I have one core of an i3 working on 81 digits.

Seems like some low exponent Mersenne factors were missing from FDB too?

[QUOTE=mathwiz;532162]Seems like some low exponent Mersenne factors were missing from FDB too?[/QUOTE]

Yes, there were a lot of cases with exponents below 15000 where FactorDB forgot the connection between a composite number and its factors. For example, 2^293-1 was listed as an 89-digit composite number even though its 26-digit factor 40122362455616221971122353 was already in the database. And several hundred more examples. Edit: and exponent 34499, 49081, 57329, 57383 and maybe some others...

There were also about a dozen factors for exponents in the 30k and 40k ranges that were discovered in November and December but not in FactorDB. Either not reported yet or forgotten during the outage.

torrent?
 

So, what's with the idea of a factordb torrent? If it is only 1GB then it should not be too hard right? Seems like it would potentially open up all kind of useful and not so useful derivative projects.

[QUOTE=richs;532151]I have one core of an i3 working on 81 digits.[/QUOTE]
Are you working randomly or at the low end?

I'm playing with several things that may drift into the 81 digit area as 80 digits fall below 5000. Should I modify my scripts to work further into 81 digits or move to 82 digits?

[QUOTE=EdH;532295]Are you working randomly or at the low end?

I'm playing with several things that may drift into the 81 digit area as 80 digits fall below 5000. Should I modify my scripts to work further into 81 digits or move to 82 digits?[/QUOTE]

My python script is choosing randomly from the first 100 C81's. I've had 33 worker collisions in the first 1293 composites that I've done.

Slowly checking aliquot sequences <1M I've found that 933564 is absent in the FDB.

In addition to previous post:

[CODE]$ ./aliqueit -t 933564
Reading config file...
Verifying elf 933564
Verifying index 129...
ERROR: @index 129: value != sigma - n[/CODE]

[QUOTE=richs;532300]My python script is choosing randomly from the first 100 C81's. I've had 33 worker collisions in the first 1293 composites that I've done.[/QUOTE]Some of those might have been my scripts. I completed 1108 in a window of 5000. So a few of those may have been in the low end of 81. I shouldn't hit 81 at all now, but I hope to work on 82 digits some tomorrow. I still expect to work on the 80s testing my latest Colab experiment, using the GPU branch of ECM and msieve, but not so aggressively as today.

Sorry about that. . .

[QUOTE=EdH;532340]Some of those might have been my scripts. I completed 1108 in a window of 5000. So a few of those may have been in the low end of 81. I shouldn't hit 81 at all now, but I hope to work on 82 digits some tomorrow. I still expect to work on the 80s testing my latest Colab experiment, using the GPU branch of ECM and msieve, but not so aggressively as today.

Sorry about that. . .[/QUOTE]

No problem at all.

[QUOTE=richs;532362]No problem at all.[/QUOTE]
Well, now I'm really sorry! A machine I didn't even remember was running composites apparently finished off the 80s and moved into the 81s. I "think" I now have "all" of my machines working in the 82 area. I plan on leaving them there until I put them back to their normal work.