mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Data

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2017-03-21, 23:02   #2597
ric
 
ric's Avatar
 
Jul 2004
Milan, Ita

22·32·5 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GAPa View Post
Today, I received a category 1 assignment.. so perhaps the issue has been resolved now?
In addition to the reply above, you might want to get in control and increase your setting for "days of work to queue" (menu item Option/Preferences) according to this page

TL;DR put "4" in it, to be consistently served Cat 1's, "7" to be served Cat 2's, leave "3" or below, to continue as is

Last fiddled with by ric on 2017-03-21 at 23:03
ric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-01, 03:40   #2598
rudy235
 
rudy235's Avatar
 
Jun 2015
Vallejo, CA/.

967 Posts
Default The 71,000,000 milestone

In some way the issue of the 71'000,000 milestone is not resolved.

The Prime Minister Residue is 42A93C867B552E__
while Albert Pettersson is 9C157058B13DB9__

Thus one of the two is not correct (or both )

So I hope someone is able to take care of that by doing a triple check

https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...0723879&full=1
rudy235 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-01, 04:03   #2599
flashjh
 
flashjh's Avatar
 
"Jerry"
Nov 2011
Vancouver, WA

1,123 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rudy235 View Post
So I hope someone is able to take care of that by doing a triple check
Running now, ETC 4 days
flashjh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-01, 04:12   #2600
ATH
Einyen
 
ATH's Avatar
 
Dec 2003
Denmark

32×331 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rudy235 View Post
In some way the issue of the 71'000,000 milestone is not resolved.

The Prime Minister Residue is 42A93C867B552E__
while Albert Pettersson is 9C157058B13DB9__

Thus one of the two is not correct (or both )
It is not the double check milestone that reached 71M :-) There are many many more exponents below 71M with 2 residues that does not match.
ATH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-01, 04:39   #2601
rudy235
 
rudy235's Avatar
 
Jun 2015
Vallejo, CA/.

967 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATH View Post
There are many many more exponents below 71M with 2 residues that does not match.
I sort of suspected that. But in this specific case it is the very last number that came in, the one where the residues do not match.
rudy235 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-02, 07:29   #2602
Madpoo
Serpentine Vermin Jar
 
Madpoo's Avatar
 
Jul 2014

63158 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rudy235 View Post
I sort of suspected that. But in this specific case it is the very last number that came in, the one where the residues do not match.
Statistically speaking, I would expect several thousands of tests below 71M to be wrong once the double checking gets to that point.
Madpoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-03, 00:20   #2603
rudy235
 
rudy235's Avatar
 
Jun 2015
Vallejo, CA/.

967 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madpoo View Post
Statistically speaking, I would expect several thousands of tests below 71M to be wrong once the double checking gets to that point.
That is consistent with an approximately 1% failure rate.
rudy235 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-03, 00:25   #2604
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

8,369 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rudy235 View Post
That is consistent with an approximately 1% failure rate.
debatable 7000./primepi(71000000) gives back 0.0016.... which is under 0.2% it would take roughly 42000./primepi(71000000) to give back just over 1% using pari/gp so roughly 42000 prime exponents would have to be wrong for that to occur. edit: at least prior to thinking about which can be easily factored etc. taking out the ones with 2p+1 as a factor of 2^p-1 gives about 40000 needed.

Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 2017-04-03 at 00:27
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-03, 00:35   #2605
rudy235
 
rudy235's Avatar
 
Jun 2015
Vallejo, CA/.

967 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by science_man_88 View Post
debatable 7000./primepi(71000000) gives back 0.0016.... which is under 0.2% it would take roughly 42000./primepi(71000000) to give back just over 1% using pari/gp so roughly 42000 prime exponents would have to be wrong for that to occur. edit: at least prior to thinking about which can be easily factored etc. taking out the ones with 2p+1 as a factor of 2^p-1 gives about 40000 needed.
Ok what I did was work backwards. There are roughly 500,000- 540,000 exponents that have not been verified or that have already two different residues.
Several means more than two, but not many. So, let's say several thousand means a range from 3,000 to 5,000

Then for that to be true you need a failure rate of between 0.6 % to 1.0%

Last fiddled with by rudy235 on 2017-04-03 at 00:41
rudy235 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-03, 03:03   #2606
Madpoo
Serpentine Vermin Jar
 
Madpoo's Avatar
 
Jul 2014

29×113 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rudy235 View Post
Ok what I did was work backwards. There are roughly 500,000- 540,000 exponents that have not been verified or that have already two different residues.
Several means more than two, but not many. So, let's say several thousand means a range from 3,000 to 5,000

Then for that to be true you need a failure rate of between 0.6 % to 1.0%
I didn't work out the math, but now in hindsight I should have gone with my gut instinct to say "tens of thousands"
Madpoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-03, 03:56   #2607
rudy235
 
rudy235's Avatar
 
Jun 2015
Vallejo, CA/.

96710 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madpoo View Post
I didn't work out the math, but now in hindsight I should have gone with my gut instinct to say "tens of thousands"
Thats the good thing of having a Forum. We get closer to the truth, one post at a time.

So what is the Percentage of Failure? (meaning by that that the first and the second result are not the same)
rudy235 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Newer X64 build needed Googulator Msieve 73 2020-08-30 07:47
Performance of cuda-ecm on newer hardware? fivemack GMP-ECM 14 2015-02-12 20:10
Cause this don't belong in the milestone thread bcp19 Data 30 2012-09-08 15:09
Newer msieves are slow on Core i7 mklasson Msieve 9 2009-02-18 12:58
Use of large memory pages possible with newer linux kernels Dresdenboy Software 3 2003-12-08 14:47

All times are UTC. The time now is 09:25.

Thu Nov 26 09:25:30 UTC 2020 up 77 days, 6:36, 3 users, load averages: 1.05, 1.37, 1.38

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.