mersenneforum.org Off-topic
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2022-01-16, 17:13 #1 sweety439     "99(4^34019)99 palind" Nov 2016 (P^81993)SZ base 36 1101100000012 Posts Off-topic Like Cunningham table to various bases, is there any interest to factor the numbers similar to Fibonacci numbers A000045? e.g. Pell numbers A000129, 3-Fibonacci numbers A006190, 5-Fibonacci numbers A052918, 6-Fibonacci numbers A005668, etc. (Note: 4-Fibonacci numbers A001076 do not need their own table, since their factorization can be converted to the factorization of the Fibonacci numbers: F(4,n) = F(1,3*n)/2, like that the perfect power bases do not need their own Cunningham table. The k-Fibonacci number do not need their own table if and only if A013946(k) is the same as a previous term, like that b^n+-1 do not need their own Cunningham table if and only if A052410(b) is the same as a previous term) Last fiddled with by sweety439 on 2022-01-16 at 17:19
 2022-02-01, 06:35 #2 sweety439     "99(4^34019)99 palind" Nov 2016 (P^81993)SZ base 36 66018 Posts Some sequences like the Motzkin numbers A001006: * Fubini numbers A000670: For n<=12000, a(n) is prime only for n = 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 13, see A290376 * Bell numbers A000110: For n<=100000, a(n) is prime only for n = 2, 3, 7, 13, 42, 55, 2841, see A051130 * Euler zigzag numbers A000111: For n<=69574, a(n) is prime only for n = 3, 4, 6, 38, 454, 510, see A103234 (for odd n, a(n) is even, thus the only prime is a(3) = 2) There are only very few primes in these four sequences, unlike the Fibonacci numbers A000045, the Pell numbers A000129, the Jacobsthal numbers A001045, the Perrin numbers A001608, the Padovan numbers A000931, the Narayana numbers A000930, there are many primes in these six sequences. Can you find the next Fubini (probable) prime after A000670(13) = 526858348381?
2022-02-01, 18:04   #3
mathwiz

Mar 2019

277 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by sweety439 Can you find the next Fubini (probable) prime after A000670(13) = 526858348381?
Why are you asking us? If you're interested, why don't you search for them?

2022-02-01, 19:52   #4
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502

"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

10,607 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mathwiz Why are you asking us? If you're interested, why don't you search for them?
You are free to ignore any posts in this subforum. It will make your life easier.

2022-02-04, 05:50   #5
tuckerkao

"Tucker Kao"
Jan 2020

10111001012 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mathwiz Why are you asking us? If you're interested, why don't you search for them?
This thread is under Blogorrhea which has been more of the personal space granted to sweety439, just in case you don't know, sweety439 also enjoys to play around the dozenal math stuffs.

Last fiddled with by tuckerkao on 2022-02-04 at 05:53

2022-02-04, 06:40   #6
Batalov

"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

27·7·11 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by tuckerkao This thread is under Blogorrhea ...
...but he didn't post here.
He posted in completely irrelevant threads - and mods (plural!) moved his non-sequiturs here.

2022-02-04, 10:58   #7
sweety439

"99(4^34019)99 palind"
Nov 2016
(P^81993)SZ base 36

1101100000012 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by charybdis I don't know if this is the same issue that you were having, but the DB is being flooded. Someone is adding millions of 4x-digit numbers, many of the form 10^46+n, along with their factorizations, and there is now a backlog of millions of unproved small PRPs which is preventing other PRPs from being proved. I've dropped Markus an email. If the user responsible happens to be reading this forum, please could you stop?
How to (use bot to) add many numbers in a sequence to factordb? I want to add Bell(n), Euler(n), Pell(n), Tribonacci(n), BronzeFibonacci(n), Tetranacci(n), Perrin(n), Padovan(n), Narayana(n), Fubini(n), Motzkin(n), Wolstenholme(n), !(n), A(n), K(n), A000522(n), Partition(n), DistinctPartition(n), Sm(n), SmWl(n), RSm(n), RSmWl(n), and A000521(n) in factordb, for all 1<=n<=10000 (Sm(n) and SmWl(n) and RSm(n) and RSmWl(n) include their analog in bases 2<=b<=36), also the first n digits for many mathematical constants (pi, e, gamma, sqrt(2), ln(2), golden ratio, ...) in bases 2<=b<=36 for all 1<=n<=10000

(I try to use Autofill for this, but no success, for the options, I selected "JavaScript" for type and typed these texts for value:

Code:
var x = document.querySelector('input[name="query"]');
x.value = '123';
document.querySelector('[type="submit"][value="Factorize!"]').click();

var y = document.querySelector('input[name="query"]');
y.value = '456';
document.querySelector('[type="submit"][value="Factorize!"]').click();

var z = document.querySelector('input[name="query"]');
z.value = '789';
document.querySelector('[type="submit"][value="Factorize!"]').click();
(I will use PARI/GP program to change "123" and "456" and "789" to the Bell numbers, the Euler zigzag numbers, the Fubini numbers, etc. (my PARI/GP programs can compute them, and can print the codes) also all right-truncatable primes in bases 2<=b<=90 and all known minimal primes in bases 2<=b<=50 (both datas are available online), and change the variables "x" and "y" and "z" to "x1", "x2", "x3", ...)

but why the factordb only enters 789 to factorize, and does not enter 123 and 456?)

Last fiddled with by sweety439 on 2022-02-04 at 11:12

2022-02-04, 21:09   #8
mathwiz

Mar 2019

277 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Uncwilly You are free to ignore any posts in this subforum. It will make your life easier.
The question was honest and non-rhetorical.

I am wondering why OP does not test these sequences {him,her}self. Or, if for a lack of compute resources: why are they important enough that others should test them?

 2022-02-04, 21:20 #9 Uncwilly 6809 > 6502     """"""""""""""""""" Aug 2003 101×103 Posts 10,607 Posts There are theoretical physics and there are experimental ones. Just maybe the person in question leans to the theoretical end of maths.
2022-02-04, 23:00   #10
tuckerkao

"Tucker Kao"
Jan 2020

10111001012 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mathwiz The question was honest and non-rhetorical. I am wondering why OP does not test these sequences {him,her}self. Or, if for a lack of compute resources: why are they important enough that others should test them?
Sweety439 may just have his own favorite preference digging into certain areas which aren't important to other people at all.

I saw a mechanical product online recently and it showed the product number of 48-53-2837 - https://www.pinterest.com/pin/501236633550226758/

So I've decided that I want to run a PRP test of 248,532,837 - 1 myself(This exponent is a decimal composite but a dozenal prime with a different interpretation), my reason won't be good enough to convince anyone else, glad I have to plenty computing resources under my roof to finish it without bothering Kriesel again.

Last fiddled with by tuckerkao on 2022-02-04 at 23:04

2022-02-04, 23:07   #11
paulunderwood

Sep 2002
Database er0rr

24·263 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by tuckerkao So I've decided that I want to run a PRP test of 248,532,837 - 1 myself(This exponent is a decimal composite but a dozenal prime with a different interpretation), my reason won't be good enough to convince anyone else, glad I have to plenty computing resources under my roof.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post kriesel kriesel 6 2021-01-16 16:31 robert44444uk Lounge 3 2019-03-05 08:51 R.D. Silverman Math 68 2015-11-15 04:21 coffee1054 Lounge 7 2012-02-17 03:38 Pjetro Hardware 11 2002-11-04 21:00

All times are UTC. The time now is 22:58.

Thu Jun 30 22:58:09 UTC 2022 up 77 days, 20:59, 0 users, load averages: 1.03, 1.06, 1.16