Some Somewhat Easier n^i Sequences Available for Termination - Page 82

EdH · 2022-10-01, 16:36

Thanks for the post, Jean-Luc. I'll still hold off adding them to this thread for now.

EdH · 2022-10-01, 20:33

I think I've been successful with my script conversion to use the .elf files, however, as a result I have lost some things, such as the identification of cycles. These will be shown as opens in my scripts, so we'll have to be on the lookout and manually try to keep track of them. Perhaps cycles should be annotated in the n^i thread primarily. Fortunately, they are rare.

My time comparison appears to be only a little slower, but since the db doesn't seem to register any activity, it is well worth the extra time. I will be looking into using the .elfs from now on wherever I can in my scripts.

I have updated post #1 using the new script, but there isn't too much info now (unless that's due to failure of the new script).

gd_barnes · 2022-10-01, 20:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdH

Actually, thinking more about this, Jean-Luc had it reserved by base in the main project and sub-let it to the index 1 effort for that index only. The termination was consequential, so I'm actually thinking we should credit him for any such terminations.

For now, I'm not including 888, 996 or 1264460 in this thread because they haven't been released by Jean-Luc for anything but index 1 work.

I'm currently looking at rewrites for my scipts, so it may be a bit before I update post #1.

All sounds good. Yes, Jean-Luc gets credit for the termination of 996^58.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdH

I haven't been running base 233 in my scripts since it was claimed as reserved, so it won't show up unless I add it manually. I'll add 888, 996 and 1264460 to this thread (even though they don't have tables yet) and credit you with the termination, since you did have it reserved by post. I have the update scripts running right now. This thread's updating takes more work than the index 1 thread, which is now only a couple steps.

That makes sense. Since it's reserved in the main thread and Suika terminated it there, Jean-Luc should pick up the credit for termination from there when doing his updates.

gd_barnes · 2022-10-01, 20:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by garambois

Thank you, it's safer that way.
But if you absolutely insist on already working on these bases, please don't touch the following exponents :
Base 888, even exponents <48, odd exponents <35.
Base 996, even exponents <50, odd exponents <33.
Base 1264460, even exponents <24, odd exponents <17.
No worries for the upper exponents, I didn't do any work on them.

I've been careful to only add a single iteration when working on these in the index 1 thread. Of course the DB workers might add 1-2 more. Everything else when there is a same-parity sequence that I/Ed added 1 iteration to, I take it to it's logical conclusion. That could mean adding just the one or several iterations or even termination.

When new bases are officially added to the page with no reservation, that is when I'll do my typical initialization stuff on all exponents that have had little to no work done on them.

garambois · 2022-10-01, 21:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by gd_barnes

All sounds good. Yes, Jean-Luc gets credit for the termination of 996^58.

That makes sense. Since it's reserved in the main thread and Suika terminated it there, Jean-Luc should pick up the credit for termination from there when doing his updates.

No, no, I did not calculate these sequences.
I have only done work on these bases for the exponents specified above !

gd_barnes · 2022-10-01, 21:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by garambois

No, no, I did not calculate these sequences.
I have only done work on these bases for the exponents specified above !

The reason why we would prefer to give you credit for 996^58 is because when Ed factored it on index 1, it primed on the next index. We put no extra effort into it. These were preliminary bases that you lent to us for one index. But of course it's ultimately up to you how you credit it.

gd_barnes · 2022-10-01, 21:57

48^96 terminates

Only 1 remains on base 48 now!

#10 from the index 1 effort.

Ed, the C135 group you did at index 1 yesterday was a nice group. These last two terminations including 696^56 were from that group.

gd_barnes · 2022-10-02, 01:09

210^66 terminates

A good couple of days for Index 1 splits.

gd_barnes · 2022-10-04, 22:07

137^89 terminates

Our first prime base termination from the index 1 effort, #12 overall.

gd_barnes · 2022-10-05, 12:42

353^51, 53, 55, 57, 59, & 61 terminate

359^51, 53, 55, 57, & 61 terminate

359^59 was terminated by Anonymous.

The only one that I'm still working on for these two new bases is 359^65.

EdH · 2022-10-05, 15:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by gd_barnes

48^96 terminates

Only 1 remains on base 48 now!

#10 from the index 1 effort.

Ed, the C135 group you did at index 1 yesterday was a nice group. These last two terminations including 696^56 were from that group.

I show 48^94 and 48^100 remaining open.

2022-10-05, 12:42	#901
gd_barnes "Gary" May 2007 Overland Park, KS 11,813 Posts	353^51, 53, 55, 57, 59, & 61 terminate 359^51, 53, 55, 57, & 61 terminate 359^59 was terminated by Anonymous. The only one that I'm still working on for these two new bases is 359^65. Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2022-10-05 at 13:13 Reason: 353^65 -> 359^65

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Unexpected termination of PM-1	Miszka	Software	22	2021-11-19 21:36
Easier pi(x) approximation	mathPuzzles	Math	8	2017-05-04 10:58
Would finding a definate Pi value easier if...	xtreme2k	Math	34	2013-09-09 23:54
Aliquot Termination Question - Largest Prime?	EdH	Aliquot Sequences	6	2010-04-06 00:12
A new termination below 100k	10metreh	Aliquot Sequences	0	2010-03-11 18:24

2022-10-01, 16:36	#892
EdH "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns 1010001101111₂ Posts	Thanks for the post, Jean-Luc. I'll still hold off adding them to this thread for now.

2022-10-01, 20:33	#893
EdH "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns 12157₈ Posts	I think I've been successful with my script conversion to use the .elf files, however, as a result I have lost some things, such as the identification of cycles. These will be shown as opens in my scripts, so we'll have to be on the lookout and manually try to keep track of them. Perhaps cycles should be annotated in the n^i thread primarily. Fortunately, they are rare. My time comparison appears to be only a little slower, but since the db doesn't seem to register any activity, it is well worth the extra time. I will be looking into using the .elfs from now on wherever I can in my scripts. I have updated post #1 using the new script, but there isn't too much info now (unless that's due to failure of the new script).

2022-10-01, 21:57	#898
gd_barnes "Gary" May 2007 Overland Park, KS 11,813 Posts	48^96 terminates Only 1 remains on base 48 now! #10 from the index 1 effort. Ed, the C135 group you did at index 1 yesterday was a nice group. These last two terminations including 696^56 were from that group.

2022-10-02, 01:09	#899
gd_barnes "Gary" May 2007 Overland Park, KS 11,813 Posts	210^66 terminates A good couple of days for Index 1 splits.

2022-10-04, 22:07	#900
gd_barnes "Gary" May 2007 Overland Park, KS 11,813 Posts	137^89 terminates Our first prime base termination from the index 1 effort, #12 overall.