1&eff=2&aq=590556++&action=last&fr=0&to=100"]590556[/URL] ends with 59

bchaffin 2011-10-02 04:02

1 Attachment(s)
A banner week for terminations! 858180 ends with 59 at term 4843, from a max height of 113 digits.

bchaffin 2011-11-13 15:57

1 Attachment(s)
142764 terminates at term 2822, from a max height of 113 digits.

schickel 2011-11-13 16:41

[QUOTE=bchaffin;278135]142764 terminates at term 2822, from a max height of 113 digits.[/QUOTE]Nice catch!

From the workers or were you working this one specifically?

bchaffin 2011-11-13 18:39

[QUOTE=schickel;278140]Nice catch!

From the workers or were you working this one specifically?[/QUOTE]

Thanks! That was the workers, my other machines have been cranking along on 'lose the 3' sequences.

schickel 2011-11-14 04:36

[QUOTE=bchaffin;278161]Thanks! That was the workers, my other machines have been cranking along on 'lose the 3' sequences.[/QUOTE]Very nicely done. It's been over a month since our last termination. Great work on the workers, too. It's nice that everything gets a little :love:, even those we're not working on.....

wolfcrey 2011-11-14 06:26

[QUOTE=schickel;278211]Very nicely done. It's been over a month since our last termination. Great work on the workers, too. It's nice that everything gets a little :love:, even those we're not working on.....[/QUOTE]
Congratulations. It's a really great work.
Wolfgang

bchaffin 2011-11-15 01:12

1 Attachment(s)
Thanks Frank and Wolfgang. The workers were a fun project, and now aside from tinkering with them occasionally they just plod along on their own. 414000 factorizations and counting...

Good things seem to come in pairs these days: 594228.1649 merges with 38208.3, after reaching two peaks of 110 digits.

LaurV 2011-11-15 05:04

[QUOTE=bchaffin;278387]
Good things seem to come in pairs these days: 594228.1649 merges with 38208.3, after reaching two peaks of 110 digits.[/QUOTE]

I don't quite really get that. How exactly is defined this "merges" and how you can detect it? From what I can see, the sequence started from 6 digits, but goes as low as 6 and 5 digits, so in that point the computing should end. Whatever factors have further, it would be already computed from the lower (5 digits) sequence. Am I missing something?

For example:

[CODE]
Checked 1642 7 (show) 1129510 = 2 . 5 . 112951
Checked 1643 6 (show) 903626 = 2 . 193 . 2341
Checked 1644 6 (show) 459418 = 2 . 29 . 89^2
Checked 1645 6 (show) 261572 = 2^2 . 65393
Checked 1646 6 (show) 196186 = 2 . 233 . 421
Checked 1647 6 (show) 100058 = 2 . 7^2 . 1021
Checked 1648 5 (show) 74704 = 2^4 . 7 . 23 . 29
Checked 1649 6 (show) 103856 = 2^4 . 6491
Checked 1650 5 (show) 97396 = 2^2 . 13 . 1873
Checked 1651 5 (show) 86256 = 2^4 . 3^2 . 599
Checked 1652 6 (show) 155544 = 2^3 . 3 . 6481
Checked 1653 6 (show) 233376 = 2^5 . 3 . 11 . 13 . 17
Checked 1654 6 (show) 528672 = 2^5 . 3 . 5507
Checked 1655 6 (show) 859344 = 2^4 . 3 . 17903
Checked 1656 7 (show) 1360752 = 2^4 . 3 . 28349
Checked 1657 7 (show) 2154648 = 2^3 . 3 . 17 . 5281
[/CODE]Starting from T1644 to T1654, all the terms are smaller then 594228. The smallest is T1648=74704. They all "merge". We should only continue with that sequence (or with any other of them, dosn't really matter) and all the other, including T1643, T1654, T1655 (which are under a million) are in fact "done" for this project (of factoring aliquots with starting point under a million). What I am missing?

schickel 2011-11-15 08:52

[QUOTE=bchaffin;278387]Thanks Frank and Wolfgang. The workers were a fun project, and now aside from tinkering with them occasionally they just plod along on their own. 414000 factorizations and counting...

