Requests for change...

[WraithX]

Syd has created a wonderful resource with the factordb. I find myself using it quite often. I also occasionally think, what if it also did X? Where X is some feature we'd like to see. I don't think every idea in the world can be implemented, but maybe there are a few that we would like to see, and perhaps even Syd would be willing to implement. I think it'd be good to have one place to gather all these ideas and keep track of what may or may not be implemented.

I don't think we should gather database problems/errors in this thread, we could perhaps start a new thread for that.

Syd, if you think this is a bad idea, we can lock this thread up and throw away the key. But, if you're willing to entertain our flights of fancy, we'd be interested to hear your thoughts on any of the suggestions below.

[WraithX]

I've been looking at the ECM results page and was wondering:
1) Can we sort the results by the actual factor? [Right now it is sorted by 1) Number of digits in a factor, then by 2) Date submitted]
2) Can you show what number a particular factor came from?
3) Can you show who actually found the factor? (Not just the name of who submitted it)
(I've submitted most of the large ones, but I'd like to give proper attribution to the finder of the factor)
4) Would it be possible to add a link to some of these factors? The purpose of the link would be to direct someone to a web page
that has a detailed break-down of how a particular factor was found.

5) Also, would it be possible to add special pages that detailed other factorization types? Like maybe SNFS, GNFS, SIQS, CFRAC, QS, MPQS, RHO, and other factorization types too?
I'm not sure what the new page(s) should look like. Maybe for column headings we could have:
Method - SNFS, GNFS, MPQS, QS, SIQS, CFRAC, RHO, etc (maybe combine this with ECM, P-1, P+1?)
Digits - number of digits in the factor
Factor - actual value of the factor
From - what number this factor comes from. hopefully this can be a short representation, like 2^1234-1, or RSA-129, or HP49(100), or...
Software - ggnfs, msieve, yafu, etc (maybe with version number if available?)
When - the date the factor was first found/reported
Who - Person/Group that found the factor
Link - a link to extra info if available

I hope I haven't opened the flood gates on you, but I've been wanting to ask about some of these things for a while now. When you have time, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on these suggestions.

[rekcahx]

My wishlist:

1. Valid html code (including descriptive title for each page): Reason: easier to parse and easier to find correct page/tab is there is factordb pages open.

2. Also field "End value" to variable search. Reason: Easier to control what search returns.

3. Possibility to "non ajax/javascript" links. Reason: sometimes is javascript is disabled or http client does not support javascript at all.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by WraithX

I've been looking at the ECM results page and was wondering:
1) Can we sort the results by the actual factor? [Right now it is sorted by 1) Number of digits in a factor, then by 2) Date submitted]
2) Can you show what number a particular factor came from?
3) Can you show who actually found the factor? (Not just the name of who submitted it)
(I've submitted most of the large ones, but I'd like to give proper attribution to the finder of the factor)

For the Cunningham project, all of this is available on Sam Wagstaff's
web pages. You will have to sort the data yourself, but that is trivial.

4) Would it be possible to add a link to some of these factors?

I have no idea what this means.

The purpose of the link would be to direct someone to a web page
that has a detailed break-down of how a particular factor was found.

The ECMNET keeps info on the B1 limit and sigma value. What more
do you require? The Cunningham, Brent's pages, the homogeneous Cunningham's, The Fibonacci/Lucas pages etc. all specify the method.
What do you mean by "detailed break down"?

5) Also, would it be possible to add special pages that detailed other factorization types? Like maybe SNFS, GNFS, SIQS, CFRAC, QS, MPQS, RHO, and other factorization types too?

What does "detailed other factorization types" mean??? If you want the
algorithms, read the Crandall & Pomerance book. (and Riesel's book and
Bressoud's book). I can't imagine anyone now publishing factors that
are found by RHO, etc.

I'm not sure what the new page(s) should look like. Maybe for column headings we could have:
Method - SNFS, GNFS, MPQS, QS, SIQS, CFRAC, RHO, etc (maybe combine this with ECM, P-1, P+1?)
Digits - number of digits in the factor

Can't you count the digits yourself???

Factor - actual value of the factor

What does "actual value of " mean? As opposed to just "factor" What
pages/tables report a factorization without giving the factor(s)????????

From - what number this factor comes from. hopefully this can be a short representation, like 2^1234-1, or RSA-129, or HP49(100), or...

Where is this info NOT supplied???

Software - ggnfs, msieve, yafu, etc (maybe with version number if available?)

I can't imagine why this would be useful.

When - the date the factor was first found/reported
Who - Person/Group that found the factor

For published factors please tell us where this info is NOT already supplied?

I hope I haven't opened the flood gates on you, but I've been wanting to ask about some of these things for a while now. When you have time, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on these suggestions.

First suggestion: Learn about how the algorithms work.

[wblipp]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

For the Cunningham project,
..
For published factors please tell us where this info is NOT already supplied

Bob,

It's time to take your own advice and do your homework. You are posting in the new forum for the factordb, not the Math forum. You post reveals an utter ignorance of what the factordb is. Please learn enough to make coherent intelligent posts before responding in this forum again.

As a clue, here is a link to the factorization of HP49(100).

The source can be found by chaining upwards on the "More Information" links.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by wblipp

Bob,

It's time to take your own advice and do your homework. You are posting in the new forum for the factordb, not the Math forum.

I replied to a post under the generic "factoring forum" at its topmost
level.

There was no specific reference to the "factordb". That the post was in this new "factordb" sub-forum was hidden.

[WraithX]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

I replied to a post under the generic "factoring forum" at its topmost
level.

There was no specific reference to the "factordb". That the post was in this new "factordb" sub-forum was hidden.

The first sentence of the first post reads:

Syd has created a wonderful resource with the factordb.

And once you are reading a thread, you can see what forum it belongs to at the very top of the thread. I realize the thread title could have been more descriptive, but I created it with the thought that it was under the FactorDB sub-forum.

If you are still interested in the answers to your questions, please let me know and I'd be happy to explain.

[cmd]

can see factors ordered from major to minor in list ?

i.e.

[IvanP]

My suggestions:

• Also accept temp files by PRIMO.
• Accept all letters as variables (why only b, d, k, n, x, y and z?).
• Correct "Not divisable" to "Not divisible".
• Correct "Primordial" to "Primorial".

[chris2be8]

And composize to composite.

Chris

[f1pokerspeed]

I would like to suggest three ideas for implementation in to the FactorDB:

1) We have a page for the number of primality certificates, why can't we have one for the amount of factors each user has found? I don't suppose it would be a bad thing, would it?

2) Allow the download of, say, up to 2-3,000 numbers without factors to be factored. This would allow the DB to grow a lot faster and become more comprehensive.

3) Get two cores running those certificate checks - they can get stuck for 8-12 hours on a single one and it slows up the queue. If the work was done faster or even allowed to be shipped off to others then the work could be done faster. Or even better, make people upload a validation file with it and save a core for use elsewhere - such as primality testing. I'm sure the CPU cores could rattle through a few thousand tests every day with those sizes of numbers without a status (15k digits = about 1 second, one core = 86,000 tests per day, two cores = 176,000 tests/day) - extending the DB further.