|
2016-05-19, 12:55
|
#1 |
"Ron"
Jan 2016
Fitchburg, MA
97 Posts |
Understanding assignment rules
Came across a new thing today, and just looking to further understand it.
It have a machine doing lower first time LL tests. It recently checked 67842707, only to find after completion that it was really a double check because it had already been completed by someone in Nov of 1995. What happened here? http://www.mersenne.org/report_expon...7842707&full=1 Last fiddled with by Fred on 2016-05-19 at 12:55 |
|
|
|
2016-05-19, 13:34
|
#2 |
|
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
5·7·311 Posts |
You mean 2015, not 1995.
Most likely the previous result had a 'bad' error code. The number would have then been marked as available for a First time check again. Test with bad error codes are far less likely to match other exponents. There is a good reason for this. Someone else ran across this recently too. Rather than have a bad test make us miss a new Prime until we get to that range as a DC, those with 'bad' error codes are rerun soon. |
|
|
|
2016-05-19, 13:35
|
#3 |
Jun 2003
5×1,087 Posts |
*Ninja'd by Uncwilly*
Last fiddled with by axn on 2016-05-19 at 13:36 |
|
|
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| PrimeNet Assignment Rules | S485122 | PrimeNet | 11 | 2021-05-20 14:54 |
| Modifications to LL assignment rules!!! | Prime95 | PrimeNet | 145 | 2017-08-05 01:14 |
| Modifications to DC assignment rules | Prime95 | PrimeNet | 74 | 2017-01-18 18:36 |
| Tweak to assignment rules | Prime95 | PrimeNet | 11 | 2014-11-17 02:43 |
| Tweaked assignment rules | Prime95 | PrimeNet | 16 | 2012-03-19 20:24 |