Good things seem to come in pairs these days: 594228.1649 merges with 38208.3, after reaching two peaks of 110 digits.[/QUOTE]Nice one!

wolfcrey 2011-11-15 10:14

[QUOTE=schickel;278448]Nice one![/QUOTE]
Well done!
[FONT=Arial]594228:i1649 = 38208:i3 = 103856[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
A so called side-sequence is an aliquot sequence with a confluence or merge. The main sequence has a smaller start number.
Maybe it's not an exact definition, but it's practicable.
Wolfgang

schickel 2011-11-15 10:30

[QUOTE=LaurV;278430]I don't quite really get that. How exactly is defined this "merges" and how you can detect it? From what I can see, the sequence started from 6 digits, but goes as low as 6 and 5 digits, so in that point the computing should end. Whatever factors have further, it would be already computed from the lower (5 digits) sequence. Am I missing something? [/quote]No, you're not missing anything. The important point to note, though, is which is the [I]lowest[/I] sequence that a higher sequence merges with since, by convention, we only count that lowest one as an open-ended sequence and the higher one as a [I]side-sequence[/I].

And the reason to do this is that as soon as a sequence merges, calculating both would be a waste, since they're identical from the merge on.[quote]For example:

[CODE]
Checked 1642 7 (show) 1129510 = 2 . 5 . 112951
Checked 1643 6 (show) 903626 = 2 . 193 . 2341
Checked 1644 6 (show) 459418 = 2 . 29 . 89^2
Checked 1645 6 (show) 261572 = 2^2 . 65393
Checked 1646 6 (show) 196186 = 2 . 233 . 421
Checked 1647 6 (show) 100058 = 2 . 7^2 . 1021
Checked 1648 5 (show) 74704 = 2^4 . 7 . 23 . 29
Checked 1649 6 (show) [COLOR="blue"]103856 = 2^4 . 6491[/COLOR]
Checked 1650 5 (show) 97396 = 2^2 . 13 . 1873
Checked 1651 5 (show) 86256 = 2^4 . 3^2 . 599
Checked 1652 6 (show) 155544 = 2^3 . 3 . 6481
Checked 1653 6 (show) 233376 = 2^5 . 3 . 11 . 13 . 17
Checked 1654 6 (show) 528672 = 2^5 . 3 . 5507
Checked 1655 6 (show) 859344 = 2^4 . 3 . 17903
Checked 1656 7 (show) 1360752 = 2^4 . 3 . 28349
Checked 1657 7 (show) 2154648 = 2^3 . 3 . 17 . 5281
[/CODE]Starting from T1644 to T1654, all the terms are smaller then 594228. The smallest is T1648=74704. They all "merge". We should only continue with that sequence (or with any other of them, dosn't really matter) and all the other, including T1643, T1654, T1655 (which are under a million) are in fact "done" for this project (of factoring aliquots with starting point under a million). What I am missing?[/QUOTE]Yes, but notice this from 38208:[code] 0 . 38208 = 2^6 * 3 * 199
1 . 63392 = 2^5 * 7 * 283
2 . 79744 = 2^7 * 7 * 89
3 . [COLOR="blue"]103856 = 2^4 * 6491[/COLOR][/code]A term that is higher than the minimum comes from a lower starting number.

This is the reason that we adopted 4788 as a group project. Wieb Bosma was actively pursuing sequences in the 250k-400k range up to a minimum of 100 digits. He posted a note [URL="http://www.math.kun.nl/~bosma/Projects/tabB.html"]here[/URL] that 314718 merged with 16100. I was interested in following up on this, so I generated the lines we did not have for 314718. When I sent them to Clifford, he checked further and found that 314718 actually merged with a lower starting number, 4788. And again, it was on a line other than the actual minimum.

