Go Back > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > News

Thread Tools
Old 2019-02-22, 05:09   #1
Feb 2019

102 Posts
Default New Prime? (...NO)

Possible Prime?

M90,xxx,xxx might be a new prime! The admins have been notified and will investigate this result before it can be checked in.

Lucas-Lehmer test: !!!PRIME!!!

Last fiddled with by axn on 2019-02-22 at 05:37 Reason: Hidden the expo.
travisjank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-02-22, 05:39   #2
axn's Avatar
Jun 2003

471610 Posts

I have hidden the exponent. What makes you think you have found a prime? A "No factor" TF result doesn't mean the number is prime.

If you have completed a successful LL test or PRP test and got back a positive result, you can just check that result in to the server.
axn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-02-22, 08:17   #3
moebius's Avatar
Jul 2009

2·3·5·13 Posts

He checked in a 83M ,a 89M and some double check LL-results in to the server today, maybe he is right.........

Last fiddled with by moebius on 2019-02-22 at 08:18
moebius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-02-22, 08:43   #4
preda's Avatar
"Mihai Preda"
Apr 2015

2×647 Posts

I can run a PRP with GpuOwl, expected time about 2days. Please PM me the exponent if desired.
preda is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-02-22, 09:57   #5
Jul 2018

348 Posts

I can also offer verification via CUDALucas in 90 hours.
penlu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-02-22, 11:56   #6
GP2's Avatar
Sep 2003

258110 Posts

Some recent results from TravisJank have mismatches: 49769581, 49867891, 51237019, 55863571, and others have error codes marked Suspect: 88648837, 88735033, 88828589, 88903769.

The machine NG-TJ-P1 has two mismatches, two Suspect unverified results, and two verified good.

The machine NG-BTJ has one mismatch, one Suspect unverified result, and three verified good.

The machine DV-ROG has one mismatch, one Suspect unverified result, and one verified good.

Several other machines have clean track records.

Which machine found the possible prime?

Last fiddled with by GP2 on 2019-02-22 at 12:04
GP2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-02-22, 15:31   #7
kriesel's Avatar
Mar 2017
US midwest

2×2,311 Posts
Default confirmation time

If I recall correctly, confirmation run durations were of order 2 days to a bit under a day depending on hardware and software combination last time, for 82589933. Scaling to 90M, on same hardware and software, by p2.12, aspiring confirmation testers would need to have validly estimated run times of under about 2.4 days (~58 hours) to be competitive.
The fft file generated by CUDALucas 2.06 May 5 2017 build for an NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti contains
(fftl(K) max exponent ms/iter)
5184 95507747 3.5816
so running a 90M LL (without Jacobi check; none implemented yet in CUDALucas) would take about 89.5 hours.

Best timing I have for gpuowl is V6.2, 4.206ms on an AMD RX480 at 5 M fft length, corresponding to a bit over 105. hours. (This would have a Gerbicz check so would be quite reliable.)

Dual-Xeon-e5-2670: 4.43 msec/iter in prime95 V29.4b8, so 110.75 hours.

I'd be willing to run verifications on any of these, but based on timings, it looks like I'm not in the running for confirmation of suspected primes.
I'd be happy to run a DC on a suspected false positive, on any of the above.

Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2019-02-22 at 16:07
kriesel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-02-22, 15:51   #8
6809 > 6502
Uncwilly's Avatar
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

210468 Posts

George thinks the chances are this is a bad compile of a GPU program. He has gotten the save file from the OP and other info. Enjoy your weekend, nothing to see here.
Uncwilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-02-22, 16:06   #9
P90 years forever!
Prime95's Avatar
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL

713910 Posts

Sorry, Travis. I just looked at the save file in a text editor and it appears to be all zeroes.

Please use the latest CudaLucas (which may be marked Beta) (2.06??), it is supposed to detect this problem. I have no idea why this important fix never made it into the production version.
Prime95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-02-22, 16:41   #10
ATH's Avatar
Dec 2003

23·7·53 Posts

Yeah, you need to use CUDALucas "Beta" 2.06:

Last fiddled with by ATH on 2019-02-22 at 16:41
ATH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-02-22, 17:11   #11
ET_'s Avatar
Aug 2002
Team Italia

12A016 Posts

Originally Posted by ATH View Post
Yeah, you need to use CUDALucas "Beta" 2.06:
Is there a 2.06 beta for Linux (or at least source code to compile)?
ET_ is online now   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
(M48) NEW MERSENNE PRIME! LARGEST PRIME NUMBER DISCOVERED! dabaichi News 571 2020-10-26 11:02
How does one prove that a mersenne prime found with CUDALucas is really prime? ICWiener Software 38 2018-06-09 13:59
Twin Prime Days, Prime Day Clusters cuBerBruce Puzzles 3 2014-12-01 18:15
disk died, prime work lost forever? where to put prime? on SSD or HDD? emily PrimeNet 3 2013-03-01 05:49
How do I determine the xth-highest prime on prime pages? jasong Data 7 2005-09-13 20:41

All times are UTC. The time now is 11:51.

Wed Oct 28 11:51:25 UTC 2020 up 48 days, 9:02, 1 user, load averages: 1.41, 1.78, 1.78

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.