mersenneforum.org Aliquot sequences that start on the integer powers n^i
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

2021-03-23, 18:36   #1024
garambois

"Garambois Jean-Luc"
Oct 2011
France

13·47 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by warachwe I tried a few number of exponents on base 7. So far 1987441237556775=3^5 · 5^2 · 7 · 11 · 13 · 17 · 19 · 23 · 29 · 37 · 41 is lowest odd n I found that s(7^n) is abundant, but with primes <105.

WOW !
You have found an abundant one for a base which is a prime number !
Congratulations !
This result is wonderful and makes me dizzy !

Unfortunately, I am completely unable to verify this result with the methods at my disposal.
The size of the exponent is scary and also the fact that you have to consider the prime numbers < 10^5 instead of 10^4.
This slows down the programs very strongly ...

I let Happy's C programs run. We will try to find the smallest possible exponent.
But I am worried when I see the size of your exponent !

2021-03-23, 22:20   #1025
Happy5214

"Alexander"
Nov 2008
The Alamo City

653 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by warachwe I tried a few number of exponents on base 7. So far 1987441237556775=3^5 · 5^2 · 7 · 11 · 13 · 17 · 19 · 23 · 29 · 37 · 41 is lowest odd n I found that s(7^n) is abundant, but with primes <105.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by garambois WOW ! Unfortunately, I am completely unable to verify this result with the methods at my disposal. The size of the exponent is scary and also the fact that you have to consider the prime numbers < 10^5 instead of 10^4. This slows down the programs very strongly ...
@warachwe: Do you have the abundant factors available? We could verify divisibility (by index 1) and abundance using those, as that would be much quicker than dividing by all primes < 10^5. But yes, let's hope for a smaller one too.

2021-03-24, 07:10   #1026
warachwe

Aug 2020

1216 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Happy5214 @warachwe: Do you have the abundant factors available? We could verify divisibility (by index 1) and abundance using those, as that would be much quicker than dividing by all primes < 10^5. But yes, let's hope for a smaller one too.
Code:
3^5 * 19^2 * 29^2 * 31 * 37^2 * 47 * 59 * 83 * 103 * 109 * 131 * 139 * 199 * 223 * 271 * 307 * 419 * 523 * 613 * 647 * 691 * 701 * 757 * 811 * 859 * 1063 * 1093 * 1123 * 1151 * 1231 * 1259 * 1381 * 1429 * 1459 * 1481 * 1483 * 1531 * 1559 * 1567 * 1621 * 1783 * 1873 * 1951 * 2269 * 2377 * 2551 * 2707 * 2801 * 2887 * 2971 * 3061 * 3079 * 3083 * 3109 * 3191 * 3257 * 3307 * 3331 * 3631 * 3727 * 3911 * 4003 * 4051 * 4219 * 4591 * 4621 * 4733 * 4931 * 5347 * 5659 * 5743 * 5851 * 6151 * 6217 * 6271 * 6301 * 6661 * 6917 * 6971 * 7177 * 7411 * 7541 * 7591 * 7867 * 8009 * 8101 * 8263 * 8933 * 9103 * 9109 * 9349 * 10099 * 10531 * 10949 * 11287 * 11311 * 11731 * 12211 * 12301 * 12377 * 12433 * 12547 * 13469 * 14009 * 14251 * 14327 * 14653 * 14821 * 14951 * 15121 * 15319 * 15391 * 15541 * 15661 * 15733 * 15913 * 15991 * 16651 * 16763 * 16831 * 17021 * 17443 * 18451 * 18701 * 19609 * 19927 * 20011 * 20021 * 20359 * 20747 * 20749 * 21737 * 22543 * 22621 * 22679 * 23371 * 25117 * 25309 * 26731 * 27551 * 28843 * 29173 * 29251 * 29717 * 31051 * 31081 * 32063 * 32191 * 33151 * 33211 * 33301 * 33967 * 34273 * 35531 * 35671 * 35729 * 35803 * 36671 * 38611 * 39443 * 40591 * 41413 * 42979 * 43291 * 44371 * 46171 * 46399 * 47881 * 48907 * 50923 * 51679 * 51949 * 52027 * 52837 * 52973 * 54367 * 56167 * 56701 * 58631 * 59053 * 59509 * 59671 * 60089 * 60589 * 60611 * 60763 * 62701 * 64091 * 65269 * 65437 * 65551 * 67489 * 67651 * 68311 * 69191 * 69499 * 70111 * 70841 * 71341 * 71707 * 72931 * 73951 * 75401 * 76039 * 76561 * 77141 * 77419 * 78541 * 78737 * 80191 * 81001 * 81901 * 81919 * 84391 * 84457 * 84871 * 86131 * 87211 * 92251 * 94351 * 94771 * 95701 * 97021 * 98533 * 99877
I wrote a program to check for this n only, and then trial factor primes <10^5 on (7n-1)/6.
I am not quite sure with my coding skill. I would really appreciate if someone can double check it.