314718:[code] 6458 . 50534 = 2 * 11 * 2297
6459 . 32194 = 2 * 16097
6460 . 16100 = 2^2 * 5^2 * 7 * 23 [COLOR="Red"]<--minimum[/COLOR]
6461 . 25564 = 2^2 * 7 * 11 * 83
6462 . 30884 = 2^2 * 7 * 1103
6463 . 30940 = 2^2 * 5 * 7 * 13 * 17
6464 . 53732 = 2^2 * 7 * 19 * 101
6465 . 60508 = 2^2 * 7 * 2161
6466 . [COLOR="Blue"]60564 = 2^2 * 3 * 7^2 * 103[/COLOR][/code]4788:[code] 0 . 4788 = 2^2 * 3^2 * 7 * 19
1 . 9772 = 2^2 * 7 * 349
2 . 9828 = 2^2 * 3^3 * 7 * 13
3 . 21532 = 2^2 * 7 * 769
4 . 21588 = 2^2 * 3 * 7 * 257
5 . 36204 = 2^2 * 3 * 7 * 431
6 . [COLOR="blue"]60564 = 2^2 * 3 * 7^2 * 103[/COLOR]
7 . 105420 = 2^2 * 3 * 5 * 7 * 251[/code]And again notice that the minimum is on a different line than the merge with a lower starting number.

And the reason that 314718/4788 became [I]very interesting[/I] is that at that point it was the longest sequence so far calculated because the 6000+ lines had the 2000+ lines calculated for 4788 added to its length. Up until a couple of months ago, it was far and away the leader for longest sequence.....now it's not the longest, but still most wanted since it has the highest downdriver acquisition ever.

LaurV 2011-11-15 10:43

Well, thanks for the explanation, now I got it better. In fact I think I am a bit of idiot, because first time when I read the 38k number in bchaffin's post, I understood it like a 380k number (still smaller then initial sequence head, but I really missed the number of digits, well, I am at job and had other problems to solve too, but this is not an excuse). The explanation you gave is however perfect and clear, and can stay so other stupid guy like me could understand what's going on.

edit: ps: I always wondered "why 4788?". Now this enigma is solved too.

EdH 2011-11-15 16:34

@schickel: It seems that the previous version of the db used to be able to provide a list of all the side-sequences. Doesn't 4788 have several others besides the two you mentioned? (Memory-what a terrible thing sometimes!)

Is there a current way/location to find side-sequences, and isn't there a term for the entire set? Maybe, tree or family?

bchaffin 2011-11-15 17:27

Yeah, that was a great explanation by schickel. In practice, here's how I detect a merge: I have a local copy of the elf files for all open sequences <1M. Then a very simple perl script just reads in all the elf files in numerical order, and sticks every composite into a big hash. If the hash entry is already defined, then it has detected a merge.

By only comparing against the known unique open sequences, this gets the right answer -- in this example, terms 1644-1648 aren't in the hash because they come from known side-sequences which aren't in my list. There's a little chicken-and-egg problem since you need a list of unique sequences to start with, but fortunately the nice folks here provided me with that early on so I had a starting point.

EdH 2011-11-15 18:38

[QUOTE=bchaffin;278510]...

By only comparing against the known unique open sequences, this gets the right answer...[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but I'm missing something. Why only open sequences? Isn't it possible for a currently open sequence to merge with a terminated one, and subsequently terminate? Or, are you leaving that up to the db to take care of when you submit factors?

science_man_88 2011-11-15 18:49

[QUOTE=EdH;278528]Sorry, but I'm missing something. Why only open sequences? Isn't it possible for a currently open sequence to merge with a terminated one, and subsequently terminate? Or, are you leaving that up to the db to take care of when you submit factors?[/QUOTE]

look at post 22 maybe ?


[QUOTE=10metreh;189474]I've listed it as a termination - I think it should only be a merge if the sequence that it merges into is open.

But this would cause problems if someone found a merge, countinued working on the merged sequence, and terminated it...

...but luckily we haven't had that happen yet.[/QUOTE]

schickel 2011-11-17 11:34

[QUOTE=science_man_88;278532]look at post 22 maybe ?[/QUOTE]I'd have to go back and look again, but I think I was inclined to want to call it a merge rather than a simple termination because after it merged, the sequence went up before it went back down.

