I think I've brought this issue up before, maybe via PM (I don't feel like searching for it now). The wiki license is CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0, which I believe was inherited from the old Mersenne Wiki. I have several related questions following on from that basic premise:[list=1][*]Is this the desired license for the wiki, if we were to have a free choice?[*]If not, is it worth deleting/rewriting from scratch the imported Mersenne Wiki pages to allow for a relicense? Is that even possible?[*]Is the potential ability to import templates/modules/CSS from Wikipedia/Wikimedia/MediaWiki enough of a reason to pursue a relicense?[*]The purely mathematical data pages (e.g. Riesel prime ###) are currently under the same license as the mostly text pages. Given that the mathematical data should not be eligible for copyright/should be PD, Is a dual license of CC0 (for safety, would have the same effect as PD) for the data pages and another license for the text pages appropriate? This is an argument in support of putting the data in a separate subsystem, e.g. Wikibase.[*]In fact, I could argue that the current license of the Prime-Wiki prevents its use by GIMPS users whose primary reason for contributing (and using the Prime-Wiki to look for related information) is to win a GIMPS research award or an EFF prize, since any editor of the wiki (as a copyright holder of some text) could consider that to be "commercial use". I don't think it would hold in court, and I hope none of us would be that nefarious, but it's sufficiently murky that it ought to be considered.[/list]

Karsten has indicated to me that a full migration to Wikibase is not in his current plans. However, Wikibase would be an excellent tool for some of the structured data in the Prime-Wiki. The multi-reservations specifically come to mind. Storing them in a Wikibase item would allow all of the fields to be edited on the same page, and it would eliminate the reuse of IDs for new projects, which is poor design. I'll design a rudimentary Wikibase instance focused on just the multi-reservations and related items on my personal wiki and publicize it.

I just finished importing the Riesel even-[I]n[/I] Liskovets-Gallot [I]k[/I]'s from the old RPPDb page into the wiki, and I wanted to add a table to the CRUS project page using a CSV file (attached). However, I'm getting a MIME error whenever I try to upload the file:

[quote]File extension ".csv" does not match the detected MIME type of the file (application/csv).[/quote]

I don't know whether this is a browser issue (both Chromium and Firefox gave me the same error, and I also tried uploading it in Firefox as a plain txt with similar results), a server issue, or an upstream MediaWiki issue.

[QUOTE=Happy5214;602851]However, I'm getting a MIME error whenever I try to upload the file.[/QUOTE]

I've updated the extension ExternalData to the newest version, but this did not eliminated the error.
I've inserted into the mime.types file of the MediaWiki source the line
[code]
application/csv csv
[/code]
there was only an entry with "text/csv csv".
I've uploaded a new version of the data file for [url='https://www.rieselprime.de/ziki/Proth_prime_small_bases_least_n']Proth primes of the form k*b^n+1, least n-values[/url] and no error occured.

Try again now if the issue is solved for now.

I've searched for an error like this, but found no solution, an update to a newer MediaWiki version is not needed (and could also create other issues then).

[QUOTE=kar_bon;602890]I've updated the extension ExternalData to the newest version, but this did not eliminated the error.
I've inserted into the mime.types file of the MediaWiki source the line
[code]
application/csv csv
[/code]
there was only an entry with "text/csv csv".
I've uploaded a new version of the data file for [url='https://www.rieselprime.de/ziki/Proth_prime_small_bases_least_n']Proth primes of the form k*b^n+1, least n-values[/url] and no error occured.

Try again now if the issue is solved for now.

I've searched for an error like this, but found no solution, an update to a newer MediaWiki version is not needed (and could also create other issues then).[/QUOTE]

The issue is now fixed, thank you. I looked at the current version of the MediaWiki code while investigating the issue, and the newer versions appear to have this problem too (they only list [C]text/csv[/C] as a valid CSV MIME type), so an upgrade would not have fixed this issue (instead causing many others). I don't know if something changed in the browser support for CSV files, but I'm probably going to file a bug report with MediaWiki about this.

