Talk:Aliquot sequence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Why not use the aliquot sequence of length 5 starting at 12496 instead of the one of length 4 starting at 1264460? (it is the smallest social number.)

Unresolved aliquot sequences for Integers less than 1,000,000[edit]

Two recent updates have reduced the count of the number of integers less than 1,000,000 whose aliquot sequences have not yet been fully determined, from 9446 first to 9445 and then to 9444. I am sure these were good faith edits. However the referenced source [1] still gives a value of 9446. I have reverted the count in the article to 9446 - it is clearly signposted as an "as of" value - and I suggest any updates with more recent statistics should be reliably sourced. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me explain the situation a bit more. I am the leader of an aliquot sequence mini-project being coordinated at this forum, mainly concentrating on the 100000-200000 range. We have found four terminating sequences (in order of discovery, 191430, 163716, 134856 and 151752). I've added the forum as a reference. As far as I know, no-one has emailed Wolfgang Creyaufmuller to tell him about the new terminating sequences, so his page still displays 9446 as the number of openend sequences under 1000000. 10metreh (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you provide some independent validation of those results ? A forum is not really a reliable source and without independent validation these claimed results are original research. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes I can. This is a very useful site for aliquot sequences. To use it, just enter the sequence you want in the "Start with" box, and click "Show". There are other options too. It has the latest status of lots of sequences, including all the four terminating sequences I mentioned. I hope you find it useful. This page gets updated every few weeks and should soon show these sequences (although it only shows 191430 ATM).10metreh (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Both interesting sites, but I still can't see an actual statement of the 9442 count anywhere. I suggest that we restore the count to Creyaufmuller's 9446 figure, mark it as of August 2008, and mention that projects such as yours are working on reducing this count. Anyone who wants to see the latest results can look them up in your forum. If we allow anyone who claims to have found a new terminating sequence to update the count in the article, then we are left with a random, unsourced and meaningless statistic. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It is all becoming a bit confusing. The 9442 is simply derived from the original 9446 minus the 4 new terminating sequences. Wieb Bosma has been working on 250000-400000, and he has found a few terminating sequences. I have no idea whether the 9446 takes account of them or not (and the 9446 figure is September not August, whoever updated it forgot to mention that). Then we have the forum-coordinated project, and the count seems to be decreasing pretty quickly. One thing we can be sure of is the 906 openends below 100000. I'll put the count back to 9446, and mark that September 2008 (not June 2009; although the page was last updated then, the 9446 is known to be out of date). I guess I should get round to emailing Wolfgang soon. Hopefully he'll update his page again soon to take account of the new terminating sequences. I don't think he even knows about my project. 10metreh (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Wolfgang has updated his page, and the count is now shown as 9437 as of July 2009. 10metreh (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)