[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;185938]Gentlemen:

Before you embarked on creating this (IMO, superfluous) database,
did you check with Sam Wagstaff Jr. to get permission????

I strongly suspect that what you are doing consists of

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.


And I see it as unnecesary. All the information is already present
in Sam's on-line tables.[/QUOTE]I very strongly suspect that the database does not infringe copyright in most, if not all, jurisdictions. SSW can certainly claim copyright on the specific layout of his database but it is most unlikely that he can claim copyright on the decimal representations of the factors of (mathematically) simple integers.

A number of test cases in UK law were settled 20-odd years ago. Two publishers of tv schedules, for instance, claimed copyright infringement when competitors (including each other) published alternative listings. The courts decided that only the format of a database could be copyrighted, not the raw data. Similar decisions were upheld over things such as sports results and phone directories.

Many years ago I made available the same Cunninghams factors in tables using my own layout. In those days, Sam didn't appear to have a fully functioning web site and I did, so my table met a hitherto unsatisfied need. Purely out of courtesy, I contacted him before I went public. Exactly as expected, he told me that I could go ahead because it wasn't really his data anyway --- his role was to collate and publish the information largely generated by others.


Whether the new database is unnecessary I leave to each individual to decide. I've not found it necessary yet and, it appears, neither do you. However, if others find it more convenient than the alternatives why should we stop them using it?


Paul

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;185938]Before you embarked on creating this (IMO, superfluous) database,
did you check with Sam Wagstaff Jr. to get permission????

I strongly suspect that what you are doing consists of

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.[/QUOTE]

You can check with your lawyer if you like, but I believe you'll find that this falls under the [url=http://laws.findlaw.com/us/499/340.html]Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service[/url] 'sweat of the brow' doctrine and is not copyrightable in the US.

[QUOTE=10metreh;185936]The C139 from 162126.4222 appears to have 3400 curves at 11M from Andreas Schindel. Is this the "work finishes instantly" bug?[/QUOTE]

Seems so - @syd, please delete these. I have tested the worker.pl script, and it seems buggy (so I just disconnected it) - the PC which it was running on has definitely NOT enough power to run these curves in half a day.

(edit: feel free to delete the other curve done by me (Andreas Schindel) [I]today[/I] too, these might be affected by this bug too.)

Silverman, are you saying that the [I]factorization of numbers[/I] can be (not to mention [I]should be[/I] or [I]are[/I]) copyrighted?
(Only a little offense intended, but) are you off your meds?

The Cunningham part may be considered superfluous/unnecessary, but like others have said, it is mainly focused on aliquot sequences, and is useful for any factorization.
Now, if someone were to copy Wagstaff's tables as-is and put his own copyright on it, sure that'd be infringement. Not that there'd really be much of a reason to do that in the first place.

unable to use worker.pl under windows
 

I just tested the worker.pl under mingw / MSYS. The same as under windows, when "testing ecm.exe", ecm just seems to sit there doing nothing. When I kill the ecm.exe process in the windows taskmanager, it says "ecm test passed". Afterwards I entered "#" for "disable msieve". Worker.pl now attempted to start one worker thread and crashed with this error:

[code]Undefined subroutine &threads::new called at c:/perl/lib/Thread.pm line 291, <> line 9.[/code]

Seq 514050 has a squared line at n=992.
This is the correct line: [quote]992 . 1497895267210974144494418929721013770269101280231019583028649151007221533689607326982002544944 = 2^4 * 1726864380733 * 74367374452084272065627 * 93302320684608033905685809 * 7813189169692912806575522321261[/quote]

[QUOTE=Mini-Geek;185969]Silverman, are you saying that the [I]factorization of numbers[/I] can be (not to mention [I]should be[/I] or [I]are[/I]) copyrighted?
(Only a little offense intended, but) are you off your meds?

The Cunningham part may be considered superfluous/unnecessary, but like others have said, it is mainly focused on aliquot sequences, and is useful for any factorization.
Now, if someone were to copy Wagstaff's tables as-is and put his own copyright on it, sure that'd be infringement. Not that there'd really be much of a reason to do that in the first place.[/QUOTE]

Not the numbers thmselves, but the format in which they are presented; e.g.
The idea of leaving out algebraic factors in a table entry.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;186516]Not the numbers thmselves, but the format in which they are presented; e.g.
The idea of leaving out algebraic factors in a table entry.[/QUOTE]

That's [i]never[/i] copyrightable: USC 17 §102(b). But Syd's database doesn't skip algebraic factors anyway, so I don't see why this would be relevant anyway.

I think writing out the full factorization of the cunningham numbers (with unfactored bits in blue and prime factors black) would be useful. The current tables are good at minimizing space but poor at actually telling you the actual factorization at a glance.

Could the inverse home prime sequences that have an even starting number be removed from the sequence overview page for even bases?
It is impossible for them to end as they cannot lose their factor of 2.

Is anyone experiencing the same problems with the new version of the DB that I am?

With the prior version of the DB, I used to be able to submit small jobs like "ECM low limits" and "ECM medium limits" and have them come back finished within a few seconds. "ECM high limits" usually came back complete within ~2 minutes. Now, I must frequently wait for hours at times and many times it will come back as though it is complete but it rarely finds the factors that it should.

I've only had this problem since the new version of the DB came around. Were most of the workers removed at the same time?

My ID (gd_barnes) is showing that I have 1.00 points available and I'm only trying to submit small-pointed jobs but am not getting the highly satisfactory response that I used to get.


Gary