As far as finding merges, the first version of the factorDB code would indicate merges when you queried a sequence, indicating which sequence it merged with.

Aliqueit only indicates (and stops on, if configured) merges when a number falls below the starting value. As bchaffin stated, he uses a hash table to check sequences the workers work on, very handy.

The "old-fashioned" way is to check a [URL="http://www.aliquot.de/archiv/c9c30.zip"]file[/URL] on Wolfgang's site which contains, for every open sequence, the 9-digit numbers encountered while extending a sequence, along with the 30-digit numbers reached. If a sequence you extend drops below 9 digits, you can cross-reference the 9-digit number against the c9c30 file and see if it turns up in there.

A thrid way was found when I started pulling a complete status on all the open sequences from the DB. Several of us noticed that some sequences had the same status (size and small factors) without being on the same line...artificial example, this is 4788 & 314718 pulled tonight:[code] 4788 2758. sz 161 2 * 7 * 11 * 13 * 83
314718 9218. sz 161 2 * 7 * 11 * 13 * 83[/code]Unfortunately, this line has just a couple of small factors, but if there is one (or more) factor(s) above 10-15 digits, it becomes a little more certain that the lines are, in fact, identical and there has been a merge. Clifford has a utility on his [URL="http://www.lafn.org/~ax810/aliquot.htm"]page[/URL] that reads two sequences and finds the line where they merge, if it exists. (In UBasic, so it's very dated, but there hasn't been much call to update it.....)

bchaffin 2011-11-21 03:47

1 Attachment(s)
The workers bag another one: [strike]543272[/strike] 543[COLOR="Red"]9[/COLOR]72 terminates at term 1853, after two peaks of 112 digits. A remarkably fast descent from the top!

schickel 2011-11-21 03:59

[QUOTE=bchaffin;279348]The workers bag another one: 543272 terminates at term 1853, after two peaks of 112 digits. A remarkably fast descent from the top![/QUOTE]Man, you keep setting them up and mowing them down....nice work!

Ooops...wrong one! [I corrected the post.]

bchaffin 2011-11-27 23:01

1 Attachment(s)
A Thanksgiving present: 701184 terminates in 1567 steps, from a Mt. Fuji-esque peak of 116 digits.

schickel 2011-11-28 03:54

[QUOTE=bchaffin;280146]A Thanksgiving present: 701184 terminates in 1567 steps, from a Mt. Fuji-esque peak of 116 digits.[/QUOTE]Wow, so that makes 15 (or 16, depending on whether 219282 was done by your workers) for 2011 alone!

Nice record.....

schickel 2011-12-26 05:18

No termination news from me :down:

Just a mention that we're down to one week left in 2011. Left's see if we can finish the year with a bang....

Hope you all had a wonderful Christmas and here's hoping for a better 2012!

bchaffin 2011-12-26 19:31

1 Attachment(s)
[QUOTE=schickel;283525]
Just a mention that we're down to one week left in 2011. Left's see if we can finish the year with a bang....
[/QUOTE]

Well, since you asked so nicely... :smile:

644664.3882 merges with 37632.2. One more down in 2011!

Batalov 2011-12-30 20:33

One more for 2011!

After a neat escape
[CODE]3426 . c80 = 40236817721850762807508921629335183612707383109636337998548878148183661508871568 = 2^4 * 31^2 * 2616858592732229631081485537807959392085547808899345603443605498711216279193
3427 . c80 = 40317940338225461926072447681007230353862035091712217712255629918643709213557334 = 2 * 31^2 * 1013 * 533755382588847238621 * 38796561973660030085213325158999327265949569193496939
[/CODE]
[URL="http://www.factordb.com/aliquot.php?type=1&aq=207984"]207984[/URL] merges with 53802. :xmastree:

schickel 2011-12-30 21:07

[QUOTE=Batalov;284110]One more for 2011!

