Strategic Double Clicking

[frmky]

The second pair of my original 8 finished. One matched and one didn't.
http://www.mersenne.org/report_expon...4665307&full=1
http://www.mersenne.org/report_expon...4683613&full=1

Edit: I grabbed the first pair from the new list and added them to the top of the queue. I should know tomorrow if they match.

[frmky]

Originally Posted by Madpoo

"Factored" status on LL tests is tricky... it's kind of a no-go status in terms of determining computer quality. We may never know in those cases.

This one looks funny. Two different residues as "Verified (Factored)." I guess it simply means "verified" as composite.
http://www.mersenne.org/report_expon...1277389&full=1

[Madpoo]

Originally Posted by frmky

This one looks funny. Two different residues as "Verified (Factored)." I guess it simply means "verified" as composite.

You guessed right. "Verified" in that case simply means that it is indeed composite, no matter that the LL tests didn't match.

The only way I know the first one is actually "suspect" is because I can look in the DB and see that it's error code is non-zero "00000100"

In a sense it's kind of a bummer not to have more info on the reliability of the LL testers in these cases... it would help in some ways. But in the broader sense it's about proving things composite or not and a factor is a good way of doing just that.

[Madpoo]

For my part, I just checked out a big chunk of ~400 exponents that need triple-checks. That includes all of them below 35M and a few above 35M as well.

That should keep my systems churning through the end of August. The nice thing with those is that I know one way or another I'll identify which result was bad, to better predict which single-checked exponents would benefit from these strategic DCs.

And speaking of those DC's, I saw that some from the list I put up earlier have been assigned (the first two), so that's good. I'll check again and when they're all gone I'll dig up some more.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Madpoo

To start out here I've generated a list of exponents that are pretty likely to wind up with one of our double checks NOT matching the first one.

OK, I've taken the last 14 candidates in the list (read: all remaining); registered with Primenet. Will report back once completed (~ the 29th for the largest candidate on a relatively slow machine).

Better generate another list Aaron!

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Madpoo

You guessed right. "Verified" in that case simply means that it is indeed composite, no matter that the LL tests didn't match.

And this was my earlier point. Yes, the candidate has been verified as being composite by being factored, but the residue(s) has NOT been verified. I again suggest that the second two hexs be masked in cases where two matching residues don't exist.

[lycorn]

Very funny...

I wonder what the status of http://www.mersenne.org/report_expon...6807349&full=1 was before madpoo checked in his result! Was Ian Coburn´s result considered the bad one? Or... something is hiding in the masked bits of the 2 apparently matching residues?
Interesting, by any measure.

[Madpoo]

Originally Posted by lycorn

Very funny...

I wonder what the status of http://www.mersenne.org/report_expon...6807349&full=1 was before madpoo checked in his result! Was Ian Coburn´s result considered the bad one? Or... something is hiding in the masked bits of the 2 apparently matching residues?
Interesting, by any measure.

There are a few oddball cases in the database where the LL results section has 2 "matching" residues (and I use the term lightly), but the shift counts are identical.

Most of the time the duplicates are hidden (because they were from the same account submitting the result twice, under the old v4 server). In this case the same residue came from two different v4 users.

The server is smart enough to know they're the same and won't count it as verified, but they still show up in there.

There are fortunately only 88 of these still unverified. For example:
M35079829

If at least one of the submissions is from a version 5 user, the dupes are merged in the display, for example:
M37074337

You still see the 2 same residues in the history section, but only one in the LL section.

I've talked to George about going through and simply clearing out these duplicates. I think most (all?) of them were probably from manual submissions that George may have added in based on users emailing their results directly.

I went through a little bit ago and ran my own tests on any where the same user had submitted it more than twice, so those are done, and a few of the "only" twice.

[lycorn]

OK. Makes sense. Thx.

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by Madpoo

You guessed right. "Verified" in that case simply means that it is indeed composite, no matter that the LL tests didn't match.

The only way I know the first one is actually "suspect" is because I can look in the DB and see that it's error code is non-zero "00000100"

in theory you can use an LL test with the known factor in place of the mersenne it's a factor of and the full residue mod that factor in place of the end residue and check that it works out it should if the factor isn't fake and the full residue is correct.

[frmky]

Originally Posted by frmky

I grabbed the first pair from the new list and added them to the top of the queue. I should know tomorrow if they match.

Neither matched.

http://www.mersenne.org/report_expon...5064059&full=1
http://www.mersenne.org/report_expon...6497473&full=1