Index 1 Sequence Work for the "n^i" Aliquot Project - Page 3

EdH · 2022-09-21, 13:36

Oops! After stating that I check yoyo's list, I just noticed that I hadn't pulled some of his from the 70s area in my last update. I may just pull the entire bases he has reserved for now, instead of trying to work around his current work.

EdH · 2022-09-21, 14:14

I just went through all the tables and removed all sequences that were reserved, either by base or individually, "except" for those in base 77 that are reserved for Jean-Luc. I hope he won't mind us running those index 1s, if we get to them before he stops us.

gd_barnes · 2022-09-21, 14:46

I don't see why anyone would be offended if we increase a sequence from index=1 to index=2, especially if it's been reserved for quite a while. Yoyo rarely works above 140 digits where a lot of our work is. Jean-Luc just showed the entire bases in the 70's reserved for them but if you check their page, a lot of those specific higher exponents are not being worked on by them. I had previously asked him about those entire-base reservation and he referred me to their page of active reservations.

I think you should leave all reserved sequences on your list but put an asterisk by them if they're reserved. That way your counts stay consistent and maybe we can nudge people to work on those that are reserved and at index=1 or "allow" us to do so. Right now your counts show 588 remaining from an initial total of 747. I believe a lot of that is from removed reserved sequences. It doesn't look quite right.

I think I will run ECM on all of the 70's to advance 1 iteration and risk stepping on a few toes. :-)

**********

I have completed ECM to t35 and factoring on all opposite parities for bases >= 80 now. So now:

All same parities and double-square bases for index=1 are ECM'd to t35.
All opposite parities for non-double-square bases for index=1 are ECM'd to t35 for bases < 70 or >= 80.

I was not aware if the automated reporting that is done would report a factor on an iteration that is not completely factored. It's good to know that it does.

garambois · 2022-09-21, 15:17

There is really no problem for me if you factor the index 1 terms of the sequences reserved for me !
Thank you for all your hard work !

EdH · 2022-09-21, 15:48

Thanks Jean-Luc!

@Gary: As for yoyo's reserved sequences, I turned up quite a few in my last run. Since yoyo's list is more dynamic than mine, it would be inaccurate to only "star" the ones I find when I run my scripts. I will add back in those that are reserved with an asterisk for all those bases. That will allow for a better count. As to your working there, I'll leave that to your discretion.

chris2be8 · 2022-09-21, 15:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by charybdis

The real reason is that index 1 can be done by SNFS if the base is prime. For bases under 100, these would have been done as part of the Brent project, but I don't think bases above 100 are part of any other project. They've probably largely been done by individuals who like doing relatively easy SNFS jobs.

If the base and exponent are both prime they may well have been done by the Oddperfect project. And some people find p^q-1 interesting.

If the base is composite then index 1 will have algebraic factors. Which will almost always have been entered into factordb by now.

I've been trying to work out how to use SNFS if the base is composite. But I've only managed to if the base is one large prime times a few small factors. And the degree comes out the same as the exponent so it would only be useful if the base is over 20 digits and the exponent no more than about 7.

gd_barnes · 2022-09-22, 00:11

Ed, thanks for including the reserved sequences in the 1st post. When having project-wide goals like this, I think that having a comprehensive list like this regardless of reservation status helps greatly.

For Yoyo's reserved sequences shown in the 1st post, 6 of them are either same-parity or a double-square base. The other 20 of them are opposite-parity. The former were already ECM'd to t35 several months ago as I was working on the "somewhat easier sequences for termination" effort.

I will do a compare against Yoyo's official work list to see what impact any work would have on the 20 affected sequences in that area.

