20150723, 05:15  #12 
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
29·113 Posts 
It also occurs to me that we can help resolve the bad/good ratio by looking at the "suspect" results returned by these systems that are now in need of triplechecking.
First off, it's fun to test these singlechecked exponents and find out they were (probably) wrong. That means you might just find a hidden prime. So I get that, and that's one part of this. Second though is to check the ones those machines did so poorly that the error code was bad enough for the server to mark it suspect and hand it out as a "first time check" again. In those cases we can probably guess that the suspect result is bad, when the 2nd residue didn't match, but that's not always the case, odd as it sounds. If we go after those, we're (probably) adding more to the "bad" tally of these computers, which helps identify the ones that are doing lousy. In fact, I had in mind a project I was going to tackle on my own of going after all the 34M exponents that currently need triple checks. There are 281 unassigned exponents needing TCs. Of those, ~ 182 were done by a machine with at least one other known bad residue. Either taking those 182, or the full set of 281, 34M35M exponents that need TC's... well, we'd be doing the needed checks on them anyway, and building up the statistical set at the same time. I *could* do it myself given enough time, but I would love having help. My systems are doing a mix of some of these targeted checks, but I'm also going through *all* of the exponents where Curtis did both a 1st and 2nd check but mismatched. I figured I'd help his team out by figuring out which one was good/bad. That'll take me another couple weeks to complete, I think (there were quite a few). Sound interesting? 
20150723, 05:19  #13 
Jul 2003
So Cal
2^{2}·3^{3}·19 Posts 
I took the first 8:
Test=34654643,71,1 Test=34665307,71,1 Test=34665871,71,1 Test=34671661,71,1 Test=34682537,71,1 Test=34683613,71,1 Test=34686947,71,1 Test=34691149,71,1 I'll also switch my ~1000 GHzday/day of TF over to this once my current assignment expires. 
20150723, 05:21  #14  
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
6315_{8} Posts 
Quote:
For instance, M34670303, M34757869, M34764817 etc. These are great because we know one way or another we're increasing the "good" count of one and the "bad" of another, which help both systems "reliability scores". 

20150723, 05:48  #15  
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
CCD_{16} Posts 
Quote:
M34919821 The "suspect" result was returned by a machine that has done 15 bad, 12 good, 11 unknown, and 24 suspect results. 15 to 12 for the bad/good ratio isn't great, but since I was initially targeting higher ratios than that, I wouldn't focus on this right away. Resolving a few more of those unknown or suspect results would help one way or another, to either exclude them or pull them into the query. 4 of those unknown/suspect are under 35M. Assuming the < 35M stuff goes well and people enjoy doing that kind of triplechecking work, it could go on to higher ranges too. There's no shortage of exponents below 58M needing triplechecks where an "iffy" machine provided one of the results. 1049, give or take (based on a metric of the current "bad > good*0.5" for the systems). I mean, you get some real doozies like: M44880113 No disrespect at all towards ArtfulDodger, but his systems are some that I've been deliberately doing triplechecks on already for a while. I id'd those machines months ago as some of the more prolific contributors of bad residues. The system in that case has 110 bad results, 17 good ones, 3 unknown, and 20 suspect. That's just not a good track record, and it's done so much work that it seems really weird to me for some reason. My analogy I just came up with (so it won't be that great) is like a window washer who spent all this time cleaning a high rise, only to finish and realize he'd been using oil instead of soap and water. In fact that might be a good case study to look at the distribution of good/bad over time to see if there's any sort of pattern. But I digress. It's late... my wind tends to wander. Or we might find ones like: M41732771 Here's a case of a machine with just 1 known bad result, zero good or unknown, but 15 marked "suspect" because of some error code or another. Hard to say how good/bad it is until we triplecheck them... but in these cases we know that the doublechecks on each of those suspect results didn't match, so I have a hunch all 15 will be bad. Last fiddled with by Madpoo on 20150723 at 05:51 

20150723, 12:14  #16  
If I May
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados
2×4,663 Posts 
Quote:
Please feel free to post (or PM) me additional lists as you generate them. Takes me almost no time to import the candidates for distribution, and we'd might as well get them done now so the DC/TC'ing can start in earnest. Edit: Oh, and don't worry about duplication  Spidy is smart enough to know it already holds a candidate, and will not assign for TF'ing anything still owned by another worker assigned through Primenet. Last fiddled with by chalsall on 20150723 at 13:10 Reason: s/this wasn't/these weren't/ 

20150723, 15:36  #17  
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
110011001101_{2} Posts 
Quote:
Yeah, the original exponents I listed had only been checked once. The examples I just mentioned had been checked twice, but both times by suspect machines. What I probably should do is just generate a list of all exponents and their current TF level where they've had 2 checks already with no matches (under 58M). I imagine in those cases there are going to be some that could use an extra bit or two of TF before someone does the triple check. And by that I mean *all* those needing triplechecks, not just the exponents where one or two of the tests were done by historically flaky systems. Going by "somewhat flaky" as a metric, there are around 1,050 of them, but there are currently a total 5,428 unassigned exponents below 58M that have been checked twice with no match. Which list would you prefer? I'm attaching the full list... I sorted by the current TF bit level and I imagine you'd only have to test half of them to an extra bit or two? 

20150723, 15:39  #18 
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
29·113 Posts 
In case anyone was confused about the need to also strategically check exponents that have been tested twice with no match...
I checked in 5 exponents this morning... 1 match and it's now verified. 1 mismatch of an exponent already tested once. And then these 3 beauties that didn't match the first 2 runs (by the same user for first/second check): M55570813 M55864219 M56302951 
20150723, 16:07  #19  
If I May
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados
9326_{10} Posts 
Quote:
Might as well get these "off our books", and people seem to really enjoy these little specialized subprojects. 

20150723, 18:50  #20 
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada
2^{2}·1,117 Posts 
1 of my own that did not make the list....

20150723, 22:04  #21  
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
6315_{8} Posts 
Quote:
I'll check periodically and see if assignments expire so we can pick them up and assign them to our task force (or whatever we'd call ourselves). 

20150723, 22:39  #22 
Jul 2003
So Cal
2^{2}·3^{3}·19 Posts 
I just submitted the first two results of the eight I reserved. Both matched the previous runs.
http://www.mersenne.org/report_expon...4654643&full=1 http://www.mersenne.org/report_expon...4682537&full=1 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
DoubleDouble Arithmetic  Mysticial  Software  50  20171030 19:16 
Clicking an exponent leads to 404 page  marigonzes  Information & Answers  2  20170214 16:56 
x.265 half the size, double the computation; so if you double again? 1/4th?  jasong  jasong  7  20150817 10:56 
What about doublechecking TF/P1?  137ben  PrimeNet  6  20120313 04:01 
Double the area, Double the volume.  Uncwilly  Puzzles  8  20060703 16:02 