[QUOTE=mdettweiler;202301]BTW, do you know if these fake primes are cleaned out when a factor is submitted for them? I recall that we've ran into these a few times in the past on 4788; were those cleared up on their own, or did Syd manually set them composite?[/QUOTE]

No, they aren't: sequence 13596 has a "p91" that already has factors submitted but is still listed as prime.

[QUOTE=10metreh;202313]No, they aren't: sequence 13596 has a "p91" that already has factors submitted but is still listed as prime.[/QUOTE]

AAAaaargh - yet another one...

The "set prime" button should be either completely removed, or it should only appear if the number's character is still "unknown".

Another suggestion: Maybe the "set prime"-button should prompt for the input of a Primo- (or <whatever primality proving program>-) certificate of primality instead of blindly believing that the number is prime.

[quote=mdettweiler;202301]BTW, do you know if these fake primes are cleaned out when a factor is submitted for them? I recall that we've ran into these a few times in the past on 4788; were those cleared up on their own, or did Syd manually set them composite?[/quote]
The [URL="http://factordb.com/search.php?id=99126159"]last of the 3 I posted[/URL] is now listed as composite along with its small factors. I doubt that Syd would've fixed that one and not the c163.
But then there's 13596's [URL="http://factordb.com/search.php?id=70259225"]"p91"[/URL] (previously mentioned). Perhaps if a new factor is submitted, it changes to composite, (and from then on is how it should be) but if a factored composite is set to prime, it leaves it as a prime that divides into other primes (like this "p91").

The only valid use of a "Set Prime" button would be to set a PrP to Prime that is too big to be "proven". Even for the largest allowable number in DB (200K digits, IIRC), PrP test is feasible (might take a few hours, but still).

Someone has set the c157 from the bugged version of 4788 prime, along with the next index. Syd, where are you?

[quote=10metreh;202331]Someone has set the c157 from the bugged version of 4788 prime, along with the next index.[/quote]
This has already been noted. (Edit: Oops, looks like I noted some other ones and thought that one was a real prime.) It's not all that important what happens with the bugged version of 4788 anyway. I kind of preferred when it thought it ended in a prime, since that way nobody might accidentally run the bugged sequence and so waste their CPU time. :smile:

It seems to be far more widespread this time. From my currently reserved, 789090 and 790248 have been set prime.

[QUOTE=frmky;202348]It seems to be far more widespread this time. From my currently reserved, 789090 and 790248 have been set prime.[/QUOTE]

Ugh! Just where is this "Set Prime" button anyway!

[QUOTE=10metreh;202331]Someone has set the c157 from the bugged version of 4788 prime, along with the next index. Syd, where are you?[/QUOTE]

Syd has answered to my emails. He says that he has removed the "set prime" and "set prp" buttons and fixed sequence 4788.
I just looked into the DB and noticed that alq4788.2509 c163 is STILL set to prime and just sent an additional email to Syd. (maybe he thought that just the last line was bugged?)

Edit: I just see in the aliquot sequence forum, that sequence [B]763668[/B] is broken - someone has set the last index (an even number!) to prime.

I did a quick diff between all open ended sequences from last week and this morning and I get the following[CODE]789816
789740
794280
794880
790248
790340
792864
791196
790884
794754
792756
794196
763668[/CODE]

[quote=Andi47;202377]Syd has answered to my emails. He says that he has removed the "set prime" and "set prp" buttons and fixed sequence 4788. [/quote]
Good.
[quote=Andi47;202377]I just looked into the DB and noticed that alq4788.2509 c163 is STILL set to prime and just sent an additional email to Syd. (maybe he thought that just the last line was bugged?)[/quote]
That's fixed now. Sequence 4788 is now A-Ok. These two composites from the false 4788 seq are still thought to be primes:
[url]http://factordb.com/search.php?id=97221477[/url]
[url]http://factordb.com/search.php?id=99425945[/url]
[quote=Andi47;202377]Edit: I just see in the aliquot sequence forum, that sequence [B]763668[/B] is broken - someone has set the last index (an even number!) to prime.[/quote]
This one's still broken.