[QUOTE=garambois;629173]Sorry, but I'm not sure I understand the question.
You are asking about the average time to terminate a sequence, is that correct ? Because it varies very much depending on the sequence, but I think you already know that. That makes me assume that I'm misunderstanding the question...[/QUOTE] Thank you for your answer! Going from the time when I wrote that, I think I was already tired. You are correct, I [I]should[/I] know that but had likely a brain fart. Where I wanted to go with this: Maybe newcomers to the project might be afraid a work unit takes too long. But since I do not even know how many potential candidates are there that would like to participate, this worry might be taking it too far. 
To make it very simple :
Sequences of the same parity fast enough if there is no prime 3 in the terms decompositions. Of course, if we start with 130 digits numbers, it is not the same thing as if we start with 170 digits numbers ! It is up to each one to know if he can decompose numbers of 130 or 170 digits and in how much time. Opposite parity sequences : Same remark as before. And it's not the same if the sequence keeps yoyoing, or if it grows very fast if its terms are very "brittle" (I don't know if "brittle" is the right word in English to designate a term which has lots of small prime numbers in the decomposition of its terms ? Perhaps "friable" or "frangible" would be more appropriate ?) And it's not at all the same thing to compute a sequence up to 120 digits or up to 170 digits ! In short : you can compute a sequence in minutes or hours, or in days, weeks or even months ! 
[QUOTE=garambois;629259]To make it very simple :
Sequences of the same parity fast enough if there is no prime 3 in the terms decompositions. Of course, if we start with 130 digits numbers, it is not the same thing as if we start with 170 digits numbers ! It is up to each one to know if he can decompose numbers of 130 or 170 digits and in how much time. Opposite parity sequences : Same remark as before. And it's not the same if the sequence keeps yoyoing, [B]or if it grows very fast if its terms are very "brittle" (I don't know if "brittle" is the right word in English to designate a term which has lots of small prime numbers in the decomposition of its terms ?[/B] Perhaps "friable" or "frangible" would be more appropriate ?) And it's not at all the same thing to compute a sequence up to 120 digits or up to 170 digits ! In short : you can compute a sequence in minutes or hours, or in days, weeks or even months ![/QUOTE] You can just say it has many small factors, but if you want to describe it like that I think abundant might be a good choice. 
[QUOTE=garambois;629259]Opposite parity sequences : Same remark as before.
And it's not the same if the sequence keeps yoyoing, or if it grows very fast if its terms are very "brittle" (I don't know if "brittle" is the right word in English to designate a term which has lots of small prime numbers in the decomposition of its terms ? Perhaps "friable" or "frangible" would be more appropriate ?) And it's not at all the same thing to compute a sequence up to 120 digits or up to 170 digits ![/QUOTE] [QUOTE=birtwistlecaleb;629294]You can just say it has many small factors, but if you want to describe it like that I think abundant might be a good choice.[/QUOTE] "Abundant" already has a definition ([i]n[/i] is "abundant" if [i]n[/i]'s aliquot sum is greater than [i]n[/i]), so don't use it like that. [i]n[/i] can be called "[I]m[/I]smooth" if [I]all[/I] of its factors are less than [I]m[/I], but I don't think there's a particular term for an [I]n[/I] where just [I]some[/I] factors are less than [I]m[/I]. 
Although still not quite right, perhaps "complex" would describe a term with many factors rather than few.

"Abundant" would actually be a good choice to describe the overall concept you're trying to talk about (not a number with a lot of small factors, but a number with a large aliquot sum relative to the number itself, causing the sequence to accelerate upward). I think that's the more important point, rather than the exact factor form.

Yes, I can say "abundant", that will make the concept and the message clear.
But in French we have the word "friable" which brings a nuance to the word "abundant". The most friable numbers possible are powers of 2. 
[QUOTE=garambois;629350]Yes, I can say "abundant", that will make the concept and the message clear.
But in French we have the word "friable" which brings a nuance to the word "abundant". The most friable numbers possible are powers of 2.[/QUOTE] Wikipedia describes "friable" as synonymous with "smooth", as I defined that term a few posts ago. Powers of 2 are 2smooth (or 2friable), but a full term in an aliquot sequence isn't smooth or friable generally, as it usually has at least one large factor to go along with the small ones, and [I]m[/I]smooth/[I]m[/I]friable numbers need [I]all[/I] of their prime factors to be less than or equal to [I]m[/I]. 
Yes Happy, sorry, you are right.
I was using the word "friable" wrong even in French, I just checked. "Abundant" is more appropriate ! 
Page updated
Many thanks to all for your work ! [URL="https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=629413&postcount=71"]See here[/URL]. 
I think I should've said this earlier, but you didn't add my name code for bases 118 and 129, can you add these soon?

All times are UTC. The time now is 11:37. 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000  2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.