[quote=fivemack;207335]Is there a nicer way of doing

(((x + (1-(0-1)^x)/2))/2)!+(0-1)^x

to get [tex]x! \pm 1[/tex] ?[/quote]
I don't suppose this is acceptable?
[URL="http://factordb.com/search.php?query=x%21-1"]x!-1[/URL] and [URL="http://factordb.com/search.php?query=x%21%2B1"]x!+1[/URL]

The problem with 159 noted above is now happening with the number 57. The database has 57 listed as "C" (composite with no known factors) even though it already knows it's 3*19. If Syd can fix this one too, it would be most appreciated!

shrtr?
 

((n-n%2)/2)!-(0-1)^n

Oh, that's much neater: thanks!

It's not just 57 and 159. 52, 175, 1402 and 32234 have this new problem too.

It's getting really serious now. The last indices of aliquot sequences 276 and 552 have been set as composite with no known factors despite all the factors being there. I think this can only be a hacker - there is no other reason to pick those numbers.

...and seq 4788, as well.

P.S. I just tried an antidote. You go to the number's factorization as raw ([URL="http://factordb.com/search.php?id=88463925&raw=1"]example[/URL]) and paste this into the factorization results window. It helps.

[QUOTE=axn;202001]Done. Next time, just pick a large (>100000) factor of the number and resubmit. That'll change the status from CF to FF.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=10metreh;207586]I think this can only be a hacker - there is no other reason to pick those numbers.[/QUOTE]

I think you're overestimating the robustness of the db. I've seen this and a lot worse for many sequences, and no reason to suspect any "hackers".

PS:- Fixed those two sequences. If someone can download them and do an integrity check with aliqueit, I'd appreciate it.

I have just fixed 804192. It needs the original file reuploading as well. I know that this one appeared like this after i submitted my work.

I don't see a way to fix [URL="http://factorization.ath.cx/search.php?aq=943668&clean=1&se=1"]943668[/URL].

Line 1483 doesn't even have 155 as a factor

I tried the antidote for HP5 of 679 and 685 to correct the factorizations of 57 and 159, but it did not work.