2021-03-24, 13:26   #1027
Happy5214

"Alexander"
Nov 2008
The Alamo City

28D16 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by warachwe Code: 3^5 * 19^2 * 29^2 * 31 * 37^2 * 47 * 59 * 83 * 103 * 109 * 131 * 139 * 199 * 223 * 271 * 307 * 419 * 523 * 613 * 647 * 691 * 701 * 757 * 811 * 859 * 1063 * 1093 * 1123 * 1151 * 1231 * 1259 * 1381 * 1429 * 1459 * 1481 * 1483 * 1531 * 1559 * 1567 * 1621 * 1783 * 1873 * 1951 * 2269 * 2377 * 2551 * 2707 * 2801 * 2887 * 2971 * 3061 * 3079 * 3083 * 3109 * 3191 * 3257 * 3307 * 3331 * 3631 * 3727 * 3911 * 4003 * 4051 * 4219 * 4591 * 4621 * 4733 * 4931 * 5347 * 5659 * 5743 * 5851 * 6151 * 6217 * 6271 * 6301 * 6661 * 6917 * 6971 * 7177 * 7411 * 7541 * 7591 * 7867 * 8009 * 8101 * 8263 * 8933 * 9103 * 9109 * 9349 * 10099 * 10531 * 10949 * 11287 * 11311 * 11731 * 12211 * 12301 * 12377 * 12433 * 12547 * 13469 * 14009 * 14251 * 14327 * 14653 * 14821 * 14951 * 15121 * 15319 * 15391 * 15541 * 15661 * 15733 * 15913 * 15991 * 16651 * 16763 * 16831 * 17021 * 17443 * 18451 * 18701 * 19609 * 19927 * 20011 * 20021 * 20359 * 20747 * 20749 * 21737 * 22543 * 22621 * 22679 * 23371 * 25117 * 25309 * 26731 * 27551 * 28843 * 29173 * 29251 * 29717 * 31051 * 31081 * 32063 * 32191 * 33151 * 33211 * 33301 * 33967 * 34273 * 35531 * 35671 * 35729 * 35803 * 36671 * 38611 * 39443 * 40591 * 41413 * 42979 * 43291 * 44371 * 46171 * 46399 * 47881 * 48907 * 50923 * 51679 * 51949 * 52027 * 52837 * 52973 * 54367 * 56167 * 56701 * 58631 * 59053 * 59509 * 59671 * 60089 * 60589 * 60611 * 60763 * 62701 * 64091 * 65269 * 65437 * 65551 * 67489 * 67651 * 68311 * 69191 * 69499 * 70111 * 70841 * 71341 * 71707 * 72931 * 73951 * 75401 * 76039 * 76561 * 77141 * 77419 * 78541 * 78737 * 80191 * 81001 * 81901 * 81919 * 84391 * 84457 * 84871 * 86131 * 87211 * 92251 * 94351 * 94771 * 95701 * 97021 * 98533 * 99877 I wrote a program to check for this n only, and then trial factor primes <10^5 on (7n-1)/6. I am not quite sure with my coding skill. I would really appreciate if someone can double check it.
Did you use GMP for this? I tried to retrofit the program I wrote for Jean-Luc by just using the factors you posted, but I actually overflowed GMP with the size of the number. :/ I did verify the abundance of those factors with PARI/GP. If it's not in an unusual language, do you mind posting your code so we can validate that for correctness? It's probably our best chance unless someone has a base 7 Cunningham TF algorithm. It's bigger than even GIMPS's numbers!

