20190320, 08:37  #188  
"Garambois JeanLuc"
Oct 2011
France
3×227 Posts 
Quote:
The example I propose below with C30 remains valid with C60, or C20. But indeed, the problem is that the file size increases if the number of digits of C is smaller. Example : Let's imagine a known S sequence stored in FactorDB: index 200 : C30 index 1000 : C160 index 1800 : C30 1) I calculate a sequence S_1 on my own computer. This sequence S_1 merges with S at index 190. It is necessary to store the C30 of the index 200 of S, otherwise I have to calculate S_1 until the index 1800 to notice the fusion. It will take weeks ! 2) I calculate a sequence S_2 on my own computer. This sequence S_2 merges with S at index 1790. It is necessary to store the C30 of the index 1800 of S, otherwise, if I have stored in my list only the first C30 of S, I will never notice the merging of S_2 with S. Thanks to this example, I think we have to store all the C30s (or C20s or C60s... according to my choice) for an aliquot OE sequence from FactorDB. Quote:
Quote:
For the reasons explained at the beginning of this post, I think, like kar_bon, that all the C30s (or C20s, or C60s...) in a sequence should be stored to establish the list that will allow us to find mergers efficiently. 

20190324, 10:47  #189 
"Garambois JeanLuc"
Oct 2011
France
3·227 Posts 
OK, page updated.
Thank you to all. My own calculations : 2^492 finished after three weeks of computation on it with 8 threads ! 
20190406, 10:07  #190 
"Garambois JeanLuc"
Oct 2011
France
3·227 Posts 
OK, page updated.
Thank you to all. My own calculations : 2^491 and 2^498 finished ! 
20190409, 10:12  #191 
"Garambois JeanLuc"
Oct 2011
France
681_{10} Posts 
In fact, I believe that in just a few weeks, I could put online an effective database to find aliquot sequence mergers, like Wolfgang Creyaufmuller's old database (http://www.aliquot.de/aliquot.htm#Datenbanken). This database would allow all mergers with all aliquots sequences of the Blue Page to be found, up to 3,000,000.
This database would be a text file like those attached to this post to give two examples (C_60 and C_60_80). The best option should now be chosen : 1) Should only all C60s be stored for each aliquot sequence or only all C80s (or only larger terms) for each aliquot sequences ? (only one file with C_60 for example) 2) Should all C60s and all C80s (and possibly others) be stored separately, like attached file C_60 for example ? (several files for C_60, C_80...) 3) Should all C60s and C80s (and possibly others) be stored on the same page, like attached file C_60_80 for example ? (only one file with C_60, C_80... inside) It would certainly be necessary to update this page at least once a year, which I could do. Do you think this work would be useful for all us ? Do I have to do it and with which options (1, 2 or 3 or another one I wouldn't have thought of ?) 
20190414, 08:58  #192 
"Garambois JeanLuc"
Oct 2011
France
3×227 Posts 
OK, page updated.
Thank you to all. My own calculations : 2^481, 2^483, 2^485, 2^487, 2^489 and 2^490 finished ! This week, I chose aliquot sequences that are easier to calculate ! 
20190423, 15:31  #193 
"Rich"
Aug 2002
Benicia, California
557_{16} Posts 
Drop 439^18

20190428, 13:52  #194 
"Garambois JeanLuc"
Oct 2011
France
3·227 Posts 
OK, page updated.
Thank you to all. My own calculations : 3^228, 3^232 and 3^236 up to 120 digits. 
20190511, 19:50  #195 
"Garambois JeanLuc"
Oct 2011
France
1251_{8} Posts 
Here are 3 new informations :
1) OK, page updated. Thank you to all. 2) My own calculations : All calculations are completed for base 3 except for 3^108 due to the reported and still uncorrected FactorDB error (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showth...t=19737&page=3 post #25). I now reserve and calculate the aliquot sequences of base 5. 3)Excuse me, but a few weeks ago, I realized that I told some big nonsense in post #188 on this page in example 1). If I store only the last C30 of the known S sequence on FactorDB, that is enough. If the sequence S_1 meets S at index 190, then FactorDB will suddenly give me all the terms of S_1 until the last known term of the already known on FactorDB aliquot sequence S. Then I just have to consider the last C30 of S_1 to identify the already known fusion sequence S. It seemed reasonable to me to store all the latest C80s (rather than C_30s) of all known OpenEnd aliquots sequences up to 3,000,000. You can find this work here : https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=24423 
20190602, 09:50  #196 
"Garambois JeanLuc"
Oct 2011
France
1251_{8} Posts 
OK, page updated.
Thank you to all. My own calculations : The calculations for base 5 will be completed in a few weeks. 
20190706, 08:19  #197 
"Garambois JeanLuc"
Oct 2011
France
3×227 Posts 
Page updated.
Thank you to all for your help ! My own calculations : 1) All aliquot sequences in base 5 have been calculated up to 120 digits. 2) I now reserve base 7. 3) I also hope to complete all calculations from base 2 up to 2^500 during the summer. But the calculations are very long ! Soon there will only be green cells in the table of base 2 ! I was hoping to find the "rare beast" : a power of 2 that would have been OpenEnd ! It may be for a few years from now, when I will extend the calculations to 2^600.... 
20190806, 20:06  #198 
"Alexander"
Nov 2008
The Alamo City
2^{3}×5×19 Posts 
I have finished 21^i up to i=30 and am releasing up to that point. I'll continue from i=32 (i=31 terminates) after I clear some of my <3M backlog.

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Broken aliquot sequences  fivemack  FactorDB  46  20210221 10:46 
Broken aliquot sequences  schickel  FactorDB  18  20130612 16:09 
A new theorem about aliquot sequences  garambois  Aliquot Sequences  34  20120610 21:53 
poaching aliquot sequences...  Andi47  FactorDB  21  20111229 21:11 
New article on aliquot sequences  schickel  mersennewiki  0  20081230 07:07 