View Single Post
Old 2003-11-03, 15:58   #13
Joe O
 
Joe O's Avatar
 
Aug 2002

10000011012 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by GP2

- The main reason is because it would be of only limited use. It takes a triple-check to definitely determine that a result was erroneous, which means that the erroneous results were often returned years ago, and many of the machines now identified as error-prone are not even in service anymore. By contrast, there are a whole bunch of modern machines currently crunching first-time LL tests that we have little or no information about, because none of their exponents have ever had a double-check.

So, the current list of error-prone machines is mostly useful for identifying which exponents need an early double-check. It's not very useful for determining which modern machines are error-prone (unless those modern machines happen to be set to do double-checking rather than first-time testing).
GP2, Then maybe it is time to change our approach. Could you produce a list of machines that have not had any results double checked? Could you produce lists of exponents, one from each of these machines, that should be double checked as soon as possible? Once these are checked, we would have some idea of the reliability of these machines.
Joe O is offline