After a neat escape
[CODE]3426 . c80 = 40236817721850762807508921629335183612707383109636337998548878148183661508871568 = 2^4 * 31^2 * 2616858592732229631081485537807959392085547808899345603443605498711216279193
3427 . c80 = 40317940338225461926072447681007230353862035091712217712255629918643709213557334 = 2 * 31^2 * 1013 * 533755382588847238621 * 38796561973660030085213325158999327265949569193496939
[/CODE]
[URL="http://www.factordb.com/aliquot.php?type=1&aq=207984"]207984[/URL] merges with 53802. :xmastree:[/QUOTE]That is a nice escape, straight from 2^4 * 31 to the downdriver!

I'll add it to the list.....barring an extremely lucky strike for someone else, this is the last for 2011!

:party: Party like it's 2012...

schickel 2011-12-31 03:24

Updated....and a size check on the post shows that we're good to go: we can get (almost) as many terminations/merges in 2012 as are in the top post now and still fit them all into one post.... :grin:

bchaffin 2012-01-09 17:40

1 Attachment(s)
Here's one to start off the new year:

224560 terminates in 3185 terms, after a bumpy ride down from 113 digits.

RobertS 2012-01-12 18:17

While running my old "find_merges" script, I've noticed that:
241506 merges with 4800
816792 merges with 36348 (reserved by Greepley)
correct?

bchaffin 2012-01-12 18:43

1 Attachment(s)
[QUOTE=RobertS;286072]While running my old "find_merges" script, I've noticed that:
241506 merges with 4800
816792 merges with 36348 (reserved by Greepley)
correct?[/QUOTE]

Yep, I just found 241506 last night:
241506.2822 merges with 4800.7

I noticed 816792 a couple weeks ago also (it should actually be credited to 2011). I didn't say anything at the time and then I couldn't remember which sequence it was so I just figured it would turn up eventually. Which it has. :smile: I assume Greebley found the merge, but his last post was Oct. 19th.

schickel 2012-01-12 19:44

[QUOTE=RobertS;286072]While running my old "find_merges" script, I've noticed that:
241506 merges with 4800
816792 merges with 36348 (reserved by Greepley)
correct?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=bchaffin;286075]Yep, I just found 241506 last night:
241506.2822 merges with 4800.7

I noticed 816792 a couple weeks ago also (it should actually be credited to 2011). I didn't say anything at the time and then I couldn't remember which sequence it was so I just figured it would turn up eventually. Which it has. :smile: I assume Greebley found the merge, but his last post was Oct. 19th.[/QUOTE]Ooooh, nice ones.

schickel 2012-01-13 02:29

[QUOTE=bchaffin;286075]Yep, I just found 241506 last night:
241506.2822 merges with 4800.7[/quote]I assume that when you say "I found..." you mean your workers turned it up, correct?[quote]I noticed 816792 a couple weeks ago also (it should actually be credited to 2011). I didn't say anything at the time and then I couldn't remember which sequence it was so I just figured it would turn up eventually. Which it has. :smile: I assume Greebley found the merge, but his last post was Oct. 19th.[/QUOTE]That's interesting, becuase on 12/14 I had [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=282160&highlight=816792#post282160"]posted[/URL] some excerpts from the overall status in the updates thread and included this line:[code]816792 1186. sz 118 2 * 5 * 53[/code]So I had caught it just after it started its first plunge down the downdriver slope.....

bchaffin 2012-01-13 18:00

[QUOTE=schickel;286104]I assume that when you say "I found..." you mean your workers turned it up, correct?[/QUOTE]

Yes, in true capitalist style I don't do anything myself, my workers do it all for me. :smile: I've had much more success in terminations by following the workers' simple rules than by trying to pick winners myself... I'm sure there's some life lesson in there but I don't seem to be learning it.

Batalov 2012-01-20 09:01

Another one bit the dust: [URL="http://factordb.com/aliquot.php?type=1&aq=428106"]428106[/URL] :george:

schickel 2012-01-20 10:00

[QUOTE=Batalov;286767]Another one bit the dust: [URL="http://factordb.com/aliquot.php?type=1&aq=428106"]428106[/URL] :george:[/QUOTE]I sure hope you save some for the rest of us![QUOTE=bchaffin;286187]Yes, in true capitalist style I don't do anything myself, my workers do it all for me. :smile: I've had much more success in terminations by following the workers' simple rules than by trying to pick winners myself... I'm sure there's some life lesson in there but I don't seem to be learning it.[/QUOTE]Exactly, "Them that's got gets"[sup]*[/sup].