In looking at your counts including the reservations that apparently include everything I've done down thru base 80, I'm amazed that we've already knocked out ~23.3% (174 of 747) of the sequences on the list in just a few days. There really was a lot of low-hanging fruit there that needed a nominal amount of ECM. :-)

Adding the countdown meter was a great idea!

gd_barnes · 2022-09-22, 00:47

Good news for us on the Yoyo reservations. Reference their official work list here:
https://yafu.myfirewall.org/yafu/dow...li/ali.txt.all

There are 26 sequences shown in the 1st post here as reserved by Yoyo. According to their recent work list, the following 3 sequences are the only ones that are actually being worked on that impact our effort:

72^91, 76^83, and 78^81

What this tells me is that they are usually not working on the very large exponents, generally > ~140-150 digits, that impacts a lot of what we do here. Base 72 was an exception, perhaps because it is a double-square base and they know it will easily terminate from their perspective.

Ed, does it make sense to remove the "*" on the 23 sequences that they are not currently working on?

EdH · 2022-09-22, 02:14

I added the * based on the base, so I wouldn't have to research and keep track of individual real time changes. yoyo reserved the bases, whether actual work is touching an individual sequence or not.

I'll try to add a size based list sometime soon, but I have a couple busy days ahead, so I'm not sure how much "play" I'll be able to get in before the weekend. If it's simple to implement, I should be able to add it soon.

gd_barnes · 2022-09-22, 02:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdH

I added the * based on the base, so I wouldn't have to research and keep track of individual real time changes. yoyo reserved the bases, whether actual work is touching an individual sequence or not.

OK, that makes sense.

I've now ECM'd everything down to base 70 so that concludes the initial ECM portion of the effort. Only 1 of the 3 Yoyo sequences listed in my last post cracked so no big deal. The only two base 77 sequences reserved by Jean-Luc that were at index 1 and cracked were 77^54 and 58. But overall 12 out of 16 sequences at index 1 for base 77 went down. (I'm only including opposite parities in that count.) That should reduce our counts a bit.

EdH · 2022-09-23, 02:22

Just to knock a bunch of these down, I'm going to queue up everything (except yoyo's) that are between 110 and 135 digits in the whole set - 139. I'm going to be tied up some tomorrow and I'd like to see how far through the list my machines get by tomorrow evening. I'll reevaluate then.

2022-09-21, 14:46	#25
gd_barnes "Gary" May 2007 Overland Park, KS 12046₁₀ Posts	I don't see why anyone would be offended if we increase a sequence from index=1 to index=2, especially if it's been reserved for quite a while. Yoyo rarely works above 140 digits where a lot of our work is. Jean-Luc just showed the entire bases in the 70's reserved for them but if you check their page, a lot of those specific higher exponents are not being worked on by them. I had previously asked him about those entire-base reservation and he referred me to their page of active reservations. I think you should leave all reserved sequences on your list but put an asterisk by them if they're reserved. That way your counts stay consistent and maybe we can nudge people to work on those that are reserved and at index=1 or "allow" us to do so. Right now your counts show 588 remaining from an initial total of 747. I believe a lot of that is from removed reserved sequences. It doesn't look quite right. I think I will run ECM on all of the 70's to advance 1 iteration and risk stepping on a few toes. :-) ********** I have completed ECM to t35 and factoring on all opposite parities for bases >= 80 now. So now: All same parities and double-square bases for index=1 are ECM'd to t35. All opposite parities for non-double-square bases for index=1 are ECM'd to t35 for bases < 70 or >= 80. I was not aware if the automated reporting that is done would report a factor on an iteration that is not completely factored. It's good to know that it does. Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2022-09-21 at 14:53

