mersenneforum.org Other Factordb Problems
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2014-06-18, 22:31 #34 Jayder     Dec 2012 4278 Posts This is exasperating. msc_ngb added this 16,386 digit prime and then added all 1900 steps. About 160 are above 15,000 digits, 540 between 10-15k digits, and about 540 between 5-10k digits. There are 1354 certificates in the queue right now, and the vast majority of them are just these "steps". I feel like this is a humongous waste of resources.
2014-06-19, 15:21   #35
Jayder

Dec 2012

32×31 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Jayder I feel like this is a humongous waste of resources.
It looks like this may have been rectified, at least for the moment. msc_nbg's total certificates dropped by about 30k, and the queue is now clear. Looks like they were all deleted. Thanks Syd(?)! Hope this lasts.

2014-06-21, 23:25   #36
RichD

Sep 2008
Kansas

22×3×317 Posts
As info

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Jayder Maybe not worth mentioning, but this seems to still be an issue. Examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] The helper files seem fine and I can prove it fine myself with pfgw, but I guess the database still has a hard time with lots and lots of factors.
Even with the latest enhancements and checks-and-balances, these are still an issue.

2014-06-25, 20:48   #37
RichD

Sep 2008
Kansas

73348 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by wblipp I still find this argument compelling. It might be possible to convince me to support a database modification that stored the one certificate and tagged all the primes as proven by that one certificate.
I agree. If someone would request the certificate of one of the steps (primes) tagged, then the database could easily build the cert from the remaining steps.

Then again, if Syd only had the time.

2014-07-03, 14:30   #38
RichD

Sep 2008
Kansas

22·3·317 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Jayder ... but this seems to still be an issue. Examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
The Proof button now works for the above six. All are proven prime via N-1.

 2014-07-18, 14:54 #39 richs     "Rich" Aug 2002 Benicia, California 5·17·19 Posts This number is broken (see the last factor): http://www.factordb.com/index.php?id...00000305397690
 2014-07-18, 16:09 #40 chris2be8     Sep 2009 2×1,213 Posts It looks OK to me. The last divisor is a p110 raised to power 33. Which look a bit odd the first time you see it but is OK. The next question is how long it will be until someone factors the next-to-last-factor C92. Chris
2014-07-18, 16:12   #41
wblipp

"William"
May 2003
Near Grandkid

3×7×113 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by richs This number is broken (see the last factor): http://www.factordb.com/index.php?id...00000305397690
Perhaps this has been fixed. As of my writing, the factordb shows the last factor as a 110 digit prime raised to the 33rd power. Alpertron agrees that factorization.

 2014-07-18, 23:37 #42 richs     "Rich" Aug 2002 Benicia, California 5×17×19 Posts It must have been a glitch. I was factoring the C92 at the time and I like to look at the entire number.
 2014-08-17, 16:15 #43 chris2be8     Sep 2009 2·1,213 Posts The list of smallest numbers without known factors contains the following 3 entries: Code: 1100000000704879936 0 1 1100000000704879961 0 1 1100000000704879980 0 1 Clicking on the 0 shows they are all 7##-7##. I think this needs SYD to intervene. Chris
 2014-08-17, 16:56 #44 Batalov     "Serge" Mar 2008 Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2 1005310 Posts The ## parsing has been broken in FactorDB for a while and is till broken.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post enzocreti FactorDB 24 2022-11-17 07:20 carpetpool FactorDB 6 2017-01-23 11:04 smh FactorDB 231 2015-07-28 02:30 firejuggler Aliquot Sequences 2 2010-06-15 14:03 Raman Factoring 15 2010-01-28 10:24

All times are UTC. The time now is 09:26.

Tue Jan 31 09:26:54 UTC 2023 up 166 days, 6:55, 0 users, load averages: 1.16, 1.29, 1.21