[size="1"][sup]*[/sup]Loosely [URL="http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/billie+holiday/god+bless+the+child_20018000.html"]paraphrased[/URL]....[/SIZE]

firejuggler 2012-02-03 14:45

1414788(i1461) merge with 94447 (i0)

kar_bon 2012-02-03 18:16

[QUOTE=firejuggler;288188]1414788(i1461) merge with 94447 (i0)[/QUOTE]

Could you check this, please.

Hint: 94447 is a prime.

PS: Should be 944474? Saw it in the other thread.

firejuggler 2012-02-03 18:28

yup , you are correct it merge with 944474

fivemack 2012-02-03 18:32

[QUOTE=firejuggler;288211]yup , you are correct it merge with 944474[/QUOTE]

Indeed it does. Is there any reason why you are talking about 1414788 rather than 985596 of which 1414788 is the second term?

fivemack 2012-02-03 18:34

[QUOTE=bchaffin;286187]Yes, in true capitalist style I don't do anything myself, my workers do it all for me. :smile: I've had much more success in terminations by following the workers' simple rules than by trying to pick winners myself... I'm sure there's some life lesson in there but I don't seem to be learning it.[/QUOTE]

Yes, the secret is 'mine the richest seams first', where the richest seams of aliquots are precisely those where the terms are smallest.

I on the other hand have now taken 9436 from 128 digits to 165 digits with 2*3 intact all the way.

firejuggler 2012-02-03 18:38

I used a script to find the lowest number of digits sequence in the 'ending ' file.
As it merge with a sequence below 1M I found it worthy to mention it.

Batalov 2012-02-03 20:31

But 985596 is not in any lists, because it is already known to be merging.
Same goes for all its elements (e.g. 1414788 or say 1886412).
That goes to demonstrate that it is important to look at sequences in context of the project or else one is bound to repeat already done work.

unconnected 2012-02-11 11:30

438966 merges.

kar_bon 2012-02-11 15:53

[QUOTE=unconnected;289026]438966 merges.[/QUOTE]

438966:i4722 = 244464:i0

schickel 2012-02-12 04:38

[QUOTE=fivemack;288213]Yes, the secret is 'mine the richest seams first', where the richest seams of aliquots are precisely those where the terms are smallest.

I on the other hand have now taken 9436 from 128 digits to 165 digits with 2*3 intact all the way.[/QUOTE]I would attribute the number of successes more to the fact that his workers are running [b]all[/b] the unreserved sequences. If you bet on 1000+ horses to win, you're much more likely to have one hit than if you bet on one horse. (Of course, it helps if you have the resources to bet on the 1000!)

schickel 2012-02-12 04:47

[QUOTE=kar_bon;289048]438966:i4722 = 244464:i0[/QUOTE]Actually, you're a little off:

438966:i4720 = 5748:i15 = 246584

bchaffin 2012-02-12 17:55

1 Attachment(s)
Speaking of successes, 712068 terminates at term 3235, from a max height of 114 digits.

schickel 2012-02-13 07:51

Wow, two in one weekend!

fivemack 2012-02-13 12:12

[QUOTE=schickel;289093]I would attribute the number of successes more to the fact that his workers are running [b]all[/b] the unreserved sequences. If you bet on 1000+ horses to win, you're much more likely to have one hit than if you bet on one horse. (Of course, it helps if you have the resources to bet on the 1000!)[/QUOTE]

I have comparable resources (can do a C155 every three or so days), but since I'm applying them something closer to largest-composite-first rather than smallest-composite-first, I am not getting as many terminations.

bchaffin 2012-02-13 19:45

[QUOTE=fivemack;289265]I have comparable resources (can do a C155 every three or so days), but since I'm applying them something closer to largest-composite-first rather than smallest-composite-first, I am not getting as many terminations.[/QUOTE]

Yes, exactly. I do work on all 9000+ open sequences, but not all at once -- these days I have about 24 threads running at lowest priority on hyper-threaded machines shared with other tasks. That's more resources than many forum members, maybe, but a lot less than others like fivemack and bsquared. And I've done my share of reserving specific sequences -- trying to pick a winner on my own -- and devoting substantial resources to pushing them to 140+ digits.

