200k - what was lost once, now found!
 

I've done a complete download of all the open sequences from the DB in the 200k range. (Summary file available [URL="http://www.frontiernet.net/~aliquot/s200.txt"]here[/URL].) So far I've found a few that are not at 100 digits in the DB. I figure that they're a result of the errors in the v1.0 DB. Here is a list:[code][strike]281310[/strike] 1688. sz 82 2^2 * 7 * 41 * 463 * 6763 * 7069 * 790021 * 5953751
[strike]283350[/strike] 2380. sz 89 2^2 * 7
[strike]283410[/strike] 789. sz 90 2 * 3 * 281
[strike]281928[/strike] 781. sz 90 2 * 3 * 7 * 13 * 67
[strike]283014[/strike] 2356. sz 90 2^12 * 47 * 89^2 * 1271054549 * 335292667319
[strike]283128[/strike] 640. sz 90 2^2 * 7 * 4118501 * 843209431641727
[strike]282600[/strike] 652. sz 91 2^2 * 7
[strike]282856[/strike] 664. sz 91 2^3 * 5
[strike]283008[/strike] 1027. sz 92 2^2 * 7 * 3271481 * 42442949 * 102865313
[strike]281232[/strike] 602. sz 95 2^2 * 3 * 7 * 823
[strike]276594[/strike] 1043. sz 96 2^3 * 67
[strike]293826[/strike] 899. sz 97 2 * 5 * 163[/code]Based on a couple that I checked with kar_bon's summary page, there may be work that is hanging around on someone's drive that will complete these.....

I don't think we need a new subproject for these, do we?

Frank

[QUOTE=schickel;237911]I've done a complete download of all the open sequences from the DB in the 200k range. (Summary file available [URL="http://www.frontiernet.net/~aliquot/s200.txt"]here[/URL].) So far I've found a few that are not at 100 digits in the DB. I figure that they're a result of the errors in the v1.0 DB. Here is a list:[code]<snip>[/code]Based on a couple that I checked with kar_bon's summary page, there may be work that is hanging around on someone's drive that will complete these.....

I don't think we need a new subproject for these, do we?

Frank[/QUOTE]

Of course they're hanging around on one of Wieb's hard drives but we're unlikely to get them from there. I'll have a go at some of them later today if no-one pipes up and provides the data first.

[QUOTE=10metreh;237917]Of course they're hanging around on one of Wieb's hard drives but we're unlikely to get them from there. I'll have a go at some of them later today if no-one pipes up and provides the data first.[/QUOTE]Hmmm...maybe. But I assume that since there are less than a dozen, someone had in the past provided the work on some/all of them. I'm already working one more than I posted: 293826 (it had the downdriver....lost it already.)

[QUOTE=schickel;237911] I figure that they're a result of the errors in the v1.0 DB.

Frank[/QUOTE]
Indeed, they were broken in the old database. I've "cross-checked" table A (250k-300k) of WB some time ago. But I neither have the data of this dozen seqs anymore nor working on that.

PS: Right now I'm cross-checking 300k-400k.
For all seqs > 100 digits: ETA=2 weeks
For all seqs >= same indices as WB: 1-2 more weeks

[QUOTE=RobertS;238014]Indeed, they were broken in the old database. I've "cross-checked" table A (250k-300k) of WB some time ago. But I neither have the data of this dozen seqs anymore nor working on that.
[/QUOTE]Ah well, as I said it was only a hope that you might have the work hanging around still. It won't take more than a couple of days to take care of these.

293826 only took me overnight. Final status: 992. [COLOR="Red"]2^2 * 7[/COLOR] c97, sz 107. I thought about pushing to 1000 lines, but meh....

Frank

PS. thanks for doing the work on WB's sequences. I was starting to think it might just be easier to reconstruct the work ourselves....

[QUOTE=RobertS;238014]PS: Right now I'm cross-checking 300k-400k.
For all seqs > 100 digits: ETA=2 weeks
For all seqs >= same indices as WB: 1-2 more weeks[/QUOTE]Heh, I pulled 300k last night and it looks to be only ~300 sequences not up to 100 digits in the DB....

I'll take 283014. (I like the high expos....)

[QUOTE=schickel;238017]Heh, I pulled 300k last night and it looks to be only ~300 sequences not up to 100 digits in the DB....[/QUOTE]
I am already working on that range for about 4 weeks.
But it is also important to mention, that the impressive database program (and those volunteers doing factoring and assisting it) are pushing up the aliquot seqs. itself. Now all composite numbers below 88 digits have been factored (not considering the current overload of whatever) and WB stopped after reaching the 100 digit at a cofactor of 85 digits (siqs, if not interesting).

I'm working on 281232 and 276594.

[QUOTE=10metreh;238078]I'm working on 281232 and 276594.[/QUOTE]

Now both past 100 and released. I'll leave the rest for others.

[QUOTE=RobertS;238022]I am already working on that range for about 4 weeks.
But it is also important to mention, that the impressive database program (and those volunteers doing factoring and assisting it) are pushing up the aliquot seqs. itself. Now all composite numbers below 88 digits have been factored (not considering the current overload of whatever) and WB stopped after reaching the 100 digit at a cofactor of 85 digits (siqs, if not interesting).[/QUOTE]

I was playing around with scripting DB interfaces and thought it would be useful/interesting to start factoring the smallest composites in the DB, so I've had one or two machines devoted to this for the last few weeks. When I started, the floor was at 84 digits, now it's at 89, and all the 89s should be done in another week or so (though I pulled one machine off of this to devote to 4788). So far I've factored ~175k numbers, mostly between 70 and 89 digits.

Of course this extends many of the smaller aliquot sequences in the DB, but the DB doesn't notice the extension until somebody queries it -- then the new term gets generated and added to the DB, and if it has a composite < 89 digits, I or the DB will usually factor it within a few minutes. So the effect is that just the act of repeatedly looking up smaller sequences extends them, allowing some time for the new terms to come up in my queue.

Are there others doing the same thing? If so maybe we should coordinate to avoid simultaneously factoring the same numbers. I haven't noticed any collisions, but I haven't really been looking.