Turtle Posted September 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 29, 2015 well i figured you'd like to know how large of numbers you're at and 10000 is a fairly good interval. have no idea why your screen would be locking up at that point, works fine for me.if all you want is the hits, simply remove the ... if n%k == 0: print(n) ... Roger the want to know. Since there is no evidence of there being other abundant by 3s it might be handy to know where I am at. But then, since it locks and stops displaying it isn't helping. I will note that the banner of the Python box -remember I'm using Portable Python from a thumb drive- says (not responding) when the lock occurs, but that happens with your other code I have been running too. That code though prints to files and not the output box and it is working even if the banner says (not responding). I also know where to change the start point in your old code I'm using which is important because I do have to shut down from time to time to satisfy the demands of Windows. Oh well; perhaps it's too much trouble pestering you just to satisfy my curiosity. :shrug: Thanks for trying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phillip1882 Posted September 29, 2015 Report Share Posted September 29, 2015 just out of morbid curiosity, try putting inwhere have n = 2, n = 100000. if its portable python the problem may be the flash drive byte space. if so i may know a work around but it wont allow you to go a whole lot higher. Turtle 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted September 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 29, 2015 just out of morbid curiosity, try putting in where have n = 2, n = 100000. if its portable python the problem may be the flash drive byte space. if so i may know a work around but it wont allow you to go a whole lot higher.OK, but will have to wait a bit now. I actually have 2 thumbies running the old code, each at a different starting point. (6*10^12 and 7*10^12 respectively) Both are 16gig drives so I don't think space is a problem. Anyway, since I shut one down to try this new code I went ahead and shut the other down and did a restart that Windows prompts me for once a week and I ignore once a week. After the restart I went back to both running the old code. Hold on for new try.... I did try the new code again before the shutdown and it output to 110000 that time before locking the display. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted September 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 29, 2015 just out of morbid curiosity, try putting inwhere have n = 2, n = 100000. if its portable python the problem may be the flash drive byte space. if so i may know a work around but it wont allow you to go a whole lot higher.OK tried the substitution and it ran to 180000 before locking up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phillip1882 Posted September 29, 2015 Report Share Posted September 29, 2015 hmm. doesn't sound like a byte size problem then. alright turtle for you, I'll run the code up to 10 billion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted September 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2015 (edited) hmm. doesn't sound like a byte size problem then. alright turtle for you, I'll run the code up to 10 billion.10-4. Thnx P. :) PS I just have to harp again on not finding any mention of abundant by 3, particularly when abundant by 1 and 2 have received considerable attention. Here's from my OP: ...Quasiperfect number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. No quasiperfect numbers have been found so far, but if a quasiperfect number exists, it must be an odd square number greater than 1035 and have at least seven distinct prime factors. Not sure how those conditions were established, but have to wonder if we could say anything similar for abundant by 3. Clearly 18 is not odd, but then if...and the... Edited September 30, 2015 by Turtle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phillip1882 Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 (edited) running the code for about 3 days now and I'm at roughly 500,000,000. Edited October 1, 2015 by phillip1882 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted October 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 running the code for about 3 days now and I'm at roughly 500,000,000.Go dog go! :dogwalk: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phillip1882 Posted October 3, 2015 Report Share Posted October 3, 2015 after a little over 6 days hit my first billion, no luck so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted October 4, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 after a little over 6 days hit my first billion, no luck so far.Seems to me it shouldn't be that slow. ? You're doing a simpler process than your code I'm using to find multiplicities and that code is cranking through ~6 billion a day. :computerkeys: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phillip1882 Posted October 4, 2015 Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 it's about 10000 per second. 600,000 per minute, 36,000,000 per hour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted October 4, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 it's about 10000 per second. 600,000 per minute, 36,000,000 per hour.10-4. Just checked your other code for polygonal multiplicities that I'm running and get:66,666 per second4 million per minute240 million per hour5 billion 760 million per day Not sure if you can do on a single hard-drive what I'm doing with the thumbies, which is running 2 copies simultaneously from different starting points making my effective work done twice what I just cited. I.e. about 11 billion served per day. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phillip1882 Posted October 5, 2015 Report Share Posted October 5, 2015 okay tutrle tried giving it a shot. runing two sintaces of the code. its about 10% slower but still functioning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phillip1882 Posted October 11, 2015 Report Share Posted October 11, 2015 reached 2 billion a couple days ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted October 11, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2015 okay tutrle tried giving it a shot. runing two instances of the code. its about 10% slower but still functioning.A good gain then. :) reached 2 billion a couple days ago.According to my research, a new record. You've earned a cookie! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phillip1882 Posted October 12, 2015 Report Share Posted October 12, 2015 i'm taking today to see if i can get the code to run really fast. so maybe a day later than expected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phillip1882 Posted October 12, 2015 Report Share Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) okay got it. much faster code, I'm now down to 1,000,000 every 3 seconds. should reach my goal of 10 billion by tommorow Edited October 12, 2015 by phillip1882 Turtle 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.