Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

2021-09-04, 19:15   #2322
DrobinsonPE

Aug 2020

25×3 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Prime95 Fixed for future Ryzen CPUs that are registered.
Thank you very much! The 5600G did finally get assigned a first test so I might have been worrying for nothing. I just saw that the assignment rules had been updated and it looked like my newest machine might never get to do a first test.

 2021-09-06, 07:15 #2323 S485122     "Jacob" Sep 2006 Brussels, Belgium 6CE16 Posts exponent erroneously marked as being in error The Progress report shows one test result as being in error : Code: ----------=-----=-- | -----=-----=-----=-----=----- | -----=-----=-----=----- | -----=-----=-----=----- | Exponent Range | Composite | Status Unproven | Assigned | Available | Start Count P | F DC |LL/PRP ERR NO-LL | ECM P-1 LL/PRP DC | ECM P-1 LL/PRP DC | ----------=-----=-- | -----=-----=-----=-----=----- | -----=-----=-----=----- | -----=-----=-----=----- | 10000000 61938 | 41350 20588 1 | 5 | 20588 | I think the exponent in question is 10496897. storm5510's PRP result is marked as suspect (which is why it shows in the ERR column I suppose.) Looking at the residue I suspect that result is good. Anyway the Mersenne number has been LL tested and verified, PRP tested and verified, it has also been factored. Even if there are bad LL or PRP results it doesn't change the status of the exponent. The numbers tally OK in the other ranges (the number of exponents is equal to the total of the exponents in the different states, i.e. prime, factored, verified, unverified, suspect and no primality test.) The number of exponents being worked upon or available have been corrected in the ranges under 23M. Thanks to whoever made the corrections ! In the higher ranges there are still a lot of missing exponents (the number of not yet cleared exponents is higher than the number assigned or available.)
 2021-09-08, 21:41 #2324 Viliam Furik     "Viliam Furík" Jul 2018 Martin, Slovakia 23·5·17 Posts The PrimeNet graphs page seems to be blank. There is everything there should be, apart from the graphs themselves.
2021-09-08, 21:53   #2325
chalsall
If I May

"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002

61×163 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Viliam Furik The PrimeNet graphs page seems to be blank. There is everything there should be, apart from the graphs themselves.

The Google graphs are working for me at this instant in time. (Firefox under Fedora 34.)

Lots of client-side there.

2021-09-08, 22:11   #2326
Viliam Furik

"Viliam Furík"
Jul 2018
Martin, Slovakia

68010 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by chalsall Are you talking about this URL? The Google graphs are working for me at this instant in time. (Firefox under Fedora 34.) Lots of client-side there.
It seems to have been a temporary client-side issue. For a few minutes, messenger.com and Google logo were not available. It probably affected this page too.

 2021-09-11, 00:28 #2327 slandrum   Jan 2021 California 5·43 Posts minor nitpick There seems to be an inconsistency in situations where an LL result is "verified". For instance: 57724487 shows the LL result as verified, because the exponent has since been factored. I've even seen (but don't have an example at hand) where mismatched LL results on an exponent were both shown as verified when the number had been subsequently factored, even though at least one of the LL tests had to be bad. However: 59409379 does not show the LL result as verified, even though there's a subsequent PRP with certification.
2021-09-11, 00:55   #2328
James Heinrich

"James Heinrich"
May 2004
ex-Northern Ontario

2×17×103 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by slandrum For instance: 57724487 shows the LL result as verified, because the exponent has since been factored. 59409379 does not show the LL result as verified, even though there's a subsequent PRP with certification.
In both cases the LL test claimed the number was composite. When a factor was found we know for certain that the number is indeed composite, although we are not 100% certain that the LL residue is correct, it really doesn't matter.
In the second case we still don't know that the single LL test residue is accurate, but we do know the number is composite from the PRP test.

The display is a bit inconsistent, but that's what you get with trying to fit a new primality test type into the system 20 years later.

 2021-09-17, 13:46 #2329 Uncwilly 6809 > 6502     """"""""""""""""""" Aug 2003 101×103 Posts 270D16 Posts Found an oops in the system. 102436709, 102437149, & 102982241 all have mismatched LL tests. Jan S. got a PRP assignment on each and turned in a P-1 test before the PRP was run. That dropped the assignment on PrimeNet. If a person is assigned a PRP or LL test, shouldn't that assignment be retained if they turn in a NF TF or P-1?
2021-09-17, 13:48   #2330
Viliam Furik

"Viliam Furík"
Jul 2018
Martin, Slovakia

10101010002 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Uncwilly Found an oops in the system. 102436709, 102437149, & 102982241 all have mismatched LL tests. Jan S. got a PRP assignment on each and turned in a P-1 test before the PRP was run. That dropped the assignment on PrimeNet. If a person is assigned a PRP or LL test, shouldn't that assignment be retained if they turn in a NF TF or P-1?
If the result is returned with mismatching AID, the server is confused and nullifies the assignment. It shouldn't IMO.

If the result is returned without AID, it shouldn't do this at all.

2021-09-17, 15:35   #2331
kriesel

"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

2×33×107 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Uncwilly Found an oops in the system. 102436709, 102437149, & 102982241 all have mismatched LL tests. Jan S. got a PRP assignment on each and turned in a P-1 test before the PRP was run. That dropped the assignment on PrimeNet. If a person is assigned a PRP or LL test, shouldn't that assignment be retained if they turn in a NF TF or P-1?
I've seen it where holding a P-1 assignment for an exponent, and turning in a P-1 result on it, results in the P-1 assignment getting marked expired, even though it accepts the result also. (An issue reported previously.)

 2021-09-17, 19:17 #2332 Uncwilly 6809 > 6502     """"""""""""""""""" Aug 2003 101×103 Posts 13·769 Posts Sure, but that is the same work type. Only a Factor Found should cancel a PRP or LL assignment.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post ewmayer Lounge 39 2015-05-19 01:08 ewmayer Science & Technology 41 2014-04-16 11:54 cheesehead Soap Box 56 2013-06-29 01:42 cheesehead Soap Box 61 2013-06-11 04:30 Dubslow Programming 19 2012-05-31 17:49

All times are UTC. The time now is 12:00.

Mon Oct 18 12:00:22 UTC 2021 up 87 days, 6:29, 0 users, load averages: 0.86, 1.18, 1.24

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.