[QUOTE=James Heinrich;523504]It should work as intended now. Thanks for pointing that out.[/QUOTE]
It looks like the sorting parts work now, but clicking "Next 50 >>" still clears the min/max filters.

[QUOTE=hansl;523512]It looks like the sorting parts work now, but clicking "Next 50 >>" still clears the min/max filters.[/QUOTE]I've included that too now, thanks.

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;523515]I've included that too now, thanks.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for being so responsive!

Just one last thing I'm still seeing is that the Next,Prev seem to reset the "s" sort by, and "o" order (ascending/descending) to a default "s=p&o=d"

Sorry to be so nitpicky, but the improvements are greatly appreciated!

Sorry, copy-paste-didn't-check...
I just fixed what I think was the error, but again didn't test fully, you can tell me if it's still broken :smile:

[QUOTE=hansl;523518]Thank you for being so responsive!
...
Sorry to be so nitpicky, but the improvements are greatly appreciated![/QUOTE]
QA by another with attention to detail can be a great help to the coders and maintainers. And you are using positive tone and expressing gratitude.

ATTABOY!

:thumbs-up:

[QUOTE=kriesel;523530]QA by another with attention to detail can be a great help to the coders and maintainers.[/QUOTE]I appreciate users who take the time to report problems in detail that make it easy for me to fix, so thank you to all who do. :smile:

James, as usual, very responsive!

He still has some work to do to beat Scott, who was fixing the bugs just before we reported them :razz:

Anyhow, James, just to let you know that I sync'd all the factors from your DB till 2018 and included, downloaded them all and saved them on a corner of hdd (the almost 4GB torrent). I pray that you never need them back from me! (but just, in case life sucks sometimes, you know I have them).

Finished up my factoring to 55, and the results are: about 38.3M new factors, with about 179K being first time factors.

The total new factor count is not exact because I grabbed the export of known factors a few days after I began trial factoring, so I can't filter out which ones were already known before I submitted them in the first few days, but I extrapolated based on other results in those ranges.

The total first time factors is based on the summary of the past 55 days from 4G up, which should be mostly from me: [url]https://www.mersenne.ca/status/tf/0/55/0/400000[/url] (link only really valid for today, 8/12, since its a relative date-based report)

Most of those new factors(167K of 179K) were in the exponent range around 7875M-8000M, where it looks like factors between 2^50 and 2^53 got skipped on the first run.

Also, James added a full 10G TF progress graph a bit after I started, but don't think it was "announced", and it doesn't show directly from the right hand side menu, but you can find the link at the bottom of this page:
[url]https://www.mersenne.ca/graphs/[/url]

Here's the direct link for today:
[url]https://www.mersenne.ca/graphs/factor_bits_10G/factor_bits_10G_20190812.png[/url]

I had submitted all my results by the time this image was generated, but the factor queue was still going through some of them, so tomorrow's will show the final result. The main visual difference which I've been looking at is the greenish colored bit-ranges between around 40-55 have expanded to take up larger percentage of the vertical space of known factors.

Compare the above with the first day which the 10G graph was generated here:
[url]https://www.mersenne.ca/graphs/factor_bits_10G/factor_bits_10G_20190708.png[/url]
(Some of the ranges I worked on were already completed at this point too)


So, now that that's done... anyone up for helping to take the whole range from 55 to an almost completely arbitrary 62bits? :devil: (62 is the lower limit that the summary page counts/displays for >4G )

If I've done my math right, This would be about 128 times the effort that I just did.
I am wondering if I can improve the PARI script efficiency to get some gains by further sieving out composite factors.
I've also been thinking maybe there is some way to bulk test multiple exponents at once, (those belonging to the same "class") but I'm still not quite sure if the math works out for that to be possible/beneficial to efficiency. Just throwing around some vague ideas I've had so far, but I still need to sit down and take some time to really develop them.

Not sure if there's really any interest in this from others, but maybe a catchy sub-project name would help: I'm thinking either "OBF", or "PARIto62" :smile:

[QUOTE=hansl;523614]anyone up for helping to take the whole range from 55 to an almost completely arbitrary 62bits?[/QUOTE]I think it would perhaps be saner to simply try to push it all to 56-bit to start. Which sounds insignificant but is nearly exactly the same effort you just did from 1-55. Of course, if you stop looking at [i]all[/i] exponents and look efficiently for new factors (skip already-factored exponents, stop once you find a factor) then it becomes a much easier task.

[URL]https://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/12732431[/URL] produces this error:


PHP error encountered on line functions.local.inc.php:745, admin has been alerted:

Undefined offset: 0



Everything else on mersenne.ca works fine, though. The page for this exponent worked just a few days ago, maybe my recent PRP result broke something? :unsure:

[QUOTE=nordi;523649][URL]https://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/12732431[/URL] produces this error:[/QUOTE]

The same happens for [URL]https://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/19479277[/URL] and [URL]https://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/19822043[/URL]