I'll preface this by saying that I haven't discussed this with anyone, but since you've already thought of the idea of referencing FactorDB numbers as a Prime-Wiki namespace, I'm wondering if you'd be open to the idea of using PW as a centralized database of ECM progress for general factorization efforts? They would be added as either remarks or a new field to long numbers, using the standard wiki process.

I don't know exactly, what do you mean here? Can you give an example, please.

[QUOTE=kar_bon;603012]I don't know exactly, what do you mean here? Can you give an example, please.[/QUOTE]
As an example, [url]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=602904&postcount=1006[/url] stated that ryanp performed 4200 ECM curves on [url]http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000002997883099[/url] (the cofactor of 1528152860898312226820507829734311038694803153043007^5-1) at B1=26e7. We could have a "long number" page for that linked FactorDB entry (or, alternatively, the entry for 1528152860898312226820507829734311038694803153043007^5-1, which would likely be more stable if additional factors are found but the number isn't completely factored) with a history entry in the remarks saying something like "2022-03-30: Performed 4200 curves at B1=26e7 by Ryan Propper", with a link to the forum post.

I think this is not the right place to store such information.

Questions:
Who should put those intormation in? ryanp or Batalov?
Those information are even more unverifiable than for say Riesel numbers.
The amount of such numbers are big, especially for the OPN roadblock files. The work to create a page for such number is more time-consuming than the benefit any person can have from.
How will those numbers be stored? How find them in the Wiki? Storing by type or length or project?

There was such information stored in the FactorDB but not available?
[URL="https://stdkmd.net/"]Studio Kamada[/URL] does a good job for documenting ECM efforts, as [URL="https://stdkmd.net/nrr/c.cgi?q=61666_272"]example[/URL] for (185*10^272-2)/3 (the same number in [URL="http://factordb.com/index.php?query=%28185*10%5E272-2%29%2F3"]FactorDB[/URL]):
- you can reserve such numbers
- automated generated ecm-call available
- fill in your amount of ecm done

This system would be best for documenting such work, but not the Wiki I think.

[QUOTE=kar_bon;603262]I think this is not the right place to store such information.

Questions:
Who should put those intormation in? ryanp or Batalov?
Those information are even more unverifiable than for say Riesel numbers.
The amount of such numbers are big, especially for the OPN roadblock files. The work to create a page for such number is more time-consuming than the benefit any person can have from.
How will those numbers be stored? How find them in the Wiki? Storing by type or length or project?

There was such information stored in the FactorDB but not available?
[URL="https://stdkmd.net/"]Studio Kamada[/URL] does a good job for documenting ECM efforts, as [URL="https://stdkmd.net/nrr/c.cgi?q=61666_272"]example[/URL] for (185*10^272-2)/3 (the same number in [URL="http://factordb.com/index.php?query=%28185*10%5E272-2%29%2F3"]FactorDB[/URL]):
- you can reserve such numbers
- automated generated ecm-call available
- fill in your amount of ecm done

This system would be best for documenting such work, but not the Wiki I think.[/QUOTE]

AFAIK FactorDB never had in-progress ECM progress data for yet-to-be-factored composites (at least I'd never seen it), just the data for the curve that found the factor. While I agree a purpose-built site like Studio Kamada would be better suited, that particular site appears to only cover the near-repdigit effort, so that doesn't appear to be useful in its current form to other efforts (e.g. OPN, high-importance aliquot, Cunningham).

I just thought I'd share this note. I ran HappyBot through the mainspace looking for unaccented instances of "Sierpinski", thinking there would be quite a few, and to my surprise all but two were either copy-pasted forum thread or post titles (which didn't have the accent to begin with) or technically desirable unaccented instances (like category names or keys). The other two (links to the Wikipedia article on the subject) were fixed.

