20210809, 18:21  #1321 
"Garambois JeanLuc"
Oct 2011
France
2^{3}·89 Posts 
OK, big scan started !
Bases still added : 648, 306, 396, 696, 780, 828, 888, 996 and also 120. Many thanks to all. Of these 9 additional bases, for the moment, I only plan to add the 648 base to the project page soon. Please let me know when the initialization calculations for the other 8 bases are finished, so I can add them to the project page. 
20210809, 18:28  #1322  
"Garambois JeanLuc"
Oct 2011
France
2^{3}·89 Posts 
Quote:
Thank you so much for your explanations ! I think I'm going to have to add some red to the conjecture page very quickly ! I will do that in the next few days... 

20210810, 01:43  #1323 
"Alexander"
Nov 2008
The Alamo City
3·7·37 Posts 
Conjecture
Last fiddled with by Happy5214 on 20210810 at 01:43 Reason: Wrong number 
20210810, 08:29  #1324  
"Garambois JeanLuc"
Oct 2011
France
712_{10} Posts 
You are right.
Thank you very much for this comment. It is an error in the statement. I have corrected and the conjecture 104 becomes : The prime number 13 appears in the decomposition of the terms of index 1, 2 of all sequences that begin with the integers 11^(12*k). I have verified it up to k=50. But we will encounter with this conjecture the same problem as with the others of the same type. Indeed, (11^121)/10 = 2^3*3^2*7*13*19*37*61*1117 and it is the number 1117 that maintains the 13 at the next iteration. And, for the sequence 11^(12*1117), the factor 1117^2 appears in the factorization of the term in index 1. Quote:
 Conjecture (10) : Maintained, by luck ! Yes, the 13^2 factor appears if k is a multiple of 13, but by luck, there must be other primes that maintain the 7 factor at the second iteration.  Conjecture (34) : invalidated.  Conjecture (35) : invalidated.  Conjecture (106) : invalidated. 

20210810, 13:36  #1325 
"Alexander"
Nov 2008
The Alamo City
3×7×37 Posts 
I think the trick is to treat the 2 mod 3 in conjecture 2 not as an actual 2, but as 1 mod 3. That means you'd use 6 mod 7 for conjecture 10, giving you the prime 3121 as the one preserving the 13.

20210813, 11:28  #1326  
"99(4^34019)99 palind"
Nov 2016
(P^81993)SZ base 36
110010001010_{2} Posts 
Quote:
I also found the smallest prime p such that the Aliquot sequence for 2*p has not yet been fully determined, this is p=2477 (Aliquot sequence for 2*2477 = 4954) 

20210819, 08:30  #1327 
"Garambois JeanLuc"
Oct 2011
France
2^{3}·89 Posts 
Page updated.
Many thanks to all for your help ! Please let me know if you notice any errors. Added bases : 51, 52, 54, 55, 276, 552, 564, 648, 660, 720, 966. New contributor to the calculation : henryzz as HRZ, that we already knew for his contribution in theory ! Several finished sequences have been added on old bases, sometimes quite small (5, 6, 7...) I have not yet added the bases 120, 306, 396, 696, 780, 828, 888 and 996. Let me know if someone finishes initializing these 8 new bases. Unless I'm mistaken, for all bases smaller than 9699690, there are only bases 276, 552, and 966 (all three are Lehmer five sequences) that do not have nontrivial sequence ends. But this must be a coincidence, because we have small bases like base 41 that have only one nontrivial sequence ending. We will still have to observe this closely. And we will have to calculate the odd exponent sequences of bases 276, 552 and 966 to find some that end on a cycle or a prime number ! 
20210819, 09:30  #1328 
"Garambois JeanLuc"
Oct 2011
France
1011001000_{2} Posts 
About this summer's data analysis
It is now 10 days since I launched the big scan of the project to analyze the data. And I've been looking at the data from all angles for days. I was even seeing numbers at night in my sleep ! And then : NOTHING ! While analyzing the data last year and again a few months ago, I had observed some remarkable phenomena that led to the 140 conjectures you know. But these easily remarkable and "obvious" things had not been foreseen and had been observed by chance while I was looking for something else. What exactly am I looking for ? This project was originally created to try to see if a sequence which starts with a number which is an integer power of a number was more likely to belong to such or such "branch" of the infinite graph of aliquot sequences. For a given base b and an integer a to find, I was looking to observe things like : "Sequences of the type b ^ (k * a) end with the prime number p (or with the cycle c) for any integer k. " I am well aware that it is highly unlikely that such a conjecture could be formulated, but I have not finished looking. Perhaps there is a rule to be found which is more complicated to formulate than this example. But for now, I can't see where to look, I have to take a break. But maybe I also missed something obvious ? So, in attached files, I put at your disposal my observation tables : perhaps you will see something there that escaped me ? Perhaps you will also find a way to visualize the data differently than I do to reveal interesting things ? Good luck to you in your observations of these 4 big tables. When it comes to cycles that end sequences, we still don't have enough to be able to do statistics. I manually noted the data on paper with a pencil to make my observations : NOTHING EITHER ! Later, I will again make observations in other directions, outside of the original idea of the project, to try to find something else entirely. But I keep in mind that the holy grail of this project would be to succeed in predicting the end of an aliquot sequence without having to calculate all the terms. I'm just assuming that this is easier to do for sequences that start with whole powers than for all sequences in general. Do not hesitate if you have any comments, or even criticisms to make following this post. Maybe I need someone to bring me to my senses... ;) 
20210819, 17:14  #1329 
Oct 2006
Berlin, Germany
631 Posts 
I'll take bases 276, 552 and 966.

20210820, 07:16  #1330 
Aug 2020
79*6581e4;3*2539e3
2·5·7^{2} Posts 
Whatever may come from it, thanks for your post because it clarified the original goal in a concise way even I understood.
My conclusion from very limited mathematical background is, if for so many bases no regularities regarding the termination were observed, then probably there are none? Or rather, they are so complicated and comprise so many cases, it's not possible to see from a limited sample size. I know math is not an empiric science, so "probably" doesn't count as much as in other fields, but still. As a general point of view, if a scientific project seems to go to nothing, then take a break from it. If after a few weeks or months you feel like there is still something to it, pick it up again. But don't drive yourself crazy with it. And as a last remark, the project still served and serves a purposes. For some it's mainly an interesting pasttime, some might see it in light of compiling a list, of completing things, then some conjectures seem to have come from it and so on. It's certainly not worse than spending months of coretime on factoring a single huge number just to add one more data point to something. So please keep it running even if you take a break from analyzing. No one analyzes the sequences from the Blue Page. The database you created is a great thing. Last fiddled with by bur on 20210820 at 07:25 
20210820, 17:03  #1331  
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
2^{3}×3×5×43 Posts 
Quote:


Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Broken aliquot sequences  fivemack  FactorDB  46  20210221 10:46 
Broken aliquot sequences  schickel  FactorDB  18  20130612 16:09 
A new theorem about aliquot sequences  garambois  Aliquot Sequences  34  20120610 21:53 
poaching aliquot sequences...  Andi47  FactorDB  21  20111229 21:11 
New article on aliquot sequences  schickel  mersennewiki  0  20081230 07:07 