![]() |
![]() |
#584 |
"Daniel Jackson"
May 2011
14285714285714285714
769 Posts |
![]()
I send Syd an e-mail about restoring the numbers that used the % operator. Hopefully he does so.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#585 |
Romulan Interpreter
"name field"
Jun 2011
Thailand
1028810 Posts |
![]()
Removing that %25 has nothing to do with factorDB, but with how links are parsed, the % is used to insert special characters (like space, comma, slash, etc) in links, and probably, it is parsed correctly.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#586 |
"Daniel Jackson"
May 2011
14285714285714285714
14018 Posts |
![]()
I'm talking about broken links, like this one: http://www.factordb.com/index.php?id...00000835451351 (it should output ((2^607-5393219031728128)/10^16) mod (10^161), but comes up blank). Why did Syd remove them?
Last fiddled with by Stargate38 on 2022-11-10 at 15:27 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#587 | |
Jul 2003
So Cal
2×33×72 Posts |
![]() Quote:
http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000003950159299 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#588 |
"Alexander"
Nov 2008
The Alamo City
22×5×72 Posts |
![]()
I was the one who initially brought the issue regarding the modulo operator (and the related buggy entries) to Markus's attention back in June. But his response at the time seemed to indicate that he was going to try to fix the term optimizer, delete buggy entries, and keep the ultimately fixed modulo operator, rather than remove the modulo operator altogether. But surely there are better (and less redundant) ways to represent these numbers than with the modulo operator, right?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#589 |
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
3×7×263 Posts |
![]()
Well this is annoying! If I upload a large .elf, my reward is a 60-minute Time-Out!"
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#590 |
"Daniel Jackson"
May 2011
14285714285714285714
769 Posts |
![]()
It seems that the DB has been flooded with a ton of numbers in the 63-71 digit range. They're slowing down the PRP workers so that numbers that would normally be proven automatically (i.e. <300 digits) are stuck as PRPs. Unfortunately, the DB doesn't support certificate submission for such smaller PRPs.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#591 |
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
3×7×263 Posts |
![]()
Here are a couple of interesting entries. Both are PRP by status and both have Primo certificates:
http://www.factordb.com/index.php?id...00003766500498 Last fiddled with by EdH on 2022-12-31 at 23:51 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#592 | |
"99(4^34019)99 palind"
Nov 2016
(P^81993)SZ base 36
47×79 Posts |
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#593 |
Feb 2012
Paris, France
101000102 Posts |
![]()
((2^4459-1)*2^4458+1)/7492772347 (2675 digits) appears as PRP but has a verified certificate.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#594 | |||
"99(4^34019)99 palind"
Nov 2016
(P^81993)SZ base 36
47·79 Posts |
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last fiddled with by sweety439 on 2023-01-03 at 10:28 |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A suggestion for factordb. | enzocreti | FactorDB | 24 | 2022-11-17 07:20 |
Extending Factordb | carpetpool | FactorDB | 6 | 2017-01-23 11:04 |
FactorDB PRP's | smh | FactorDB | 231 | 2015-07-28 02:30 |
bugged sequence in factordb | firejuggler | Aliquot Sequences | 2 | 2010-06-15 14:03 |
FactorDB question | Raman | Factoring | 15 | 2010-01-28 10:24 |