All of which is good fun, of course. It's way more exciting to get a downdriver at 130 digits than at 110. But despite knowing about drivers and escapes, I haven't proven very good at picking winners -- for me by far the best strategy for achieving terminations has been to just add as many terms as possible to whatever sequence.

So to each his own. I'll keep picking away at the low end, and fivemack can go for the digit records with his 48-core monster. :smile:

Mini-Geek 2012-02-17 12:57

[QUOTE=unconnected;289696]Lucky hit on [URL="http://factordb.com/sequences.php?se=1&aq=587994&action=last20&fr=0&to=100"]587994[/URL] :max:[/QUOTE]
[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR]

schickel 2012-02-18 05:46

1 Attachment(s)
[QUOTE=Mini-Geek;289698][COLOR="White"].[/COLOR][/QUOTE]Noted. I was just busy having fun with my main sieving box (check the air/water cooling thread later for details).

That sure is a nice drop!

Batalov 2012-02-19 02:38

[URL="http://www.factordb.com/sequences.php?se=1&aq=417600&action=last20&fr=0&to=100"]417600[/URL] is no more. It's pined for the fjords. It's an ex-sequence. Bereft of life, it rests in peace!

schickel 2012-02-22 08:43

[QUOTE=Batalov;289939][URL="http://www.factordb.com/sequences.php?se=1&aq=417600&action=last20&fr=0&to=100"]417600[/URL] is no more. It's pined for the fjords. It's an ex-sequence. Bereft of life, it rests in peace![/QUOTE]Sorry, I forgot to update the record with this one....

[SIZE="1"]I hope there are still some out there for the rest of us![/SIZE]

LaurV 2012-02-22 11:50

Side question: are you (schickel) double-checking the elf files before erasing them from the copybook? Since the stories with scrambled sequences on the DB my back sweats every time I hear a sequence terminates :P

schickel 2012-02-22 13:29

[QUOTE=LaurV;290439]Side question: are you (schickel) double-checking the elf files before erasing them from the copybook? Since the stories with scrambled sequences on the DB my back sweats every time I hear a sequence terminates :P[/QUOTE]No, I haven't been checking. To tell the truth, I had not even thought about doing it, but now that it's been brought up, I'll have to go back and check the last dozen or so terminations to verify everything.

There are, I hope, two possible things helping out here: other than bchaffin's workers, I assume everyone works on their sequences locally, so only results are uploaded to the DB, while the local files would remain true and correct. Secondly, I have been sending Wolfgang details and sequence files for the terminations and merges and I assume he's been checking them on his end. At least I have not recieved any word from him about problems with any of the sequences.....

bchaffin 2012-03-05 20:52

1 Attachment(s)
91008 terminates at term 2845, from a max height of 112 digits. (Or merges with 71264, depending on how you want to count it.)

I think that's my first termination under 100k. Woot!

schickel 2012-03-06 11:06

[QUOTE=bchaffin;292030]91008 terminates at term 2845, from a max height of 112 digits. (Or merges with 71264, depending on how you want to count it.)

I think that's my first termination under 100k. Woot![/QUOTE]Since it goes down low, then back up for a bit, I am inclined to call it a merge, but Wolfgang lists this as a straight termination.....

EdH 2012-03-06 15:24

[QUOTE=schickel;292083]Since it goes down low, then back up for a bit, I am inclined to call it a merge, but Wolfgang lists this as a straight termination.....[/QUOTE]
Are we not considering the lowest term within a family as the one that terminates, with all other branches merging? If so, we should label it in line with our definition, unless there is a more "official" one that conflicts, in which case we should change all our lists...

unconnected 2012-03-11 17:07

940470 terminates.


All times are UTC. The time now is 06:40.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.