20060409, 22:17  #1 
"Jason Goatcher"
Mar 2005
DB3_{16} Posts 
Is there a simple way to track progress in Odd Perfect Number search?
Is there a simple way of tracking OPN progress? Not necessarily live, but it would be nice to know how much is being accomplished.
What would be really great, although not necessarily desired by an ecm server owner, would be a script that downloads basic information from the server, I'm guessing a small file. And then, either another program that can interpret it, or written instructions on how to interpret. And, yes, I am trying to get a life. And, no, the attempt is not going the way I'd like. 
20060410, 11:10  #2  
Nov 2003
1110100100100_{2} Posts 
Quote:
ZERO. This will be the permanent status. 

20060410, 15:05  #3 
Jul 2004
Potsdam, Germany
3·277 Posts 
So you've finally found a strong heuristic (or even a proof) that supports your claim?
btw.: You've misread his question. He asked about the progress of the project "OPN", not (your opinion of) the project's progress in finding an OPN. Last fiddled with by Mystwalker on 20060410 at 15:12 
20060410, 16:52  #4  
Nov 2003
2^{2}×5×373 Posts 
Quote:
Progress will always remain at zero until one is found. Then progress will jump to '1'. I leave it to others to decide the likelihood of the latter happening. As for heuristics, Carl Pomerance has already given one. We also have an algorithm (Brent) which allows us to keep raising the bound. There is no theoretical reason why this algorithm can't keep being repeatedly applied. Of course, it becomes computationally prohibitive, but that is a practical obstacle, not a theoretical one. 

20060410, 17:13  #5 
May 2003
1547_{10} Posts 
R.D. Silverman,
With all due respect, I think you are the one who is missing the point. By "tracking OPN progress" it is probable that the initial poster meant something along the lines of "progress of the ECMwork for factorizations in the OPN project" or "number of factorizations left until the bound has been raised to >10^500." Finding an actual OPN would be an unexpected and wonderful thing, but the main purpose of the OPN project is to factor Cunningham numbers (with the side benefit of the very small possibility of an OPN popping out of the work). Sincerely, ZetaFlux 
20060411, 02:05  #6  
"Jason Goatcher"
Mar 2005
3×7×167 Posts 
Quote:
Before my Linux machine kicked the bucket I could simply look at the screen and see how many curves were left for, for example, 3221^731. At the moment, all I know is that it's at the 55digit level(Linux gives number of curves left, my Windows ecm program does not). Your help is appreciated. 

20060411, 14:14  #7  
Jul 2004
Potsdam, Germany
1477_{8} Posts 
Quote:
Quote:
Depending on the interpretation, it *could* be true if "finding an OPN" was the only goal of the project... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Do you know more than he does? 

20060411, 14:51  #8 
Jul 2004
Potsdam, Germany
3×277 Posts 
btw.:
Could someone move all posts except #1, #6 and part of #5 to a separate thread? This offtopic talk again fills up the thread and makes finding the wanted answer a lot more difficult. Last fiddled with by Mystwalker on 20060411 at 14:52 
20060415, 02:12  #9 
"Jason Goatcher"
Mar 2005
3·7·167 Posts 
I don't want to clutter the boards with my OPN questions, so I'll just put it here.
I don't have the education to understand the math behind the OPN stuff, but I don't think that's necessary for someone to answer my question. Basically, I'm wondering if it's absolutely certain that a factorization will increase the lower bounds, or(and this might deserve to be a second question or topic) is it possible that a future factorization will give us a possible place to search for an OPN? At one point I accessed a web page that explained the type of math used in OPN, but it would probably take me at least 23 weeks to figure everything out, and, unfortunately, I don't even know where to start. 
20060415, 04:44  #10  
"William"
May 2003
New Haven
2361_{10} Posts 
Quote:
http://web.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/work...ub/pub116.html Line 1 says "Suppose there is an odd perfect number divisible by 127, and suppose 127 is raised to the power 2. Then the odd perfect number must be divisible by 3 and 5419 because σ(127^{2})=3 x 5419." Line 2 says "Suppose also that 5419 is raised to the power 2. Then 3, 31, 313, and 1009 must all divide the odd perfect number." The proof continues like this, eventually reaching contradictions and backtracking to the previous assumptions. In principle the proof could, at any time, reach a set of assumptions which actually IS an odd perfect number. Another way of saying this is that the boundary gets raised when we have exhaustively searched all possible ways to make an odd perfect number below the boundary  and there is the possibility that search will succeed. 

20060417, 00:13  #11  
"Jason Goatcher"
Mar 2005
3507_{10} Posts 
Quote:


Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Odd Perfect Number Search  Factoring Project  pinhodecarlos  Forum Feedback  1  20120911 05:11 
How does the Odd Perfect Number search work?  jasong  Math  5  20070414 21:56 
Could a bot be used to help the Odd Perfect Number search?  jasong  Factoring  1  20070413 01:52 
How much work on Odd Perfect Number search?  jasong  GMPECM  5  20070411 03:00 
Search for Mersenne primes by checking for perfect numbers  dsouza123  Miscellaneous Math  33  20030902 16:18 