![]() |
![]() |
#122 | |
"Garambois Jean-Luc"
Oct 2011
France
859 Posts |
![]()
OK, thanks to kar_bon and VBCurtis !
Page updated. My own calculations : 3^150, 3^174, 3^176 and 3^182 up to 120 digits. Quote:
But I think I'll leave it like that. That way, I'll see when the error is corrected by Syd. How did you find this error ? You downloaded all the .elf files and checked if the prime factors were the right ones ? You verified only for n=2 and n=3, right ? Has the verification for the n>3 not yet been done ? I will try to write a Sage program to continue the checks for n>3. I think I can write this program, but DB will cut the data transmission too massive and I will certainly have to do the checks in several steps... Last fiddled with by garambois on 2018-12-22 at 08:26 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#123 |
Mar 2006
Germany
24·5·37 Posts |
![]()
As you remember. I've made a copy of "SEQAll.txt" to "SEQAll1.txt" by the script, to find differences from the last update. Checking this after downloading all open seqs and running the read-script, I compared them (easy by TotalCommander). I noticed the index of the older entry was higher than the current one, so I had a closer look at it.
Sure the perfect way to check everything is to download and check all elf-files from FactorDB. I think there're other errors like this, perhaps not for your project but not for sure. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#124 |
"Garambois Jean-Luc"
Oct 2011
France
859 Posts |
![]()
Thanks kar_bon !
I spent several hours writing an independent program to check the aliquots sequences on FactorDB. And my program works very well. It downloads all the .elf files and checks each index of the aliquot sequences and each passage to the next index. I ran the program for each base of the project n^i. The program found only one error on FactorDB : the one already known, 3^108 at index 1575. There are no other error for any base ! I will restart the verification in a few months.... There was no interruption due to FactorDB when the program ran ! ![]() Last fiddled with by garambois on 2018-12-23 at 09:27 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#125 |
Mar 2006
Germany
56208 Posts |
![]()
Great work!
This should be done with all aliqout sequences sometime, to be sure there're no others errors in FactorDB. The worst case could be a false termination/merge that never could be found if nobody is testing the ELF files. Over the last years once in a while there were several false seqs like 3^108. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#126 |
"Garambois Jean-Luc"
Oct 2011
France
859 Posts |
![]()
I could run the program for all aliquots suites from 1 to 10^6.
But, the problem is the time it takes to download .elf files for aliquots sequences. Typically, for 251 aliquots sequences (3^i for i from 1 to 251), it took about two hours ! It is therefore not feasible to test for example all aliquots sequences from 1 to 10^6, it would take several months, even a whole year ! And we would have to do the work beyond 10^6 ! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#127 |
Apr 2013
Germany
32·5·7 Posts |
![]()
For the blue page that is tracking progress of sequences <3e6 I modified the aliqueit program to check elf files from FDB when a merger or termination is detected. That way we make sure to only delete sequences from the blue page that are verified mergers or terminations. I thought about running this check for all previously finished sequences where we didn't have this tool available but I hope that such a functionality can be built into FDB directly also to avoid broken sequences like 3^108 that happen regularly when the sequence cache gets rebuild.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#128 |
Romulan Interpreter
"name field"
Jun 2011
Thailand
9,973 Posts |
![]()
@Happy: One of the sequences in base 21 reserved by you merges with some 4-starter which is at ~170 digits, reserved (and worked regularly) by Tom. In fact, none of your sequences seem to progress at all. Were you serious about reservation, or just joking? (like "when I finish the current work" can also be next century
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#129 | |
"Alexander"
Nov 2008
The Alamo City
22·7·29 Posts |
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#130 |
Romulan Interpreter
"name field"
Jun 2011
Thailand
9,973 Posts |
![]()
Hm, sorry if I offended you in any way, I was just making sure that you don't spend your time crunching the 170 digits sequence (as it appeared reserved by you) doubling fivemack's work and wasting your resources - crunching that sequence takes a lot of time, and could justify why there was no progress elsewhere. And of course, if I commented, I could not stop myself of pushing a bit and making a bit of fun. But it was no intention to offend.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#131 |
"Garambois Jean-Luc"
Oct 2011
France
859 Posts |
![]()
OK, updated web page.
My own calculations: 3^166, 3^172, 3^180, 3^184 and 3^186 up to 120 digits. @LaurV I noticed that you calculated 4 aliquot sequences over 140 digits ! It's a huge job ! ![]() Have you checked, however, that there is no merges with other aliquot sequences ? Thank you all ! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#132 |
Romulan Interpreter
"name field"
Jun 2011
Thailand
9,973 Posts |
![]()
I was actively working bases 6 and 28 over the holiday, and didn't stop yet. No merges popped up, beside those 3 already shown in your site, and you will remark that I reserved those 3 too on the aliquot reservation thresd (and on the blue page, all 3 were unreserved). I currently have 20 cores on base 28, 10 of them crunching "from the end" and 10 crunching from the beginning of the table.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Broken aliquot sequences | fivemack | FactorDB | 46 | 2021-02-21 10:46 |
Broken aliquot sequences | schickel | FactorDB | 18 | 2013-06-12 16:09 |
A new theorem about aliquot sequences | garambois | Aliquot Sequences | 34 | 2012-06-10 21:53 |
poaching aliquot sequences... | Andi47 | FactorDB | 21 | 2011-12-29 21:11 |
New article on aliquot sequences | schickel | mersennewiki | 0 | 2008-12-30 07:07 |