[quote=Syd;177951]I did some optimizations on the database that locked up queries for some time. This night I'll do some more, maybe it goes offline again.

Btw, what about a shorter domain?

[URL]http://factordb.com/[/URL][/quote]

I was wondering, where on earth did the ".ath.cx" come from?

[QUOTE=10metreh;177977]I was wondering, where on earth did the ".ath.cx" come from?[/QUOTE]
It was a christmas present:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.cx[/url]

[quote=Uncwilly;177978]It was a christmas present:
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.cx[/URL][/quote]

I knew about the .cx, what about the .ath?

The "squared line" bug strikes again: [url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=12064[/url]

[QUOTE=Andi47;178278]The "squared line" bug strikes again: [url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=12064[/url][/QUOTE]

Another issue (bug?), mentioned in the same thread:

[QUOTE=Greebley;178293]This seems to be my day for finding database issues:
for sequence [URL="http://factorization.ath.cx/search.php?query=&se=1&aq=125970&action=last"]125970[/URL] entry 107 is wrong - it has a different number than it should. This is what it should be:

106 . 79289831227886721316 = 2^2 * 7 * 19 * 10337827 * 14417056519
107 . 87636145410556465884 = 2^2 * 3 * 7 * 79 * 269 * 49093569496201

Note that you can tell the other value is wrong because it ends 64, but the sigma has 19+1 factor and 144..519+1 factor and so ends 00, but
...00 - ...16 means the next one should end ...84.

I tried sending the correct sequence to the DB, but it didn't update to the correct value. Also what does the CF mean? (instead of ff)

Do I need to post in the other thread mentioned to get this fixed?[/QUOTE]

CF=composite factor

[quote=R. Gerbicz;178304]CF=composite factor[/quote]

It's "composite with known factors"

I'd like to suggest these sequences be added as new sequence types: (the sequence number could be the starting value)
[URL="http://www.research.att.com/%7Enjas/sequences/A000945"]http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/A000945[/URL] "Euclid-Mullin sequence: a(1) = 2, a(n+1) is smallest prime factor of Product_{k=1..n} a(k) + 1." some work/discussion at mersenneforum here: [URL]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=3619[/URL]
[URL="http://www.research.att.com/%7Enjas/sequences/A000946"]http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/A000946[/URL] "Euclid-Mullin sequence: a(1) = 2, a(n+1) is largest prime factor of Product_{k=1..n} a(k) + 1."
And this:
[URL="http://www.research.att.com/%7Enjas/sequences/A000058"]http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/A000058[/URL] "Sylvester's sequence: a(n+1) = a(n)^2 - a(n) + 1, with a(0) = 2." a.k.a. Euclid sequence, (I prefer this name because the sequence is related to Euclid's proof of infinite primes) the formula there makes it look more complicated than it is IMO, it's like the above sequences but with all prime factors multiplied on; some old discussion here: [URL]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=953[/URL]
Regarding whether the Euclid sequence should be a sequence (like Aliquot, home prime, etc.) or a number type (not sure what you call it, but e.g. Mersennes, factorials, Lucas numbers, etc.): you don't need to know the factorization of the previous line in order to know the next one, which would place it in number type and not sequence, but being able to change starting values would be good, which would place it in sequences. I'm not really sure which would be better, but if it's not too hard, I think it'd be good to have it as a two-variable number type, e.g. E(2,10) is the 10th term of the Euclid sequence beginning with 2.

As far as I can tell, no real effort has been put towards any of these sequences in years (except some year-old P-1 and ECM work towards the c180 blocking A000945). Maybe this will help their visibility and get some people to try to factor them! :smile:

Bug report
 

[QUOTE=Andi47;178278]The "squared line" bug strikes again: [url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=12064[/url][/QUOTE]

:bump:

Several sequences which have been scrambled due to various bugs have accumulated by now, see the thread mentioned above.

Some more scrambled sequences have been reported to the [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=12064"]thread[/URL] in the "Aliquot sequences" subforum, and some of the old errors are still present.

Does the database check the integrity of factors when a file of them is reported?

@Syd: Suggestion (also posted in the thread over there): Please introduce a button to check the integrity of sequences - which corects the error and sends a mail to you if an error is found.

Something I've been thinking of for a while is whether the database should be given a subforum inside "Factoring". This thread is now very long, and it is hard to find what you want. Also, there are various separate problems that should have their own threads, and there is no subforum specially for these threads (yet). What do you think?