Factoring database - Page 60

10metreh · 2010-01-18, 19:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdettweiler

BTW, do you know if these fake primes are cleaned out when a factor is submitted for them? I recall that we've ran into these a few times in the past on 4788; were those cleared up on their own, or did Syd manually set them composite?

No, they aren't: sequence 13596 has a "p91" that already has factors submitted but is still listed as prime.

Andi47 · 2010-01-18, 19:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10metreh

No, they aren't: sequence 13596 has a "p91" that already has factors submitted but is still listed as prime.

AAAaaargh - yet another one...

The "set prime" button should be either completely removed, or it should only appear if the number's character is still "unknown".

Another suggestion: Maybe the "set prime"-button should prompt for the input of a Primo- (or <whatever primality proving program>-) certificate of primality instead of blindly believing that the number is prime.

Mini-Geek · 2010-01-18, 19:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdettweiler

BTW, do you know if these fake primes are cleaned out when a factor is submitted for them? I recall that we've ran into these a few times in the past on 4788; were those cleared up on their own, or did Syd manually set them composite?

The last of the 3 I posted is now listed as composite along with its small factors. I doubt that Syd would've fixed that one and not the c163.
But then there's 13596's "p91" (previously mentioned). Perhaps if a new factor is submitted, it changes to composite, (and from then on is how it should be) but if a factored composite is set to prime, it leaves it as a prime that divides into other primes (like this "p91").

axn · 2010-01-18, 19:31

The only valid use of a "Set Prime" button would be to set a PrP to Prime that is too big to be "proven". Even for the largest allowable number in DB (200K digits, IIRC), PrP test is feasible (might take a few hours, but still).

10metreh · 2010-01-18, 20:46

Someone has set the c157 from the bugged version of 4788 prime, along with the next index. Syd, where are you?

Mini-Geek · 2010-01-18, 21:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10metreh

Someone has set the c157 from the bugged version of 4788 prime, along with the next index.

This has already been noted. (Edit: Oops, looks like I noted some other ones and thought that one was a real prime.) It's not all that important what happens with the bugged version of 4788 anyway. I kind of preferred when it thought it ended in a prime, since that way nobody might accidentally run the bugged sequence and so waste their CPU time.

frmky · 2010-01-19, 00:25

It seems to be far more widespread this time. From my currently reserved, 789090 and 790248 have been set prime.

axn · 2010-01-19, 00:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by frmky

It seems to be far more widespread this time. From my currently reserved, 789090 and 790248 have been set prime.

Ugh! Just where is this "Set Prime" button anyway!

Andi47 · 2010-01-19, 06:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10metreh

Someone has set the c157 from the bugged version of 4788 prime, along with the next index. Syd, where are you?

Syd has answered to my emails. He says that he has removed the "set prime" and "set prp" buttons and fixed sequence 4788.
I just looked into the DB and noticed that alq4788.2509 c163 is STILL set to prime and just sent an additional email to Syd. (maybe he thought that just the last line was bugged?)

Edit: I just see in the aliquot sequence forum, that sequence 763668 is broken - someone has set the last index (an even number!) to prime.

smh · 2010-01-19, 08:55

I did a quick diff between all open ended sequences from last week and this morning and I get the following

Code:

Mini-Geek · 2010-01-19, 13:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andi47

Syd has answered to my emails. He says that he has removed the "set prime" and "set prp" buttons and fixed sequence 4788.

Good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andi47

I just looked into the DB and noticed that alq4788.2509 c163 is STILL set to prime and just sent an additional email to Syd. (maybe he thought that just the last line was bugged?)

That's fixed now. Sequence 4788 is now A-Ok. These two composites from the false 4788 seq are still thought to be primes:
http://factordb.com/search.php?id=97221477
http://factordb.com/search.php?id=99425945

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andi47

Edit: I just see in the aliquot sequence forum, that sequence 763668 is broken - someone has set the last index (an even number!) to prime.

This one's still broken.

2010-01-18, 20:46	#654
10metreh Nov 2008 2×3³×43 Posts	Someone has set the c157 from the bugged version of 4788 prime, along with the next index. Syd, where are you? Last fiddled with by 10metreh on 2010-01-18 at 20:46

2010-01-19, 08:55	#659
smh "Sander" Oct 2002 52.345322,5.52471 2245₈ Posts	I did a quick diff between all open ended sequences from last week and this morning and I get the following Code: 789816 789740 794280 794880 790248 790340 792864 791196 790884 794754 792756 794196 763668

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Database for k-b-b's:	3.14159	Miscellaneous Math	325	2016-04-09 17:45
Factoring database issues	Mini-Geek	Factoring	5	2009-07-01 11:51
database.zip	HiddenWarrior	Data	1	2004-03-29 03:53
Database layout	Prime95	PrimeNet	1	2003-01-18 00:49
Is there a performance database?	Joe O	Lounge	35	2002-09-06 20:19

2010-01-18, 19:31	#653
axn Jun 2003 3²×5×113 Posts	The only valid use of a "Set Prime" button would be to set a PrP to Prime that is too big to be "proven". Even for the largest allowable number in DB (200K digits, IIRC), PrP test is feasible (might take a few hours, but still).

2010-01-19, 00:25	#656
frmky Jul 2003 So Cal 84B₁₆ Posts	It seems to be far more widespread this time. From my currently reserved, 789090 and 790248 have been set prime.