mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > FactorDB

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2015-05-13, 16:47   #78
Batalov
 
Batalov's Avatar
 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

9,161 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by axn View Post
...and apparently PFGW's definition of ## is different from factordb's, so it is tagged as composite.
## in FactorDB seems to be known to be incorrect (and of course, any larger number of ##...#s, by extension)
Point in case: 4# is correctly parsed as 6, but then, why is 4## = 210 in FactorDB??
Batalov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-05-13, 18:49   #79
Wick
 
Nov 2012

10010002 Posts
Default

According to the help:

# Primordial (product of all primes below n, postfix)
## Product first n primes (postfix)

4# = 6
4## = 210 (2*3*5*7)
(4#)# = 30

seems correct?

Last fiddled with by Wick on 2015-05-13 at 18:49
Wick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-05-13, 19:23   #80
Batalov
 
Batalov's Avatar
 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

100011110010012 Posts
Smile

1) That's a very "intuitive" design. If you can show how to get this helpful "help"? except as deduced by this comment that it actually exists, and if so, then it just might be at factordb.com/help ... and in fact this page [B]does[/B] exist, in its own world - not linked to any other pages.
2) nobody uses this notation
3) what is 4### then? and why? and what is 4#### -- is it (4##)## ? (((4#)#)#)# ? ((4#)#)## ? ((4##)#)# ?
Batalov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-05-14, 03:23   #81
axn
 
axn's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

7×683 Posts
Default

FWIW, I just put n## in the search box and looked at the series that factordb printed out.

Of course, the problem is that PFGW interprets ## the same way it inteprets !! (multifactorials), i.e. product of every other prime.
Quote:
What we've got here is failure to communicate
axn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-05-14, 03:48   #82
Batalov
 
Batalov's Avatar
 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

9,161 Posts
Default

Yes, the PFGW way makes sense. Using ## for something that cannot be written (easily) in another way makes more sense.
Like the motto of a certain method, “To make the impossible possible, the possible easy, and the easy elegant.”

Using n## for pn# doesn't make impossible possible, or even possible much easier than it is. If 4## is simply 7# and 10## is simply 29#, then what's the economy?
Batalov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-05-14, 04:39   #83
axn
 
axn's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

478110 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Batalov View Post
Using n## for pn# doesn't make impossible possible, or even possible much easier than it is.
Not when we're looking at an individual number, no. But, it does help when looking at series. For example, I believe the two numbers I posted came out of series n##*2^n+/-1.

Anywho... whatever format it internally supports, it needs to standardise that when communicating with external tools (like PFGW).

PS:- From factordb.com home page, if you click on the ? link to the right, you'll get the help link. It has page=0 parameter. There are apparently help pages available for 1 & 2 as well
axn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-05-14, 06:32   #84
Batalov
 
Batalov's Avatar
 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

23C916 Posts
Default

True!

I saw a similar conceptual disconnect at UTM, but in a rare category. I submitted a partition number and all old submissions were in "p(n)" form. But for PFGW, p(n) is the prime number #n, so for a brief moment the prime was deleted (for being too small), then restored again manually by CC.

So, anyway, FactorDB's 10## could be represented as p(10)# in PFGW (and could as well be the same in factorDB, if a prefix function p(n) is implemented).

Let's see. PFGW has these built in: p(n), Phi(n,x), gcd(x,y), F(n), L(n), and also U(n), V(n) (primitive parts of F(n), L(n)); doesn't have numbpart(), or bernfrac(), or some other things, -- for them one can use a bridge from GP to PFGW. FactorDB has only a subset of these.
Batalov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-05-14, 06:42   #85
Antonio
 
Antonio's Avatar
 
"Antonio Key"
Sep 2011
UK

32×59 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wick View Post
According to the help:

# Primordial (product of all primes below n, postfix)
## Product first n primes (postfix)

4# = 6
4## = 210 (2*3*5*7)
(4#)# = 30

seems correct?
Factordb is still inconsistent even with it's own definition.
Consider it's solution to 5# =2*3*5 =30, which should be the same as 4# according to it's definition..
Antonio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-05-14, 07:53   #86
Wick
 
Nov 2012

23×32 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Batalov View Post
1) That's a very "intuitive" design. If you can show how to get this helpful "help"? except as deduced by this comment that it actually exists, and if so, then it just might be at factordb.com/help ... and in fact this page [B]does[/B] exist, in its own world - not linked to any other pages.
2) nobody uses this notation
3) what is 4### then? and why? and what is 4#### -- is it (4##)## ? (((4#)#)#)# ? ((4#)#)## ? ((4##)#)# ?
next to the factorize button on every page there is a ?. If you click it you go here: http://www.factordb.com/help.php?page=0
Wick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-05-27, 15:50   #87
chris2be8
 
chris2be8's Avatar
 
Sep 2009

194610 Posts
Default

Factordb seems unreasonably slow processing primorials. Eg the following two PRPs should be easy to prove prime by N-1 but clicking on Primality gets a LONG wait then an incomplete page as if the attempt to calculate how far factored N-1 is timed out.

26901*115637#+1
27545*115637#+1

Chris
chris2be8 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-08-03, 19:04   #88
Stargate38
 
Stargate38's Avatar
 
"Daniel Jackson"
May 2011
14285714285714285714

10011001012 Posts
Default

What's causing the "err" status on certain numbers? It's breaking 9 of the Aliquot sequences. Here's an example (from 270870):

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000626093582
Stargate38 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A suggestion for factordb. enzocreti FactorDB 0 2018-03-02 09:12
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

All times are UTC. The time now is 17:49.

Sun Nov 29 17:49:22 UTC 2020 up 80 days, 15 hrs, 4 users, load averages: 1.72, 1.91, 1.85

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.