Sometimes, when I like to play around with primo, I download some PRP from the factoring DB, certificate them and upload the certificate back to the DB.

Normally that works quite fine, but now I have 2 primes, where the certificate just disappears. There is no message that they are rejected. The DB seems not start checking the certificate and the candidates remain PRP. I verified the certificate with PRIMO, so the candidates are indeed prime. Even if I put both into a zip and upload it, it recognizes the 2 certificates but is not processing them.

Does anyone have an idea, what the problem could be?

The candidates are about 1200 digits:
2^3982-245
2^3990-335

attachment: 2 certificates in a zip file.
you can delete that attachment after the problem is solved to save storage of the forum.

This problem was reported one month ago and is not resolved.
Possible bug with 2^a-b numbers?

[URL]http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000217043259[/URL]

[QUOTE=lorgix;260034][URL]http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000217043259[/URL][/QUOTE][url]http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1210004[/url]

Is there a page size limit for Report Results > Report Factors? Or a long delay on large background loads?

I'm trying to synchronize my oddperfect database with factordb. The easy thing was to make some long lists of the form (p^q-1)/(p-1)=factor, paste the lists into the Report Factors page, and click report. Two of the files were over 50,000 lines, so I clicked background submit. For a while the status page under Insert Queue showed Entried Queued 2, but it has been zero for over an hour now. However, one of my test cases hasn't showed up yet.

I thought it might be a problem with a extra carriage return at the end of the file. I've noticed that on the Search Page > Report Factors, a blank line at the end results in all the lines being ignored. So I tried resubmitting, being sure there was not a blank line at the end. But the test case is still not showing up. I'm leaning towards a belief the batch is too large - perhaps an IIS limit - but thought I'd ask before hitting the server with more batches experimenting.

William

My insert problem turned out to be user error. My input expressions were not properly formed.

I'd like to see a "perfect power"-checkbox under "More options".

Btw, what is the forum policy on not making any sense?

[QUOTE=lorgix;261283]Btw, what is the forum policy on not making any sense?[/QUOTE]Making sense is desirable but optional.

We've a special garbage bin for senseless but otherwise harmless posts.

Paul

If i try to report the next factor for aliquot sequence 250452 the database do not accept the factors.

Here is the result from the c111 with factmsieve.py
[CODE]Number: c111
N = 181272454297185328744176839073013972753352282510242039389277374656818709145367785491059261782463082094040240919 (111 digits)
Divisors found:
r1=783497871215194504982057381466887344689071618501303933 (pp54)
r2=231363046355230329033813358171851544135597604061709764643 (pp57)
Version: Msieve v. 1.48
Total time: 11.97 hours.
Factorization parameters were as follows:
n: 181272454297185328744176839073013972753352282510242039389277374656818709145367785491059261782463082094040240919
Y0: -1662360288660249639672
Y1: 446812354453
c0: -3995141492262010049450365
c1: 2032485866657225489791
c2: 1418328127953627500
c3: 104427956031276
c4: -2712208580
c5: 14280
skew: 21101.48
type: gnfs
Factor base limits: 3200000/3200000
Large primes per side: 3
Large prime bits: 27/27
Sieved algebraic special-q in [0, 0)
Total raw relations: 8255754
Relations: 547786 relations
Pruned matrix : 333627 x 333854
Polynomial selection time: 0.00 hours.
Total sieving time: 11.49 hours.
Total relation processing time: 0.09 hours.
Matrix solve time: 0.25 hours.
time per square root: 0.13 hours.
Prototype def-par.txt line would be: gnfs,110,5,61,2000,0.00015,0.3,250,15,50000,2400,3200000,3200000,27,27,50,50,2.6,2.6,100000
total time: 11.97 hours.
x86 Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 6, GenuineIntel
Windows-Vista-6.0.6002-SP2
processors: 2, speed: 2.09GHz
[/CODE]

The Database tell me that the factor do not divide the c111!?

[QUOTE=Andi_HB;261763]If i try to report the next factor for aliquot sequence 250452 the database do not accept the factors.

Here is the result from the c111 with factmsieve.py
[CODE]Number: c111
N = 181272454297185328744176839073013972753352282510242039389277374656818709145367785491059261782463082094040240919 (111 digits)
Divisors found:
r1=783497871215194504982057381466887344689071618501303933 (pp54)
r2=231363046355230329033813358171851544135597604061709764643 (pp57)
Version: Msieve v. 1.48
Total time: 11.97 hours.
Factorization parameters were as follows:
n: 181272454297185328744176839073013972753352282510242039389277374656818709145367785491059261782463082094040240919
Y0: -1662360288660249639672
Y1: 446812354453
c0: -3995141492262010049450365
c1: 2032485866657225489791
c2: 1418328127953627500
c3: 104427956031276
c4: -2712208580
c5: 14280
skew: 21101.48
type: gnfs
Factor base limits: 3200000/3200000
Large primes per side: 3
Large prime bits: 27/27
Sieved algebraic special-q in [0, 0)
Total raw relations: 8255754
Relations: 547786 relations
Pruned matrix : 333627 x 333854
Polynomial selection time: 0.00 hours.
Total sieving time: 11.49 hours.
Total relation processing time: 0.09 hours.
Matrix solve time: 0.25 hours.
time per square root: 0.13 hours.
Prototype def-par.txt line would be: gnfs,110,5,61,2000,0.00015,0.3,250,15,50000,2400,3200000,3200000,27,27,50,50,2.6,2.6,100000
total time: 11.97 hours.
x86 Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 6, GenuineIntel
Windows-Vista-6.0.6002-SP2
processors: 2, speed: 2.09GHz
[/CODE]

The Database tell me that the factor do not divide the c111!?[/QUOTE]

Something went wrong while copying the files to the server. I'm on it!

How can I check a few hundred numbers to learn if factordb has a full factorization? If they are dense in a parametric form, the Factor Tables form is exactly what I want - especially with the "text" and "text, compact" outputs. But if the the numbers are heterogeneous in form, I haven't found anything better than repetitive cut and paste to the Search form. I guess I could write a python script to automate that - are there any better approaches?

William