Would it be feasible to add an extra parameter or two to the Riesel and Proth prime templates to allow us to explicitly tag a second [i]n[/i] level for [i]k[/i]'s not in a multi-reservation, or even as a third value for multi-reserved [i]k[/i]'s? Two examples of [i]k[/i]'s that I think could benefit are [url]https://www.rieselprime.de/ziki/Riesel_prime_2_9519[/url], an unreserved [i]k[/i] which has an even-[i]n[/i] progress of 2^24 and an odd-[i]n[/i] progress of only 5e4; and [url]https://www.rieselprime.de/ziki/Proth_prime_2_27[/url], a [i]k[/i] which is currently marked with the progress achieved by the 27121 subproject on PrimeGrid (10M). PrimeGrid is DCing all results from that subproject, with odd [i]n[/i]'s done to 9M as part of an unrelated subproject and even [i]n[/i]'s following the progress of the Proth Prime Search multi-reservation (MR 1), currently a bit past 4M apart from a couple of stragglers. Any way to get that information in a structured form would be appreciated.

As shown in the Riesel k=9519 page the history tells the user, that only a special range of n-values is tested. The same for the other example. There's also a "Remark" field to make such comments.
I think there's only a benefit for a handful of values but the majority got no relevance.
To insert a new parameter is doable, but how should they displayed on any page? Or more how should such data display in any table?
That is the work the templates has to be changed but not for such a small amount of values and the possibility of such information is already given.

[QUOTE=kar_bon;628269]As shown in the Riesel k=9519 page the history tells the user, that only a special range of n-values is tested. The same for the other example. There's also a "Remark" field to make such comments.
I think there's only a benefit for a handful of values but the majority got no relevance.
To insert a new parameter is doable, but how should they displayed on any page? Or more how should such data display in any table?
That is the work the templates has to be changed but not for such a small amount of values and the possibility of such information is already given.[/QUOTE]

One feasible idea (in my opinion) is to add one parameter as a "custom override max [I]n[/I]", where we could free-form any display value for the maximum [I]n[/I] for use in the templates. This would go along with the regular max [i]n[/i] value, which would still be used to sort tables (MediaWiki allows for custom sort keys in tables, if you weren't already aware).

I just looked at the [I]Prime Wiki[/I] and found it a bit difficult to determine if it is still in use or not. I found gaps in the Reisel pages and others [I]k's[/I] which had not been changed for 8 years. I imagine the templates are far different now. I was surprised to see that my log-in is still valid.

The Wiki is still in use: see on the left menu the entry for "Recent changes".
And the Wiki was opened in Dec. 2018, so not 8 years old.
The last actions at any Riesel primes may be 8 years old but this are only some information out of the forum and not the last edit of any page.
The see a last edit of a page look at the bottom which says like "This page was last edited on ...".
There're thounsands of k-values only on Riesel side which have not yet included in the Wiki. Give me a lifetime and a 100-hour-day and I try to get them all online.

[QUOTE=kar_bon;633239]...Give me a lifetime and a 100-hour-day and I try to get them all online.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for the reply. I did not think you would.

I know this has been a load to deal with and it will always be so, at least, for now.

It seems there is much more to see by logging in. Some of the old dates were completed to 1e6 in the past.

One that caught my attention is R872 which is missing from the table of that size. It is in [I]factordb[/I] but only as a mention. Basically, nothing has been done with it. I think I will run it up to [I]n[/I]=1e6 and then give you the results. I remember a little about the templates. As I suspected, they have expanded.

Many thanks!

[QUOTE=storm5510;633265]It seems there is much more to see by logging in. Some of the old dates were completed to 1e6 in the past.[/QUOTE]
There's no difference what you can see in the Wiki: Logged in you can edit pages, not logged in you only can read pages.

[QUOTE=storm5510;633265]One that caught my attention is R872 which is missing from the table of that size. It is in [I]factordb[/I] but only as a mention. Basically, nothing has been done with it.[/QUOTE]

Which page/table do you mean by "R872"?

[QUOTE=kar_bon;633292]...Which page/table do you mean by "R872"?[/QUOTE]

[URL="https://www.rieselprime.de/ziki/Riesel_2_300-2000"]This page[/URL].

[QUOTE=storm5510;633317][URL="https://www.rieselprime.de/ziki/Riesel_2_300-2000"]This page[/URL].[/QUOTE]

I don't get it!
Where is in this table something like "R872"? What do you mean by "mentioned in FactorDB"? What means "nothing has been done with it"?
All k-values from 300 to 1100 included, missing most k-values from 1100 to 2000, they got no individual pages by now..