 2021-03-24, 14:24 #1028 kruoli     "Oliver" Sep 2017 Porta Westfalica, DE 232 Posts We can do that more efficiently. Since we have $\sigma(p^n)=\sum^{n-1}_{i=0}{p^i}=\frac{p^n-1}{p-1}$ for prime $$p$$, we can check for divisors of $$\sigma(p)$$ as such: compute $$p^n \mod (p - 1) \cdot f$$, where $$f$$ is the factor to be checked. If the result is 1, $$f$$ divides $$\sigma(p^n)$$. Since modular exponentiation is cheap, we can do it extremely fast. Last fiddled with by kruoli on 2021-03-24 at 14:28 Reason: Removed bogus letters. Corrected formula.
2021-03-24, 15:43   #1029
Happy5214

"Alexander"
Nov 2008
The Alamo City

653 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by kruoli We can do that more efficiently. Since we have $\sigma(p^n)=\sum^{n-1}_{i=0}{p^i}=\frac{p^n-1}{p-1}$ for prime $$p$$, we can check for divisors of $$\sigma(p)$$ as such: compute $$p^n \mod (p - 1) \cdot f$$, where $$f$$ is the factor to be checked. If the result is 1, $$f$$ divides $$\sigma(p^n)$$. Since modular exponentiation is cheap, we can do it extremely fast.
Thank you for that, Oliver. Using that formula, I have validated all of warachwe's factors. Program attached.
Attached Files
 powerAbundance2.tar.gz (1.1 KB, 15 views)

 2021-03-24, 19:29 #1030 garambois     "Garambois Jean-Luc" Oct 2011 France 13×47 Posts Thank you very much to you for this validation work ! I will examine all of this carefully so that I too can learn how to do this ...
2021-03-24, 19:37   #1031
Happy5214

"Alexander"
Nov 2008
The Alamo City

28D16 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Happy5214 Thank you for that, Oliver. Using that formula, I have validated all of warachwe's factors. Program attached.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by garambois Thank you very much to you for this validation work ! I will examine all of this carefully so that I too can learn how to do this ...
I missed 37^2 in that program, and it's a mess editing it for each new validation, so I came up with a single program that can be used for any prime power (attached here). You pass the prime base (it only works with primes right now) and the exponent, and include the factors in a file (one per line, exponents OK), and it will check divisibility and abundance at once, and very quickly too.

Edit: 37^2 does divide, according to the new code, so we're OK there.
Attached Files
 verifyPrimePowerAbundance.tar.gz (1.3 KB, 17 views)

Last fiddled with by Happy5214 on 2021-03-24 at 19:42

2021-03-24, 19:53   #1032
warachwe

Aug 2020

2·32 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Happy5214 Did you use GMP for this? I tried to retrofit the program I wrote for Jean-Luc by just using the factors you posted, but I actually overflowed GMP with the size of the number. :/ I did verify the abundance of those factors with PARI/GP. If it's not in an unusual language, do you mind posting your code so we can validate that for correctness? It's probably our best chance unless someone has a base 7 Cunningham TF algorithm. It's bigger than even GIMPS's numbers!
I use the same method that @kruoli point out, and thank you very much for checking those factors.

2021-03-24, 21:08   #1033
henryzz
Just call me Henry

"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)

22×13×113 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Happy5214 I missed 37^2 in that program, and it's a mess editing it for each new validation, so I came up with a single program that can be used for any prime power (attached here). You pass the prime base (it only works with primes right now) and the exponent, and include the factors in a file (one per line, exponents OK), and it will check divisibility and abundance at once, and very quickly too. Edit: 37^2 does divide, according to the new code, so we're OK there.
Does this check primality of the base for using the new formula?

2021-03-24, 21:19   #1034
Happy5214

"Alexander"
Nov 2008
The Alamo City

653 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by henryzz Does this check primality of the base for using the new formula?
Given the name, audience, use case, and lack of actual values to use it on, I figured it was unnecessary. I guess not. I'll add it (which is, what, 4 lines?) when I get back to my main computer tomorrow. Until then, do not pass it a composite base.

Last fiddled with by Happy5214 on 2021-03-24 at 21:20

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post fivemack FactorDB 46 2021-02-21 10:46 schickel FactorDB 18 2013-06-12 16:09 garambois Aliquot Sequences 34 2012-06-10 21:53 Andi47 FactorDB 21 2011-12-29 21:11 schickel mersennewiki 0 2008-12-30 07:07

All times are UTC. The time now is 02:44.

Sat Jun 19 02:44:08 UTC 2021 up 22 days, 31 mins, 0 users, load averages: 2.82, 2.37, 2.18