an idea for improving the factor table

[ixfd64]

I have a few ideas for improving the exponent status table.

To start off, I think it's important to distinguish whether a number has been fully factored or that it merely has known factors. In my opinion, exponents should not be marked as "Factored" unless we know they are fully factored. "Factors known" would probably be a more accurate label, although something as simple as an asterisk would also do. Hell, I think even Dr. Silverman would agree!

Expanding on the idea, it would be helpful if PrimeNet provided the status of the co-factors. I'm thinking about something like the following:

C# - number or co-factor has # digits and is composite
P# - number or co-factor has # digits and is prime
PRP# - number or co-factor has # digits and is a probable prime
U# - number or co-factor has # digits and whose character is unknown

The abbreviations would be used for numbers with more than a certain number of digits.

For example, the table could look something like this (with co-factors with 50 or more digits being abbreviated):

Exponent | Status | Factors
2 | Prime
3 | Prime
5 | Prime
7 | Prime
11 | Factored | 23, 89
13 | Prime
17 | Prime
19 | Prime
<snip>
983 | Factored | 1808226257914551209964473260866417929207023, P254
991 | Factors known |  8218291649, 41473350001, 231620367206687, C264
997 | Factored | 167560816514084819488737767976263150405095191554732902607, C244
<snip>
2251 | Factored | 400679, 778847, 17620954939878356226435007, 1687942505818611032423917201, P614
2267 | Composite | C683
[LL results]
[P-1 results]
[ECM results, history, etc.]
2269 | Factors known | 5198395892876421104415109549087087419559080537214372111, C629
2273 | Composite | C685
[LL results]
[P-1 results]
[ECM results, history, etc.]
2281 | Prime | P687
<snip>

I know this is what http://factordb.com is for, but not everyone is aware of that site.

What does everyone else think?

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by ixfd64

I have a few ideas for improving the exponent status table.


<snip>
I know this is what http://factordb.com is for, but not everyone is aware of that site.

What does everyone else think?

Redundancy can be useful. Just ask the people at the Department of
Redundancy Department.

[VictordeHolland]

I like your idea, but why not use the same labelling system of factordb for Fully Factored (FF) and Composite Factor Known (CF)?

http://factordb.com/status.html

C: Composite, no factors known
CF: Composite, factors known
FF: Composite, fully factored
P: Definitely prime
PRP: Probably prime
U: Unknown

[Mark Rose]

Originally Posted by ixfd64

I have a few ideas for improving the exponent status table.


<snip>
I know this is what http://factordb.com is for, but not everyone is aware of that site.

What does everyone else think?

Redundancy can be useful. Just ask the people at the Department of
Redundancy Department.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by ixfd64

I know this is what http://factordb.com is for, but not everyone is aware of that site.

What does everyone else think?

I think it would be much more efficient use of our volunteer time to publicize factordb.com than to duplicate its features in PrimeNet.

How about just adding, to the exponent status display, a little blurb recommending factordb.com for further details about factors?

[c10ck3r]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

I think it would be much more efficient use of our volunteer time to publicize factordb.com than to duplicate its features in PrimeNet.

How about just adding, to the exponent status display, a little blurb recommending factordb.com for further details about factors?

What about the limit of 10M digits on FactorDB? Or that fact that most PrimeNet factors are likely not reported on the DB?