2022-09-22, 00:11	#29
gd_barnes "Gary" May 2007 Overland Park, KS 2·19·317 Posts	Ed, thanks for including the reserved sequences in the 1st post. When having project-wide goals like this, I think that having a comprehensive list like this regardless of reservation status helps greatly. For Yoyo's reserved sequences shown in the 1st post, 6 of them are either same-parity or a double-square base. The other 20 of them are opposite-parity. The former were already ECM'd to t35 several months ago as I was working on the "somewhat easier sequences for termination" effort. I will do a compare against Yoyo's official work list to see what impact any work would have on the 20 affected sequences in that area. In looking at your counts including the reservations that apparently include everything I've done down thru base 80, I'm amazed that we've already knocked out ~23.3% (174 of 747) of the sequences on the list in just a few days. There really was a lot of low-hanging fruit there that needed a nominal amount of ECM. :-) Adding the countdown meter was a great idea! Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2022-09-22 at 00:21

2022-09-22, 00:47	#30
gd_barnes "Gary" May 2007 Overland Park, KS 2×19×317 Posts	Good news for us on the Yoyo reservations. Reference their official work list here: https://yafu.myfirewall.org/yafu/dow...li/ali.txt.all There are 26 sequences shown in the 1st post here as reserved by Yoyo. According to their recent work list, the following 3 sequences are the only ones that are actually being worked on that impact our effort: 72^91, 76^83, and 78^81 What this tells me is that they are usually not working on the very large exponents, generally > ~140-150 digits, that impacts a lot of what we do here. Base 72 was an exception, perhaps because it is a double-square base and they know it will easily terminate from their perspective. Ed, does it make sense to remove the "" on the 23 sequences that they are not currently working on? Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2022-09-22 at 01:44*

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A new idea for OEIS "triangle read by rows" sequence	sweety439	sweety439	4	2022-05-28 06:20
Aliquot Sequence 18528 - Team Project?	EdH	Aliquot Sequences	45	2021-06-27 12:30
Is there a copy of "the" aliquot tree anywhere?	Dubslow	Aliquot Sequences	11	2016-11-02 05:05
Possible extention to the "GPU to 72 Tool" project?	chalsall	GPU to 72	332	2012-01-04 01:45
Collaborative mathematics: the "polymath" project	Dougy	Math	11	2009-10-21 10:04

2022-09-21, 13:36	#23
EdH "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns 152A₁₆ Posts	Oops! After stating that I check yoyo's list, I just noticed that I hadn't pulled some of his from the 70s area in my last update. I may just pull the entire bases he has reserved for now, instead of trying to work around his current work.

2022-09-21, 14:14	#24
EdH "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns 5418₁₀ Posts	I just went through all the tables and removed all sequences that were reserved, either by base or individually, "except" for those in base 77 that are reserved for Jean-Luc. I hope he won't mind us running those index 1s, if we get to them before he stops us.

2022-09-21, 15:17	#26
garambois "Garambois Jean-Luc" Oct 2011 France 2⁷·3² Posts	There is really no problem for me if you factor the index 1 terms of the sequences reserved for me ! Thank you for all your hard work !

2022-09-21, 15:48	#27
EdH "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns 1010100101010₂ Posts	Thanks Jean-Luc! @Gary: As for yoyo's reserved sequences, I turned up quite a few in my last run. Since yoyo's list is more dynamic than mine, it would be inaccurate to only "star" the ones I find when I run my scripts. I will add back in those that are reserved with an asterisk for all those bases. That will allow for a better count. As to your working there, I'll leave that to your discretion.

2022-09-22, 02:14	#31
EdH "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns 5418₁₀ Posts	I added the * based on the base, so I wouldn't have to research and keep track of individual real time changes. yoyo reserved the bases, whether actual work is touching an individual sequence or not. I'll try to add a size based list sometime soon, but I have a couple busy days ahead, so I'm not sure how much "play" I'll be able to get in before the weekend. If it's simple to implement, I should be able to add it soon.

2022-09-23, 02:22	#33
EdH "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns 2×3²×7×43 Posts	Just to knock a bunch of these down, I'm going to queue up everything (except yoyo's) that are between 110 and 135 digits in the whole set - 139. I'm going to be tied up some tomorrow and I'd like to see how far through the list my machines get by tomorrow evening. I'll reevaluate then.