[QUOTE=kar_bon;633322]I don't get it!
Where is in this table something like "R872"? What do you mean by "mentioned in FactorDB"? What means "nothing has been done with it"?
All k-values from 300 to 1100 included, missing most k-values from 1100 to 2000, they got no individual pages by now..[/QUOTE]

See the first attachment. "872" is missing. Forget the "R."

"Nothing has been done with it." See the second attachment. It is from [I]factordb[/I]. I should have written "very little has been done with it."

I apologize for the confusion. I should be more specific.

[QUOTE=storm5510;633328]See the first attachment. "872" is missing. Forget the "R."[/QUOTE]

So you mean k-value 872 for Riesel type numbers.

Question: Do you know which type of prime-sequences are there shown and why there are only odd k-values?
The title says "k*2^n-1", so every even k-value written as "(2*x)*2^n-1" can (and is) interpreted as "x*2^(n+1)-1.
Only the normalized form of Riesel numbers in base 2 are listed (and also given in the Top5000 pages).

As an exercise for you you: test "872*2^n-1" for n=1 to 10000 and post the found primes here.

[QUOTE=kar_bon;633360]So you mean k-value 872 for Riesel type numbers.

Question: Do you know which type of prime-sequences are there shown and why there are only odd k-values?
The title says "k*2^n-1", so every even k-value written as "(2*x)*2^n-1" can (and is) interpreted as "x*2^(n+1)-1.
Only the normalized form of Riesel numbers in base 2 are listed (and also given in the Top5000 pages).

As an exercise for you you: test "872*2^n-1" for n=1 to 10000 and post the found primes here.[/QUOTE]

Yes, to your question at the top. The odd numbers I see from GIMPS work. 2[SUP]p[/SUP]-1 cannot be even.

I thin them out with [I]srsieve2[/I] and then test them with [I]cllr64[/I]:

[CODE]
6
146
174
416
614
1796
3224
6014
12954
141224[/CODE]

I have been running 872 as a distraction. [I]n[/I] is around 320,000. Above is everything found so far.

I just looked at the [I]Wiki[/I] again. Everything I saw is odd. Now, I feel bad. :down:

So now look at Riesel base 2 k=109:
all listed n-values indicating a prime for 109*2^n-1 are added by +3 to your found values for k=872.

Because 872 = 2^3*x you can write (872/2^3)*2^(n+3)-1 = 109*2^n-1.
That's why only odd Riesel base-2 k-values are listed everywhere not only in my Wiki.

[QUOTE=kar_bon;633367]...That's why only odd Riesel base-2 k-values are listed everywhere not only in my Wiki.[/QUOTE]

I found a niche, for now. Riesel 2173. It has a Nash of 889. IIRC, anything <= 1,000 is considered "low." Most in that area have been tested to [I]n[/I] >= 1e6, but not all.

[QUOTE=storm5510;633372]I found a niche, for now. Riesel 2173. It has a Nash of 889. IIRC, anything <= 1,000 is considered "low." Most in that area have been tested to [I]n[/I] >= 1e6, but not all.[/QUOTE]

I think that one has been too. [url]https://www.rieselprime.de/Data/02000.htm[/url] lists it as having been tested to [I]n[/I]=1.025M. That's one of the [STRIKE]yet-to-be-imported[/STRIKE] [I]k[/I]'s Karsten mentioned in an earlier reply.

Edit: I just imported it, with the history filled in based on [I]k[/I]=2171, under the assumption that most of it was the same.

[QUOTE=Happy5214;633390]I think that one has been too. [url]https://www.rieselprime.de/Data/02000.htm[/url] lists it as having been tested to [I]n[/I]=1.025M. That's one of the [STRIKE]yet-to-be-imported[/STRIKE] [I]k[/I]'s Karsten mentioned in an earlier reply.

Edit: I just imported it, with the history filled in based on [I]k[/I]=2171, under the assumption that most of it was the same.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for the link. It looks to me like all of that table could be imported, or what is missing from the [I]Wiki[/I] anyway.

The trap in all of this is not being able to determine what has been tested and what has not, at least for me.