View Single Post
Old 2018-04-20, 01:16   #1497
retina's Avatar
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair

10110111101112 Posts

Originally Posted by GP2 View Post
There is no contradiction here. All exponents below 78 million have been tested at least once.

The entire 77M range is fully first-time tested if every exponent has either been factored, or had at least one non-Suspect LL test done, or had at least one PRP test done. That is already the case, and the range is done.

I counted 35813 exponents that have at least one factor, 18953 exponents that have had at least one non-Suspect LL test done and no PRP tests (including the one Mersenne prime), 156 exponents that have had at least one PRP test done and no LL tests, and 85 exponents that have had both at least one non-Suspect LL test and at least one PRP test.

Finally, there are two exponents 77732573 and 77879497 that have each had one PRP test and one Suspect LL test. Those are the "2" in the LLERR column, but that's just a display anomaly. They have already been cleared by virtue of the PRP test.

The simplest way of resolving the display anomaly is to do early double-checks of those two PRP results, which I have now started. This should shift that "2" into the confirmed composite column.

This sort of thing shouldn't be an issue because going forward there won't be too many more cases of the same exponent having both PRP and LL tests done on it. That was caused by confusion in manual assignments in the early days of gpuOwL implementing PRP testing.

Similarly, the outstanding NO-LL is most likely due to a hung assignment on M77231809. The system seems to think that the first-time PRP assignment is still outstanding, despite the fact that the result was already submitted. No LL test was ever done on this exponent, nor should it be at this point. Again, doing an early PRP double-check will likely resolve the problem, by shifting it into confirmed-composite status. I am poaching this exponent to do that, it's about 25% complete.

The real question, as ATH has pointed out, is why does it show 35812 factored exponents in the 77M range when in fact there are 35813? Maybe Madpoo could check the SQL that produces the report and figure out what's going on.
I think it is wrong to selectively have PRP tests appearing in some places and not others. If a pair of matching PRP tests can put the exponent into the LL-D column, then a single PRP should put an exponent into the LL column. A suspect LL should be moved out of that column if a good PRP is done later.

As it is now there is a lot of confusion about what happens with PRP tests and how they are counted in various places.

It is a little bit more than a "display anomaly", the fundamental handling of PRP tests still needs to be integrated more thoughtfully. Let's get it fixed. I suggest to remove the LL nomenclature and replace it with a clearer testing and/or tested, and similarly LL-D to be verifying/verified. This would better match the chosen wording on the milestones page also. We don't need to mention the implementation details of which test is done.
retina is offline   Reply With Quote