@EdH

no, its okay to create sequences. These random numbers have no sequence assigned, so I guess you did not cause those numbers.

Ah, great. Thanks.

OBTW, I like the way you've done the database. Good job.

It's great to see the ECM factor's sigma and group order in the database now.

This number is ready for a combined N+1, N-1 primality proof, but clicking the button doesn't seem to create the proof.

http://factorization.ath.cx/index.php?query=%284931^101-1%29%2F408298275980810

[QUOTE=wblipp;262160]This number is ready for a combined N+1, N-1 primality proof, but clicking the button doesn't seem to create the proof.

http://factorization.ath.cx/index.php?query=%284931^101-1%29%2F408298275980810[/QUOTE]

It was already proved prime via Primo on May 3, 2011.
No need to re-prove it again.

[QUOTE=wblipp;262160]This number is ready for a combined N+1, N-1 primality proof, but clicking the button doesn't seem to create the proof.

http://factorization.ath.cx/index.php?query=%284931^101-1%29%2F408298275980810[/QUOTE]

It needs more factoring, the output says:

[QUOTE]Calling N-1 BLS with factored part 21.76% and helper 16.55% (82.10% proof)[/QUOTE]

besides that, its already proven.

So how fast is your local worker factoring the under-70 composites? In order to help clear out some of the cruft I've started running msieve on the "small composite list" (download, run msieve for a while, upload, re-download). I'm just wondering how often I should upload so as to not duplicate too much work.....

[QUOTE=Syd;262056]100k useful numbers?!? :rant:[/QUOTE]That would be my question: does there appear to be any [URL="http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/377000.html"]method[/URL] there or just madness?

[QUOTE=schickel;262203]So how fast is your local worker factoring the under-70 composites? In order to help clear out some of the cruft I've started running msieve on the "small composite list" (download, run msieve for a while, upload, re-download). I'm just wondering how often I should upload so as to not duplicate too much work.....
[/QUOTE]

Its just one core @idle priority now. As most of them have small factors and only a few require sieving its on average ~2 seconds each. Here are some statistics whats left:

[CODE]mysql> select digits, count(digits) as n from C where digits<100 group by digits having n>10;
+--------+-------+
| digits | n |
+--------+-------+
| 60 | 20718 |
| 61 | 280 |
| 62 | 303 |
| 63 | 312 |
| 64 | 333 |
| 66 | 15 |
| 67 | 15 |
| 68 | 13 |
| 69 | 38 |
| 70 | 48 |
| 71 | 251 |
| 72 | 240 |
| 73 | 215 |
| 74 | 154 |
| 75 | 170 |
| 76 | 512 |
| 77 | 644 |
| 78 | 638 |
| 79 | 602 |
| 80 | 693 |
| 81 | 765 |
| 82 | 872 |
| 83 | 938 |
| 84 | 954 |
| 85 | 931 |
| 86 | 989 |
| 87 | 974 |
| 88 | 957 |
| 89 | 920 |
| 90 | 834 |
| 91 | 770 |
| 92 | 668 |
| 93 | 600 |
| 94 | 694 |
| 95 | 721 |
| 96 | 1218 |
| 97 | 14914 |
| 98 | 17828 |
| 99 | 20363 |
+--------+-------+
39 rows in set (0.04 sec)
[/CODE]

[QUOTE=Syd;262205]Its just one core @idle priority now. As most of them have small factors and only a few require sieving its on average ~2 seconds each. Here are some statistics whats left:

[CODE]mysql> select digits, count(digits) as n from C where digits<100 group by digits having n>10;

[ snip ]

[/CODE][/QUOTE]So >60,000 numbers that are <100 digits?

:sad: :no: :cry:

I'm using the factoring-script DByafu.pl from [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=230762&postcount=894]here[/url] to help, getting rid of those small numbers.

[QUOTE=cmd;262249]we do not understand, can someone "explain|clarify"
where we make mistakes in [B]your[/B] approach ?


[COLOR=LemonChiffon]( We inadvertently, sometimes ... to have the fingers of his hand quicker than eye )
[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Looking at those numbers I would say that you have added 1e5 small numbers using Factor tables. Right?

That makes people wonder what those numbers are. Especially since someone apparently added thousands of seemingly random numbers.

Edit: Ehmm... Did you just make ~400 additional page requests just to get the total number up to 666?!